Buried in a CTVnews.ca story about the upcoming launches of the Ford Flex and the 2009 F-150: Ford's view of the future. Reporter Jeremy Cato spent some QT with Ford execs (including FoMoCo CEO Big Al Mullaly himself) to find out if there's a future in their Ford. Once again, Ford's top brass tout their forthcoming product revamps to predict a return to operationally profitability by the last financial quarter. In that vein, Ford intends to release models that will be "polarizing" for most consumers. Huh? "That's is exactly what we want," proclaims the Flex's design chief. By the end of the article, Cato remains unconvinced that the Flex will be relevant. (Not everyone can– or should– be Chris Bangle.) Cato declares that all Ford's marketing-speak, brand sell-off and quality initiatives are essentially Big Al's push to turn Ford into Toyota. You know: one global brand, a solid reputation for quality and billions in profits posted like clockwork every quarter. Yeah. that one. Meanwhile, The Blue Oval Boyz concede a porno style loss for the fiscal year. Yes, "it will be a big one."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I disagree.
Ford’s been here before and needs an absolute stand-out (probably) car to restore its financial health.
I’m thinking something along the lines of the 1949 and the 1986.
In a 30-manufacturer universe where everything seems derivative of a derivative, if Ford placed a mass production car in the mix that uneqivocably stood out, who knows.
Maybe Ford can’t rebound like they did in 1986 and 1949, maybe the fundamentals are too dire. But they could at least try.
It’s been evident from Day 1 that AM wanted to model Ford after Toyota. The guy sang the praises of Toyota before and after coming on board and every move he’s made since taking over has been in that direction. BTW, its not the Way Forward (which was Wm. Ford/Mark Fields big plan)anymore, its One Ford. Its certainly a better idea than GM’s plan of continuing on with eight brands in a market that can’t sustain it anymore. And, the Flex is not a polarizing design in the way a Banglemobile is. Its polarizing in a minivan kind of way.
Polarizing means some people really like it and some really hate it. I have yet to see a single comment from someone who really likes the Flex.
It’s not polarizing, it’s ugly, and it will fail, just like the Taurus X / Freestyle / Freestar / Aerostar before it.
The Flex is a supersized Scion xB with a Ford badge up front. To me it’s a clown car and I don’t personally like it but the market can make cars like this a hit and I’m not about to say it won’t for the Flex, you never know.
Based on the F150 photo in the article, they sure uglified that truck. Who dreams up those ugly grilles? From what I can see, the rest of the truck looks old hat.
I’m all about the Flex. It looks like it’ll be one of the most functional cars you can buy, it’s like a rolling cave. Double the sexy of a van with the same functionality, I hope to see many of these in my neighborhood.
I highly doubt that the Flex will become a success, mainly because of the name. When it was shown in concept form as the Fairlane, many liked it, because the name worked with the design to evoke many fond memories from the past. They have lost it by renaming it “Flex”, which means nothing, and I feel is just another dumb way for Ford to try to cash in on the youth market.
Another example is the new Focus. I one saw a commercial for it which depicted three black girls driving it around with Chris Brown music blaring, saying a bunch of shit about how they think it is, um, the shit. It didn’t sway me. But then again, my tastes don’t reflect that of the mass majority of teenagers out there, so I don’t think my views really matter.
I am a teenager, the person who Ford (and all of the big three for that matter) wants to find their vehicles as “hip”, and to have coming into showroom doors within a year or so, or perhaps, now. I currently own a 1993 Ford Escort, which I love, and I am currently unpursuaded by the interior color lighting and rappy commercials for the Focus to upgrade it. The only Focus I would trade my Escort for is a 2000-2004, than you very much!
But I am rambling. In a nutshell: The Flex is the wrong product at the wrong time and will bomb. Plus, next year, the Flex will become instantly dated when Ford releases the European styled Verve and 2010 Taurus.
What the hell is a Flex? It looks like a Mini Clubman rear-ended by a F-150 with a chromtastic aftermarket grill.
This is the opposite of what Ford should be doing. Polarizing, niche designs are what Dodge tried, and failed, to ride back to profitability. Think Magnum, Charger, Caliber, Avenger.
Pahaska
Based on the F150 photo in the article, they sure uglified that truck.
That is the new trim line Platinum, above Lariat and supplanting the Lincoln Mark LT.
I don’t like the grille on that trim level either, but the lower trim levels are more tasteful.
Basically the day they quit making half-tons appear/actually bigger I’ll be happy. Hopefully Dodge, with their tasteful redesign of the Ram, will begin to help influence design back to a more utilitarian and less excessive look, somewhat ironically since they started the trend to the goofy-overdone look in 1994.
Polarizing means some people really like it and some really hate it. I have yet to see a single comment from someone who really likes the Flex.
I know with Ford vehicles and compliments, it can be a bit tricky to find the needle in the haystack:
Geeber liked it*
And so did NICKNICK*
Brancho as well*
*bummer that it doesn’t take you to the direct comment. See what I mean about finding needles in haystacks?
Anyone know if Mullaly is still driving his Lexus LS? (I know he is chauffeured to and from Ford in a Ford) If not, is it any wonder he wants to remake Ford in Toyota’s image?
Polarizing means some people really like it and some really hate it. I have yet to see a single comment from someone who really likes the Flex.
I like the Flex. It’s a boxy, attractive take on an old-school wagon, and it’s far different from a minivan in its looks, with chrome-looking rear end and woody looking side panels. I call it polarizing. I think a lot of people will like this car.
It’s not polarizing, it’s ugly, and it will fail, just like the Taurus X / