Musing on the Flex

[RichardJensen]

So, I've noticed a lot more Flexes on the road around Sioux Falls lately, and I'm certain part of that is because the '08 models are now 5 years old, and therefore, have started coming off trades-ins.

 

But it's got me thinking about the Flex in general.

 

According to Austin's sources at Ford, the customer research on the Flex showed a marked decrease in approval for the Flex when it was revealed to be a Ford.

 

And I got to thinking about that, and you know, that's really not a "Flex" problem. That's a "Ford" problem. So I'm wondering if one of the reasons why Ford has stuck with the Flex is because they expect that the market for the Flex will improve as Ford's reputation improves. And I'm wondering if the uptick in Flex sales this year is reflective of that improved perception.

[lfeg]

Could be. There are more than a few people out there who associate the Mustang more with "desireable car" than with Ford. If you put a Mustang in a shopping mall that had all of the Ford emblems replaced with the running horse emblem, probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the people there would have a hard time associating it with Ford.

 

Building brand image is a long term task.

[rkisler]

So, I've noticed a lot more Flexes on the road around Sioux Falls lately, and I'm certain part of that is because the '08 models are now 5 years old, and therefore, have started coming off trades-ins.

 

But it's got me thinking about the Flex in general.

 

According to Austin's sources at Ford, the customer research on the Flex showed a marked decrease in approval for the Flex when it was revealed to be a Ford.

 

And I got to thinking about that, and you know, that's really not a "Flex" problem. That's a "Ford" problem. So I'm wondering if one of the reasons why Ford has stuck with the Flex is because they expect that the market for the Flex will improve as Ford's reputation improves. And I'm wondering if the uptick in Flex sales this year is reflective of that improved perception.

 

The market research experience is now pretty dated -- it was in early 2003 or so. The properties were reviewed in pictures -- not physical properties -- among higher income folks on the East Coast. J Mays was really pushing the product (called "Hamptons" then), as a throwback to the Ford station wagons of old for suburbia. The properties were accompanied by a silky smooth J Mays description of the product. Generally the focus groups thought it might be a Land Rover, but when "Ford" was revealed, interest dropped off dramatically.

 

There was a big push for the product from the Design activity. They knew it was going to be polarizing, but wanted to inject some emotion into the lineup, and thought Ford should take the chance that it would be a breakout success. Marketing would have been happier with a replacement minivan. When the Flex-type styling was plastered on a minivan, the results weren't so good. Once you give up the space in the front for the hood, you can't get it back.

 

Fast forward to today. Ford's reputation has certainly improved. The Flex design is still polarizing; some wouldn't be seen dead in it, but for others it's just the ticket for hauling and towing. Flex has received generally very positive reviews, including from Consumer Reports. But sales have never been very high. And since the introduction of the new Explorer, the Flex is really just another Explorer bodystyle.

 

So why did Ford keep it around, and what's the future hold? I don't have any info, but I think once the D3/D4 platform (Flex, MKT) was installed in Oakville along with the CD3s (Edge/MKX) in a flexible body shop, then it didn't make any sense to just cancel it. Sure, there are a lot of unique parts, but there also are a lot of shared components. And it also made sense to carry it for a full cycle, so a moderate mid cycle refresh along with powertrain improvements consistent with the rest of the platform was warranted. I'm also assuming that the sales are likely very incremental (i.e., not as substitutional from other Ford products) so the profitability might look pretty good, even at lower volumes, particularly in a shared high-volume plant.

 

I don't know what's going to happen in Oakville, but we can count on the plant shifting over to the CD4 platform for the next-generation Edge/MKX. I'm not sure if D3/4 will stay there or not, but I'm thinking that the Flex and MKT will disappear at the end of their cycles. I also think the Explorer likely is the last major vehicle to be developed from D3/D4, and the platform will disappear at the next major Explorer iteration.

[fordmantpw]

Interesting thoughts Richard (except for the fact that there was no '08 model Flex...'09 was the first MY, debuting in Summer '08 ). We still get comments on our Flex today, and we've had it almost 4 years. The three most-asked questions we get are:

 

1) That's a Ford? Wow, I never would have thought that would be a Ford!

2) Is that flex-fuel? "No." Well, it says Flex. "Ummm, because that's the name of the car."

