Comments on: Detroit Free Press Tries to Call Ford Flex A Flop; Fails

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:09:46 +0000

Hitman1970:
My wife cannot get past the exterior. If we replace her Freestyle with another three row vehicle, it will be with a GM Lambda based crossover. She really likes the Enclave and the Outlook.

Your wife is a very smart person.

By: whatdoiknow1

whatdoiknow1 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:54:56 +0000

One of the biggest misconception that is plaguing the domestics is this silly notion that Americans do not like Mini-vans. The problem is Americans have never liked GM or Ford minivans and now are no longer in love with the Chysler products, BUT they do seem to have hard-ons for the Odyessy and Seinna. Folks love these things and appear to be willing to drop 40 large on the loaded models in large numbers. I would say that at least 1 in 4 Odyessy and Seinnas that I see are the “top of the line” Touring or XLE Limited models. In the suburban seen these “loaded” mini-vans are somewhat of a status symbol.

Whenever Ford and GM can not succeed in a market segement in this country we start to here talk about how “Americans” do not like that particular class of vehicles. Nevermind that other manufacturers are somehow successful with products like wagons and Mini-vans, if folks do not like what GM and Ford are offering “we do not get it!”

Ford has spent the last 20 years “screwing the mini-van pooch” Aerostar, Winistar, and Freestar have all been craptacular! So must folks no longer even think about Ford when it comes to this type of vehicle. Considering that folks showed just about ZERO interest in the Freestyle Ford should have been smart enough to know they are NOT a player in that segment.

Folks simply do NOT wants these types of Ford products, there are far too many other “better” alternatives to choose from.

By: brapoza

brapoza — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:17:37 +0000

Would it be safe to say that the days of the $35-40K car loan for the average American’s transportation needs is over for now. Just wondering. I mean regardless of how nice the vehicle is or isn’t.

By: guyincognito

guyincognito — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:13:31 +0000

@ P71_CrownVic:

You are absolutely right. There is no way the tooling is paid off on any of Ford’s D3 variants.

Mullaly has the business sense but Ford has no product guru, which is why they will continue to fail. Mark Fields is way out of his league and the D3 failures are proof positive. I mean Horbury and Jay Mays aren’t helping but these vehicles are all several decisions away from being great.

By: hitman1970

hitman1970 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:11:52 +0000

My wife cannot get past the exterior. If we replace her Freestyle with another three row vehicle, it will be with a GM Lambda based crossover. She really likes the Enclave and the Outlook.

By: Jeff Puthuff

Jeff Puthuff — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:59:00 +0000

@cleek:

These days, sadly, is there any other kind?

These days there is no borrowed money…

But I can think of several well-run companies that do not need to borrow to finance their operations: Toyota, Honda, Apple, BMW.

Ford, GM, Nissan, and State of California are not in that vaunted class.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:55:17 +0000

The D3 platform…AS A WHOLE…is not paid for. Think about it:

-Five Hundred, Montego, Freestyle – Those initial costs are not paid off.

-Taurus, Sable, Taurus X – While not as high as the previous generation, with far fewer sales, the costs spent on morphing the D3 cars into what we have today is not paid off.

-Flex – Nowhere near paid off (Ford should have spent the development money on advertising the Taurus X…not developing a completely redundant vehicle)

-Lincoln Taurus – Nope…not a chance those costs are paid off.

And there you have it. The EIGHT failures that have graced the D3 platform since 2005.

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:36:10 +0000

Why is this flex not going to sell? First it was conceived in the the sumo wrestler stage of american suv design. (ie. if 4000 pounds is good, 5000 must be excellent) No vehicle with any engine including these new direct injection things GM started using this year will get decent fuel mpg with a 2.5 ton empty weight. Secondly, none of these vehicles will be enjoyable to drive(ie tossable on back roads and be sprint like in city traffic) Like tractor trailers they will effortlessly glide down interstates. Third, the overall size is not up to the interior volume of a minivan. Which comes full circle to a reviewers comment, he said, a honda odessy is far more fun to drive, gets better mpg, and is roomier inside for less money. When a big box mini van can do that, you are down to saying but the flex has a pretty shape and no minivan stigma. That might have worked two years ago, not now.

By: DeanMTL

DeanMTL — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:32:49 +0000

I think this car isn’t selling because it’s gimmicky and cartoonish. It looks like a giant slab of metal and the white roof is childish. The tone to assume these days is somber and reserved, given the beating everyone’s taking. Driving something like the Flex instead of a Volvo V40 wagon or Nissan Rogue is passe thinking. Hence the sales drought.

By: cleek

cleek — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:48:23 +0000

factotum :

“The Flex is built, the tooling paid for”

Was the tooling paid for with borrowed money?

These days, sadly, is there any other kind?

By: shaker

shaker — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:36:42 +0000

It’s just part of Ford’s meticulous plan: Freestyle, Taurus X, Flex, Country Squire.
Marketing this thing to be a “city cruiser” where you ferry your many friends to concerts and dinner is an illusion – these are “suburban daylight” cruisers – the faux wood should be along soon.

Durask:
“I would have bought it but my wife really, really hated the “hearse” look.”

Ford plans to release a “Munster Wagon” version just in time for Halloween – with room for Herman, Lily, Eddie and Grandpa (in his coffin).

