The Ford Flex is a large, seven-passenger crossover "people mover" that's basically replacing the minivan in Ford's vehicle lineup. So who will Ford target with the marketing? Everyone but families, according to Automotive News [sub]. It seems that Ford's new marketing chief, Jim Farley, doesn't want the Flex seen as a mom-mobile minivan replacement (wait a minute… isn't that what most seven-passenger SUVs and CUVs are?), so they're exorcising kids and dogs from the ads. Rather than "limit(ing) the Flex's potential by painting it so visibly with the family brush," they want to pitch it as "a trendsetting vehicle for people wanting a stylish ride." They think the xB-with-a-thyroid-problem styling will appeal to consumers not needing a kid-schlepper because as brand manager Kate Pearce explained "you can't not want to be noticed when you drive down the road in a two-tone vehicle with really cool grooves down the side."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I suppose now would be a good time to point them to what has happened with the xB’s sales after a drastic change to it.
And it baffles me that they want to try and sell this to anyone BUT the market demographic it belongs in.
“This isn’t a vehicle that families are going to use for weekend picnics. No, this is the vehicle that promiscuous men will use to awkwardly explain their exploits to a motley assortment of children while taking them all for ice cream. Ford wants the Flex to represent trendsetting, a modern American lifestyle, not a traditional nuclear family.”
@ash78: Do the 2nd and 3rd row seats fold flat for “shag mode”?
With the same width (80″) and length (200″+) as a Chevy Tahoe, it’s perfect for fat singles.
I saw the Flex at last year’s auto show, again this year — and its got to rank right up there as candidate for the “worlds ugliest” awards.
They had some bizarre thing at this year’s auto show, with artists using Flex roofs (the roof panels, hanging vertically like a canvas). I didn’t get it — and reading this, I realize that must have been a “cool thing” to do.
I bet we’ll see fewer of these on the road than the Taurus X.
/p
I got an up close look at one at this year’s auto show. It’s not my cup of tea, but it did feel comfy, and compared to the bland behemoth people movers that I saw from everybody else, it will stand out.
I think Ford should target it at families, especially families that don’t want to be seen as non-environmental (via SUV’s) and wouldn’t be caught dead in a ‘Soccer Mom’ minivan. If I had three or four kids, I’d put this on my list of vehicles to consider.
Is this an addition, or will this replace one (hopefully two) minivan/suv/crossovers in their lineup?
In other news Ford will be attempting to revive Expedition sales by marketing to the green crowd and comparing its capabilities to the Prius.
This just seems like a desperate attempt by Ford to hang on to the growing (in size and purchase) CUV market. Seriously, with everyone ditching their SUVs in favor of better MPGs seen in CUVs, the joke is the CUVs are getting bigger, heavier and more SUV like.
Ford should be putting money into the future of car sales, and it isn’t 2 1/2 ton bloated cute-utes. The new Focus (US) is a punchline to a joke I don’t get, and the rest of their small car product is sad.
So here they are pumping out yet ANOTHER SUV. I think that the big 2.8 suffers from automotive ADD.
Don’t kid yourself, Ford – slap some “wood” paneling on it, and it’s today’s version of the 1967 Country Squire my family used to schlep about in…
I made the comment over at Leftlane that if look at the first xB, you can’t say that it’s all that different. It was marketed to young people as hip and stylish and as it turned out, old people bought it for what it was: a functional, economical box. Had they marketed it to the functional, economical box crowd, it wouldn’t have taken off nearly as well.
That being said, Ford always seems to be unsure as to how to market their product. The only good ad spot I’ve seen lately was for the Edge, because it actually sold the vehicle while building name recognition (what’s the name of that vehicle that was always driving on the…edge…of things…ah!).
quasimondo :
Is this an addition, or will this replace one (hopefully two) minivan/suv/crossovers in their lineup?