3) Can I look inside? "Sure, but if the kids make a sound, you have to take them with you." (<--- that's not really our response, but it should be)

 

When we first got it, #1 was the predominant question. Now that it has been out for several years, #2 has risen to the top and #3 has trailed off.

[silvrsvt]

the platform will disappear at the next major Explorer iteration.

 

But this opens up a whole can of worms here, you have CAP and Oakville building D3/4 products. The general consensus is that the next gen Taurus moves to a CD4+3 platform, possibly sharing the platform with the Edge (wheelbase and width are nearly identical in the current gen) in the next 3-5 years. You have Hermosillo and Flat Rock building the CD4 before the end of next year. The new Taurus could be flexed into those plants or moved to Oakville, when they switch over to the CD4 based Edge.

 

I see the Explorer in its current form lasting till 2020 or so (MCE is next year so another 3-5 on its current platform) and you also have the Police Interceptor and Police Interceptor Utility, which are just starting their production runs and I'd expect them to last a long time much like the CVPI did...So does the Explorer have enough sales to justify its own platform or what? I think it might be a bridge too far for the CD4 platform to also underpin the Explorer AND Edge. What about a replacement for PI and PIU? Will the CD4 be "enough" for them?

[NickF1011]

But this opens up a whole can of worms here, you have CAP and Oakville building D3/4 products. The general consensus is that the next gen Taurus moves to a CD4+3 platform, possibly sharing the platform with the Edge (wheelbase and width are nearly identical in the current gen) in the next 3-5 years. You have Hermosillo and Flat Rock building the CD4 before the end of next year. The new Taurus could be flexed into those plants or moved to Oakville, when they switch over to the CD4 based Edge.

 

I see the Explorer in its current form lasting till 2020 or so (MCE is next year so another 3-5 on its current platform) and you also have the Police Interceptor and Police Interceptor Utility, which are just starting their production runs and I'd expect them to last a long time much like the CVPI did...So does the Explorer have enough sales to justify its own platform or what? I think it might be a bridge too far for the CD4 platform to also underpin the Explorer AND Edge. What about a replacement for PI and PIU? Will the CD4 be "enough" for them?

 

Well, if Flex and MKT continue and assuming a Lincoln Explorer variant is in the works, I imagine there would be at least 4 vehicles riding on the Explorer chassis going forward.

[akirby]

Well, if Flex and MKT continue and assuming a Lincoln Explorer variant is in the works, I imagine there would be at least 4 vehicles riding on the Explorer chassis going forward.

 

I think the next gen crossovers will move to a CD4 variant.

[NickF1011]

I think the next gen crossovers will move to a CD4 variant.

 

If the Explorer doesn't, I don't see why the Flex would.

[Harley Lover]

I would guess that the future of D3/4 in the late decade is very much tied to Ford's strategy for achieving the coming late decade fuel economy regs. Ford will need (of necessity) to get several hundred pounds out of the D3/4 chassis, and I don't know if it can lose that much weight.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Harley Lover

[akirby]

If the Explorer doesn't, I don't see why the Flex would.

 

Next Gen crossovers = Edge, MKX, Explorer, Flex, MKT

 

If CD4 can underpin both the Fusion and Taurus then it could also support both the Edge and Explorer.

 

I guess it depends on how flexible CD4 really is.

[silvrsvt]

Next Gen crossovers = Edge, MKX, Explorer, Flex, MKT

 

If CD4 can underpin both the Fusion and Taurus then it could also support both the Edge and Explorer.

 

I guess it depends on how flexible CD4 really is.

 

Some info:

 

2013 Fusion

Wheelbase:112 in

Width:72.9 in (not sure with mirrors or not)

Length: 191 in

 

 

2013 Taurus

Wheelbase:112.9

Width: 76.2 (without mirrors)

Length: 202

 

 

2012 Edge

Wheelbase: 111.2

Width: 76 (w/o mirrors)87.5 (with Mirrors)

Length: 184.2

 

 

2012 Explorer

Wheelbase: 112 in

Width:90 (mirrors)

Length: 197

 

2013 Flex

Wheelbase: 117.9 in

Width: 88.8 (not sure with or without mirrors)

Length: 201

[akirby]

I would expect a 116 inch wheelbase and a 76 inch width for Taurus and Explorer IF they go that route. Seems that would be better and cheaper than keeping D3/D4.