Marilyn follows behind in her V6 Challenger.

By: Jeff Puthuff

Jeff Puthuff — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:11:01 +0000

The Flex looks ten times better than the forthcoming Venza. How will the market react to the latter?

“The Flex is built, the tooling paid for”

Was the tooling paid for with borrowed money?

By: Voice of Sweden

Voice of Sweden — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:04:14 +0000

I still think it will be a hit as the Volvo V100, if it has good build quality.

By: thoots

thoots — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:06:25 +0000

If they would have BUILT the Fairlane and CALLED IT the Fairlane….

By: yankinwaoz

yankinwaoz — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:09:02 +0000

Well it is simple. It costs too much and only gets 19mpg.

By: Ashy Larry

Ashy Larry — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:30:24 +0000

I feel awful for Ford. They listened to the market (such as it was) and they tried to anticipate where it was going. Here they come out with an incredibly unique and useful vehicle, with all the style that Fords seem to be lacking nowadays, plenty of character, utility and presence, only to have it flop in the face of sky-high gas prices and marketing geared way too much towards an urban crowd that isn’t going to buy the damned thing. Why try to jam the Flex in front of twentysomethings (at least, that’s who their urban-themed, city-lights-laden commercials and marketing literature would have you believe are interested in the Flex)?

They basically took all the great things about the vastly underrated but anonymously styled Freestyle/TaurusX and swung for the fences. Looking more and more like a strikeout. It’s sad — I think Ford did everything right. One way to salvage this is drop a euro-market v6 diesel in the Flex and sell it as an efficient family hauler with style. Hell, I’d own one today if they did that.

By: theflyersfan

theflyersfan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:13:57 +0000

I’m convinced that if Toyota wasn’t Toyota with the perception of better quality and better vehicles, they would be in the same mess Ford is in with their overflooded SUV/crossover (a term I still hate with a passion) market.
Ford: Flex, Edge, Taurus X, Explorer and just barely a size up with the Expedition and just a size down with the Escape.
That’s just too many similar models to support and make “special” especially when they tend to share engines, transmissions and interior bits and pieces. I thought the Flex was a mistake in the beginning unless they were willing to chuck either the Explorer or Taurus X.
I’ve seen a few of the Flex(es???) on the roads already and I’m mixed on the styling. I like the Mini-like white roof option and it is different. The interior just reeks of parts-bin sharing though.
This isn’t going to be the homerun Ford needed. Now I’m very curious if the Ka is coming over sooner rather than later and also what the revised Fusion will become when the current cycle ends.
Last part of a long post!
In an earlier entry, someone posted that out of the Detroit-3, Ford deserves to survive or at least do better than the others given their product line. I fully disagree with that thinking. We all saw how short-sighted Ford was by putting each and every egg into the SUV market a decade plus ago and let the Taurus/Contour/T-bird/Probe sit and rot. They got burned…but that’s easy to do when $15K profit is made on each Naviagator.
I hope for the state of our economy and economic status in the word that the Big-3 survives and has a chance to thrive as smaller and leaner companies. I just don’t see it happening though and the bloodbath begins soon.

By: Praxis

Praxis — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:10:29 +0000

Richard, the original concept was built atop the Fusion and was about a foot shorter than the production vehicle.

By: guyincognito

guyincognito — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:57:24 +0000

@ sean362880:

Isn’t that the Taurus X? The problem is that they should have split the difference between the Flex and Taurus X in styling, made it significantly more efficient, and much cheaper. Of course they couldn’t make a profit on that which is why we got what we did, so why did they build this thing?

By: romanjetfighter

romanjetfighter — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:17:11 +0000

Ford should lower Flex’s price maybe by 1-2k? It’d still be profitable and people would actually be able to buy it without going into debt. :)

By: eh_political

eh_political — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:15:41 +0000

@ John Horner :

The Flex is built, the tooling paid for. It’s unique, and fairly interesting. I would own one if I needed that type of vehicle. Innovative marketing, getting people to ride and drive might make a difference. (The fact that it is assembled in Oakville, Ontario has nothing to do with my assessment, he lied).

I do think it is pretty impressive–timing is brutal though.

It’s difficult to argue with your notion of deploying Euro-Fords. If they can’t get the costs in line, perhaps that becomes Mercury’s raison d’etre.

By: blindfaith

blindfaith — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:01:36 +0000

Ford needs to bring to the Low Rider people and let them do their chop down sparkly thing to it.

I believe it would look great. Who can affor $20k upgrade on a $40K car because Ford doesn’t understand how to bring the bling.

By: John Horner

John Horner — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:57:24 +0000

If I were in charge of Ford, I would offer the Fiesta, Focus and Fusion all in sedan and wagon versions. Throw in a Fiesta hatchback as well.

The Flex is too big and too expensive for today’s market. Plus, it competes head on with two other Ford products. Three products going after the same segment?

By: eh_political

eh_political — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:35:48 +0000

Too bad. Ford just needs a couple of breaks on this vehicle, maybe some serendipitous product placement, or some unimpeachable high profile word of mouth.

Now if they could persuade OJ to make another bolt for freedom….

By: Durask

Durask — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:30:12 +0000

I would have bought it but my wife really, really hated the “hearse” look.

I’ll get the CTS wagon instead, probably.