Ford doesn’t have any minivans left in their lineup. The Freestar died a merciful death in 2006. When they started development on the Flex, it was tagged a “people hauler” that was to take the place of s minivan. Originally the Flex was supposed to have sliding doors, but the powers that be decided that would be too mini-vannish and nixed them.
Since it’s built on the same platform and has virtually the same capabilities, the Flex will most likely replace the Taurus X eventually. However, instead of decreasing the CUV/SUV ranks in Ford’s portfolio, it will, in fact, increase their offerings because Lincoln is slated to get their own Flex-based seven-passenger CUV.
Wait, I thought the Edge was the trendsetter. What is this thing supposed to be again?
I shouldn’t be so hard on Ford’s plan. At least they plan to market it at all, unlike the Taurus X. Has there ever been an ad for that vehicle? I still can’t believe they are going to continue “selling” it when the Flex comes out.
@FW: I thought that Autoweek reported Flex’s sliding doors were axed due to lack of development funds. They did make it onto one side of the Explorer America concept at NAIAS ’08, though.
The Dodge Magnum gets noticed a lot too. Didn’t seem to help sales very much.
Yeah, Ford wants it to be cool like every other SUV/CUV maker but you know what, I think mommy-mobile when I see those too. You don’t need to be a minivan to have that stereotype.
I need a cheaper version of the Dodge Sprinter people-mover. Oh, the Ford Transit will cover that base. I need a minivan because the sliding doors prevent lower back injuries when inserting/extracting toddlers. Nix Flex. But I’d do without the sliders for the better fuel efficiency of a 4-banger, like with the Scion. So what’s the point of the Flex again?
Nice looking CUV, but when I sat in it in New York, I was expecting more interior room .I thought the Flex was supposed to be longer than the Taurus X, but there seems to be no more 2nd row or 3rd row legroom, nor any more space behind the 3rd low…and it’s priced higher than the Taurus X, which is already over priced..
I guess we’re selling the style here.
Brendino: “Had they marketed it to the functional, economical box crowd, it wouldn’t have taken off nearly as well.”
Don’t be too sure. The functional, economical box crowd is pretty good at finding functional, economical boxes.
I don’t know how the dimensions compare, but I agree, this seemed like it had the same interior space as the Taurus X/Freestyle.
As for the marketing angle: didn’t Nissan attempt to market the latest Quest to outdoor/adventurer mom’s in their 30s? They didn’t mention anything about families in their initial ads.
Where are the Quest’s sales now?
Matthew Danda :
I need a minivan because the sliding doors prevent lower back injuries when inserting/extracting toddlers. Nix Flex. But I’d do without the sliders for the better fuel efficiency of a 4-banger, like with the Scion.
Or, you could just get a Mazda5 and have sliding doors, a reasonably peppy and reasonably efficient 4 cylinder and even a 5-speed, if you’re into that kind of thing!
Sliding doors are the thing to have in a people-mover, but all the CUV-sellers think they need to avoid them to escape the “mini-van stigma.” Guess what? I have a mini-van, and when the time comes to replace it, I’ll be looking for another vehicle with (extremely practical) sliding doors, and all of these idiotic “CUVs” pretending to not be SUVs (which they are) will not be on my list.
@Matthew – this is the first I’ve heard of low back injuries, and sliders for preventatitive maintenance… I schlep my daughter in and out of a two door BMW coupe every day (granted, I climb right in, instead of trying to get her placed from outside).
I actually like that Ford is trying something a bit different. There’s nothing that really stands out – give me a 4 pot /w a manual tranny (and probably lighter weight) and it could be a viable alternative….
I’m going to go against the grain here and say that, having seen the Flex at the Philadelphia and Harrisburg auto shows, that I really do like it.
The Scion resemblance is tenuous at best. The Flex is much longer and wider, and thus looks lower. The different proportions mean that the boxiness isn’t nearly as pronounced with the Flex as it is with the Scion. If anything, the Flex strikes me as the 21st century iteration of a 1960s Ford Country Squire. For the record, I think that is a good thing…
The basic platform is solid, and the vehicle is stylish and “different.”