[NLPRacing]

I have been seeing more 2013 Flex's on the road than the 2012's and older. I think Ford taking the blue oval off the front was the right move for this thing. When I was in Orlando in June, I saw a bunch of 2013's there, and not all of them were rentals and many had out of state license plates. The updates for 2013 really made it look nice in person.

[papilgee4evaeva]

I would expect a 116 inch wheelbase and a 76 inch width for Taurus and Explorer IF they go that route. Seems that would be better and cheaper than keeping D3/D4.

 

D3/4 is pretty much paid for, though, right? Or is it?

[silvrsvt]

D3/4 is pretty much paid for, though, right? Or is it?

 

It is, but its roots are from the late 1990s and the interior packaging leaves alot to be desired. The foot wells for example are very cramped.

[akirby]

the interior packaging leaves alot to be desired. The foot wells for example are very cramped.

 

Also the high hip points. It's also more expensive to keep 2 platforms than one even if one is "paid for". You can share a lot more components if they're all CD4 based.

[papilgee4evaeva]

It is, but its roots are from the late 1990s and the interior packaging leaves alot to be desired. The foot wells for example are very cramped.

 

Also the high hip points. It's also more expensive to keep 2 platforms than one even if one is "paid for". You can share a lot more components if they're all CD4 based.

 

Good points. I do wonder how much hip points matter on a taller SUV/CUV though.

 

I did read somewhere that Land Rover is launching a 7-seater on EUCD (not sure of release date). They're pushing it as a complete soft-roader like the Evoque, but I wonder how it will be dimension-wise.

[akirby]

Good points. I do wonder how much hip points matter on a taller SUV/CUV though

 

That was more an issue for the Taurus than the utilities.

[rkisler]

Some info:

 

2013 Fusion

Wheelbase:112 in

Width:72.9 in (not sure with mirrors or not)

Length: 191 in

 

 

2013 Taurus

Wheelbase:112.9

Width: 76.2 (without mirrors)

Length: 202

 

 

2012 Edge

Wheelbase: 111.2

Width: 76 (w/o mirrors)87.5 (with Mirrors)

Length: 184.2

 

 

2012 Explorer

Wheelbase: 112 in

Width:90 (mirrors)

Length: 197

 

 

2013 Flex

Wheelbase: 117.9 in

Width: 88.8 (not sure with or without mirrors)

Length: 201

 

Some more information on platforms. But, once again, dated. I don't have access to Advanced Engineering and Packaging experts (unfortunately).

 

1. When the Edge was under development, several platforms were considered. Ultimately Ford decided to work with Mazda utilizing the Japanese Mazda MPV as the mother model.

 

2. When the "Hamptons" was in pre-program, it wandered back and forth between the Flex and a minivan (W355).

 

3. Phil Martens, who was Product Development VP, was death on the D3 platform. He absolutely hated it. Believed (with some justification) that it was over weight, over cost, and poorly packaged; wanted to isolate it in Chicago and then kill it. No team was allowed to examine any product that used the D3, and you could count on an extraordinarly severe beating for bringing it up even in a pre-program "what if" situation.

 

4. So the original studies for the Flex/minivan were based on a CD3s (Edge) platform. The CD3s never, never, never would have worked to make any of those products. Because it was originally a rather narrow Japanese home product, there was no way to get the width without a major tearup to the point that the result would have been literally an all-new platform. Without a tearup, the narrow result would, for instance, have precluded putting 4X8 sheets of plywood flat on the load floor, a key minivan requirement. When I say narrow, I'm really referring to the basics of the platform -- floorpan, tunnel, rockers, track, firewall, steering wheel locatation. Once those are set, it's hard to move stuff further outboard.

 

5. So, the CD3s lie went on for quite some time until (I suppose) it couldn't be carried any further (or maybe Phil had left and people felt free to speak their mind?). There really was no choice for the Flex and Explorer -- either use D3 and make the best of it, or develop an all-new platform which would have been prohibitively expensive and would have added another platform to the stable which would have required care and feeding.

 

6. As I said, I don't have any experts to talk with, but I have a suspicion that the CD4 also might not have the width flexibility to accomodate a next-generation Explorer. But I have no idea what a next-generation Explorer would really look like.....Will full-size utilities still exist? Will they also have to go through a downsizing? No idea.