Ford (and GM) need to take some risks. They can’t regain lost ground by giving us domestically produced versions of Toyotas. Why buy a Toyota-clone from a manufacturer with a checkered past when you can go down the street and buy the real thing from the company that is now the automotive gold standard?
There is stupid risk-taking and smart risk-taking. The Pontiac Aztek is THE example of the former. The Flex is a good example of the latter.
The design is coherent and the mechanicals appear to be solid. I can see this one in the driveways of affluent suburbs around here. Maybe I’m wrong, but, as I said, Ford has to take some risks. This vehicle could be another 1983 Thunderbird for Ford – a watershed design that signals a new direction of the company, and changes people’s perceptions.
(Incidentally, we tend to forget that the “aero” Thunderbird was very controversial at first, and lots of people didn’t immediately like it. But Ford stuck with it, and the car was ultimately a success. It was also a morale booster for the company. Remember that Ford was almost bankrupt in 1980, and its cars were blasted as bland, low-quality GM clones.)
i like the look.
i LOVE the nearly-normal headlights (no droopy dog eyes here).
i don’t understand the whole family-being-too-cool-for-school thing. if you think you’re hiding by not driving a minivan, you’re wrong. you step out of a vette or an F350 wearing mom jeans–you’re still wearing mom jeans.
a drummer in a minivan is way cooler than a soccer mom in, well, anything. and you know what? cool sucks. and no one cares.
show your children you love them by transporting them appropriately.
if you need me, i’ll be here installing sliding doors on my GTI.
Ford is a “comfort” brand, or at least was.
A safe, reasonably reliable car, with a neighborhood dealer. (WAS)
Risk takers and trend setters DO NOT buy Fords.
I would imagine that the Mustang is one of the best sales stories for Ford. A ~40+ year old brand — that continues to get people reasonably excited and that teen guys drool over. And the car’s proposition hasn’t ever really changed (except for the miserable cylinger Mustang 2)
Unless you count trucks, nothing in the Ford line up comes close — not in terms of brand, not in terms of product.
I hope Ford has better coming.
/p
It looks to me like a Scion xB on steroids! But then again the Scion xB has BETTER build quality, reliability, resale value and fit and finish (not to mention NOT made by FoMoCo). I just wonder how long it will be before FoMoCo starts slapping bribes (sorry, rebates) on the hood to move this BUTT UGLY, HIDEOUS thing from dealer lots? Could FoMoCo be preparring to revisit the days of the Edsel? It lasted 3 yrs. and flopped BIG TIME and i believe this Flex will as well. And it’ll be a sales flop for 3 reasons: 1): It’s a Ford 2): The fact it is so UGLY! And 3): There are MUCH better 7-8 passenger crossovers on the market to choose from! And a few more things: You won’t mistake this THING for anything else when seen on the road. My advise: Just try not laughing or throwing up your lunch when you see it. Both easier said than done here. And also remember: If you think the Ford version is UGLY just look at and wait for the Lincoln version, EVEN UGLIER!
Red dawg, tell us how you REALLY feel about it…
Geeber….agreed. Ex-Ford employee rage. Understandable as Ford has layed off so many folks over the last few years.
Also, I have said on several other Flex threads over the last few months that polarizing is good—-bland like the Taurus X will not sell….the Flex is clearly not bland.
I like the look of the Flex. Actually, I like the Edge as well. They are both relatively fresh looking vehicles and look reasonably well executed.
My only real issue here is that aside from design and packaging, it really is just another CUV in a sea of CUV’s. The design may be enough to make people take notice and go for it though.
Lastly, they really do need to make one with the woodgrain sides (even as a goofy option package) and just call it the “Country Squire”. In the end, that’s exactly what this thing hearkens back to (unless you want to argue that the flat sides and all that vertical glass are Ford’s homage to the Range Rover).
Anything that puts more well designed station wagons on the market works for me. Finally, a wagon shape which hasn’t been squished and melted at the ends and corners in search of “style” at the sacrifice of function.
Hopefully they will offer a Mercury version without that dumb Remington Razor front grill.
Especially with the white roof, it reminds me of a ’55-’56 Country Sedan–the fancy Ford without the painfully fake wood onthe side. The profile is strikingly similar.
I don’t see the resemblance to the ’60s and ’70s wagons, though. It’s more reminiscent of the early Falcon wagons which were like 3/4-size replicas of “shoebox” type ’50’s Fords.
There’s a lot of heritage in that look. Ford should have never strayed from it.
Ford’s current SUVs/Family Hauler:
-Escape
-Explorer
-Explorer SportTrac
-Edge
-Expedition
-Taurus X
Clearly, more SUVs are needed. As Toyota already makes 6 SUVs and a minivan, Ford needs a 7th one also. Something above the Expedition, in the category of the old H1 Alpha, wouldn’t hurt either.
Oh and regarding “cool and stylish”, I think that ship sailed as soon as the badge was put on the grille. Sometimes, you have to realize what your product’s selling points are. In the case of Ford: PRICE.
zenith :
The look of the old “family trucksters” isn’t there but the overall form factor is bang on. There is no shame in building, or driving, a well executed station wagon.
we saw this one at the car show this year as well. I was pretty indifferent to it but my wife thought it was the highlight of the show. I had to remind her that we’re only having the 2 kids so seating for 7 wasn’t part of our criteria.
A few things for you all to consider. Ford should be delighted at such extreme reactions – it is about time Ford has a design that elicits strong reaction.
On the legroom thing, the Flex has (by come considerable distance) the most 2nd row leg room. If you didn’t find this to be the case, slide the seats back and enjoy!
On the targeting of the car, this is a simple one really. Of course Ford knows that families will buy the car – that is fairly obvious to anyone with a brain. That does not mean you have to actively target them with adverts showing kids, dogs and wind surfers all over the place – how crass!! Anyone who actually likes the thing but doesn’t like the family connotations would be instantly put off. Far better to talk to a younger audience – it appeals to them AND makes the older people feel cool. A double hit. It has worked for Ford in Europe with S-MAX which has sold to a much wider audience than a seemingly family car should attract.
jamie1: I think your analysis is spot on.
daryn: thats why Ford has the Edge. I have 2 children and like you saw no need to buy a 7 passenger vehicle. That is why we purchased the Lincoln MKX over the Buick Enclave.
What polarizing? Don’t get me started again.
Ford is out of their minds … again.
THIS IS ANOTHER SUV. An ugly one, but nevertheless an SUV. Don’t they look at what is happening out there? People get rid of their SUVs faster than you can say S-U-V. Gas is almost 4 freaking dollars a gallon. This is the worst time to put out an SUV and hope to make money on it.
Stylish or not it does not matter. FORD needs to SELL cars at this point! They are not in the position and don’t have the luxury to set trends or styling. People talking about it or not it does not matter either. Most people now don’t have the extra money to buy trendy stuff.
It’s just the wrong truck in the wrong segment at the wrong time, period.
Tell you what is going to be polarizing and get people to talk about it: FORD’s soon to come bankruptcy. They get exactly what they deserve…
# starlightmica :
April 1st, 2008 at 9:38 am
@FW: I thought that Autoweek reported Flex’s sliding doors were axed due to lack of development funds. They did make it onto one side of the Explorer America concept at NAIAS ‘08, though.
This baffles me. Sliding doors have been around for what, 50 years? How friggin’ hard could it be to just adopt the mechanicals from the old Freestar? Or license someone else’s? Or use the door from the Econoline vans?
Something stinks like week old fish. I’m putting my money on the stylists and marketers nixing sliding doors for image reasons.