[2b2]

^ thanks again for your perspective, Austin :thumbup:

 

&

6. As I said, I don't have any experts to talk with, but I have a suspicion that the CD4 also might not have the width flexibility to accomodate a next-generation Explorer. But I have no idea what a next-generation Explorer would really look like.....Will full-size utilities still exist? Will they also have to go through a downsizing? No idea.

fwiw

I saw an online document recently indicating

3Q 2014 Edge CD539

3Q 2015 Taurus D568

4Q 2015 Explorer U502(2)

all on CD4 offshoots

[silvrsvt]

3. Phil Martens, who was Product Development VP, was death on the D3 platform. He absolutely hated it. Believed (with some justification) that it was over weight, over cost, and poorly packaged; wanted to isolate it in Chicago and then kill it. No team was allowed to examine any product that used the D3, and you could count on an extraordinarly severe beating for bringing it up even in a pre-program "what if" situation.

 

Thats VERY interesting...I though back when Ford bought Volvo, getting its hands on the D3 platform was one of the major reasons they bought them

 

6. As I said, I don't have any experts to talk with, but I have a suspicion that the CD4 also might not have the width flexibility to accomodate a next-generation Explorer. But I have no idea what a next-generation Explorer would really look like.....Will full-size utilities still exist? Will they also have to go through a downsizing? No idea.

 

I think they'll still be around...look at the sizes...the Taurus is still actually bigger then the Explorer by an inch or two in overall length. I'm not sure if you can shrink it down much more or you'll be infringing on the Edge, unless the Explorer becomes just a 3 row Edge down the road?

[silvrsvt]

^ thanks again for your perspective, Austin :thumbup:

 

&

fwiw

I saw an online document recently indicating

3Q 2014 Edge CD539

3Q 2015 Taurus D568

4Q 2015 Explorer U502(2)

all on CD4 offshoots

 

The CD539 is the S-Max and the u502 is the current explorer....take it for what its worth...can't find anything on D568

[rmc523]

Good points. I do wonder how much hip points matter on a taller SUV/CUV though.

 

I did read somewhere that Land Rover is launching a 7-seater on EUCD (not sure of release date). They're pushing it as a complete soft-roader like the Evoque, but I wonder how it will be dimension-wise.

 

I remember reading something about that Land Rover - wasn't it supposed to be a 7-seat LR2 (obviously lengthened, etc)?

 

---

 

I've been seeing a good amount of 2013s around as well.

[rkisler]

Thats VERY interesting...I though back when Ford bought Volvo, getting its hands on the D3 platform was one of the major reasons they bought them

 

 

 

I think they'll still be around...look at the sizes...the Taurus is still actually bigger then the Explorer by an inch or two in overall length. I'm not sure if you can shrink it down much more or you'll be infringing on the Edge, unless the Explorer becomes just a 3 row Edge down the road?

 

 

The primary reason for the purchase of Volvo wasn't the D3 platform. It was an understanding of how difficult it is to create a "near luxury" brand that was recognized world-wide, and the opportunity to achieve synergies and economies of scale by combining platforms and potentially manufacturing facilities between Ford and Volvo. Also, the culture of safety fit with where Ford was headed. After the purchase of Volvo, a huge effort took place to stich Ford and Volvo together. It ain't easy; everything from a consolidation and synchronization of forward model cycle plans to CAD/CAM software.

 

When the 500 was in pre-program, the team looked at several platforms, including an all-new platform and CDW. Finally chose P2/D3. Appointed a Volvo Chief Program Engineer. But even though the bones are very similar, there are not very many common parts between Volvo and Ford, and therefore a missed opportunity to get economies of scale on components.

 

Of course the real prize when Ford was collecting brands was BMW. Ford hired Wolfgang Reitzle in part for his inside relationships with the Quandt Family. Ford got Land Rover but not the big prize.

 

My thoughts are that Chicago remains the only D3 plant. Explorer plus refresh for a total cycle life of at least 8 years. Taurus PI set up for the long-term. Stays on D3, even if a new Taurus takes off from CD4; becomes vestigial sedan just like Crown Vic. Next generation too hazy for me right now, and probably too hazy inside Ford also; doesn't have to be decided right now.

[ZanatWork]

I'm seeing Flexes all over the place, at least down here in New Mexico. Most are the first-gen, but as I'm not a big fan of the new nose, I don't blame the owners.

 

I hope the model continues on for a good long while. So many people buy SUVs, crossovers, etc. when what they really need is a good ol' wagon.