Nothin’ beats sliding doors for easy in/out in a car…and with Boomers rapidly aging you’d think that’s be a selling point to that demographic too.
Ford is out of their minds … again.
THIS IS ANOTHER SUV. An ugly one, but nevertheless an SUV. Don’t they look at what is happening out there? People get rid of their SUVs faster than you can say S-U-V. Gas is almost 4 freaking dollars a gallon. This is the worst time to put out an SUV and hope to make money on it.
Yes, they’re getting rid of their SUV’s and picking up CUV’s, which this is, whether you want to accept that or not. Look at the sales figures for the Mazda CX-9, GM Lambda vehicles, Nissan Murano, Infinit FX, and Subaru Forrester and ask yourself if you think people are really abandoning the CUV market like they’re abandoning the SUV market.
Stylish or not it does not matter. FORD needs to SELL cars at this point! They are not in the position and don’t have the luxury to set trends or styling. People talking about it or not it does not matter either. Most people now don’t have the extra money to buy trendy stuff.
Stylish does matter. Look at the Five Hundred/Taurus and the Fusion. Fine cars, but as bland as khaki pants. Nissan wasn’t in a position to sell stylish vehicles when they released the third-generation Altima, but they did, and it sold. Stylish doesn’t have to mean expensive.
It’s just the wrong truck in the wrong segment at the wrong time, period.
Except, it’s not a truck, no matter how many times you say it is.
Tell you what is going to be polarizing and get people to talk about it: FORD’s soon to come bankruptcy. They get exactly what they deserve…
Sorry to hear that you feel this way.
The other day I saw an old Nissan Axxess, and thought it’s a shame that concept didn’t survive in the US market. A Flex is much like an Axxess, but two and a half feet longer, etc. So, great for long hauls but too bulky and heavy for an urban runabout. A five passenger version the size of the first Dodge Caravan would be a good compromise.
The Flex was behind a barrier at the OKC auto show, so people couldn’t experience sitting in it. But maybe that doesn’t matter too much. Standard practice with display cars is to move the power front seats all the way back and tilt them so a 375-pounder’s stomach can clear the steering wheel, then disconnect the battery.
with really cool grooves down the side
Blech. First Chrysler puts grooves down the hood of all their cars, and now Ford wants to put them along the side panels. They remind me of strakes on the hull of a boat. If this is what passes for style now, I’ll take more retro design please.
“Yes, they’re getting rid of their SUV’s and picking up CUV’s, which this is, whether you want to accept that or not. Look at the sales figures for the Mazda CX-9, GM Lambda vehicles, Nissan Murano, Infinit FX, and Subaru Forrester and ask yourself if you think people are really abandoning the CUV market like they’re abandoning the SUV market.”
Crossover between what and what? A bus and a shoe box? This thing does not pull like an SUV, does not haul like a minivan, gets worse gas mileage than both. What’s the point in that?
“Nissan wasn’t in a position to sell stylish vehicles when they released the third-generation Altima, but they did, and it sold. Stylish doesn’t have to mean expensive.”
That is a car, a good, reliable car. It came in at the right time on that particular segment and it was a major hit. I own a 2006 Altima 3.5SE and I love it. Altima was the first car in that segment to show you that a good, reliable car could have good looks too. Murano kinda did the same thing with the SUVs (CUVs).
I am an engineer. A car should be, above all, a good engineered piece of machinerry. Looks it’s a plus. How is Flex well engineered? What is the drag coefficient on that thing? “It does not matter, ’cause is soooo trendy”. Empty shell .
“Except, it’s not a truck, no matter how many times you say it is.”
I’m sorry. It’s not a truck. No. You cannot pull with this more than a thousand pounds. You’re right. It’s just a car with the looks of a mini-bus and the mileage of an SUV. That makes it a whole lot better.
To be fair, they didn’t say that they would not market it to families, just that they weren’t going to limit marketing efforts to only those with families to haul around. From the article (emphasis in bold from me):
When Farley arrived at Ford last fall, he saw the potential to pitch Flex as a cool vehicle suitable for both trendsetters and families, Pearce said.
The Flex team already had been exploring ways to hype the bold look, but Farley’s guidance turned the positioning around. Ford marketers decided not to limit the Flex’s potential by painting it so visibly with the family brush.
Nice to see they are justifying the whole Fairlane vs. Flex naming problem with a shallow and pointless marketing exercise.
There’d be less need for marketing dollars (and the associated hot air that comes with) if this rig was called a Fairlane.
Ford would be most credible to market the Flex for what it is: a station wagon. Because, let’s face it, that’s what it is – you can’t tell me (or any other sane individual with any shred of observational logic) otherwise. Not that being a station wagon should be a bad thing (I’m an Outback driver). Wagons are cool – they’re functional. But the least common denominator of the image-concious buying public thinks it’s “uncool.” So, in a blatant pandering to that demographic, Ford (and everyone else in the industry now) is trying the old trick of illusion: they tell you, as you look at their station wagon, that “you are not looking at a station wagon.”
Ford may not be the most saavy for marketing the car as what it isn’t, but we’re twice as stupid if we buy the shtick.
incitatus: Crossover between what and what? A bus and a shoe box? This thing does not pull like an SUV, does not haul like a minivan, gets worse gas mileage than both. What’s the point in that?
I haven’t seen any official mileage figures for the Flex. If you have seen them could you please tell us, what, exactly, are they? Do you also have figures for the Flex’s towing capacity? Is it worse than the towing capacity of other crossovers?
As for everything else you said – that could be applied to every other crossover on the market. So I fail to see why the Flex deserves to be singled out for criticism on this score.
incitatus: That is a car, a good, reliable car. It came in at the right time on that particular segment and it was a major hit. I own a 2006 Altima 3.5SE and I love it. Altima was the first car in that segment to show you that a good, reliable car could have good looks too. Murano kinda did the same thing with the SUVs (CUVs).
Based on my friends’ experiences with their Nissans, I would not put Nissan in the top tier of reliability with Honda and Toyota. My friend is about ready to dump his Altima because it is showing signs of head-gasket failure.
I would also urge people not to use the words “good looks” when talking about the latest version of the Murano. The front end looks like it drew its inspiration from the 1961 Plymouth – only it’s even uglier.
incitatus: I am an engineer. A car should be, above all, a good engineered piece of machinerry. Looks it’s a plus. How is Flex well engineered? What is the drag coefficient on that thing? “It does not matter, ’cause is soooo trendy”. Empty shell .
Given that the Flex has not yet been formally introduced, please tell us what, exactly, is the basis of your opinion when you say that it is not well-engineered, or has a poor drag coefficient? No one has tested it yet, or even thoroughly examined the production version.
And as an engineer, I assume that you realize that looks can be deceiving when it comes to determining the aerodynamic qualities of a vehicle?
geeber And as an engineer, I assume that you realize that looks can be deceiving when it comes to determining the aerodynamic qualities of a vehicle?
There’s enough frontal area on that brick to slam it as unaerodynamic. Drag coefficient is only half the story. Frontal area is the reason why I saw a 2005 Mustang lose to a 2003 Mustang (same hp on the dyno, similar gearing) in the Texas Mile. The older one was 3+ mph faster in the standing mile. And that’s not the exception to the rule.
Either way, massive frontal area isn’t trendsetting…its the CUV way of life…if the Flex had a bullet nose, Farley’d have something to talk about.
That is one ugly vehicle! I saw it close and personal at the NYIAS and I think it looks worse than in pictures. It’s sort of a cross between a refrigerator and a checker cab!
Sajeev: Incitatus specifically asked “what is the drag coefficient on that thing?” If, as you say, that is only “half the story,” it hardly means that the vehicle is a dud.
Agreed, the engineering is fine. Judged by the reliability/performance of its D3 platform-mates, that is. Nobody cares about boxy designs being gas-hogs…at least not yet.
Derivative styling is the “dud” for me: xB front clip, Mini Cooper roof, and Chrysler slats on a gigantic hulk of CUV sheetmetal.
There’s little that is trend setting about this genre, especially the ones large enough to be a full-framed SUV. Marketing it as such is setting it up for failure.
So…Ford is going to market this ‘fridge to a younger crowd. Ok…so for 30K I can have a Ford xB…err…Flex or a G8 GT. With the G8 I get correct wheel drive (REAR), a big AMERICAN V8, and styling that doesn’t copy a Scion.
Here is my question to Ford. Why are you not marketing this vehicle to families…when that is the only group that will even look at this vehicle. A young 25 year old guy does not need a 7 passenger box to drive himself around in.
They should have named it the Ford Fail…’cuz thats what this xB rip-off is going to do.
garllo: “I saw it close and personal at the NYIAS and I think it looks worse than in pictures.”
Like you, I also saw it at the NYIAS and I thought it looked fantastic. As a single guy I have absolutely no need to trade in my 3-series for any kind of ‘people mover,’ but if I did the Flex would be on the short list.
When I sat in the drivers seat, it became immediately apparent that Ford has given this car the attention to detail that I have not seen in most…hell, ANY domestic vehicle in recent memory. So, while most of us are commenting about its looks, you need to also go beyond scratching the surface to see that they did a great job.
And let’s face it: This kind of controversy is good for Ford. Just look at the number of responses in this thread. This car IS generating a lot of attention (and right now, Ford can use it.)
Enough about the damned “grooves”.
Why on earth would any company trying to rebuild it’s market share and image tout styling cribbed from the last generation Eclipse?
I saw this thing in person and thought it was far uglier then it appears in pictures. The dimensions just look wrong. It might be a tad to tall.
Ford needs to do some measuring and some math and see if it adds up right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
I told you the Flex will be marketed toward Scion market. YOu guys said it wast not, look at the dam thing!
Is this thing under $20,000? Of course not. Then Ford is not marketing it towards the Scion market, even if they think they are.
(I found pricing. The Flex will start at $28,295, or almost double the cheapest Scion.)
red dawg: The Edsel was introduced in September 1957, and cancelled in November 1959 after only a few thousand 1960 models were produced.
The original FoMoCo plan to save the Edsel was to make the 1960 Comet its companion car, but later that plan was killed. The vomit…er Comet ended up as a Mercury.
The Flex: Where are the buyers gonna come from?
I can’t see ppl trading their Honda’s, Toyota’s and Nissan’s in on a Flex.
After all, the first time buyers of those three cars, traded in their crappy Fords (and other horrid GM & ChryCo piles), so don’t expect them (or their offspring) to buy any Fords, GM’s or ChryCo’s ever again.
It hasn’t happened in years, and as the sales figures show, it ain’t happening now.
The Flex: Where are the buyers gonna come from?
They’re going to come from families that are moving up from older Camrys, Accords, Altimas, etc.
I can’t see ppl trading their Honda’s, Toyota’s and Nissan’s in on a Flex.
Judging from the attention it recieved at this year’s auto show, I can.
If you want to build hype for your brand you need to build something new. Another large-sized 5 door wagon thing is not going to do it.
Honey I shrank the RangeRover!!!
http://www.e-sportscarhire.co.uk/images/car/range-rover-diesel-sport.jpg
I like the looks and if it looked as good in person I’d consider it. I think I could keep it reliable.
In the late 60’s American Motors took the Rebel Wagon they called a Cross Country and localized them by having woodgrain and other “themes” targeted at the various areas where they had regional offices. Maybe Ford should employ this technique? If this were a foot shorter and 1500# lighter it could have a chance. But, I am the guy who thought adding doors to the Bronco II was a mistake, too, so what do I know? I have always had a weakness for station wagons………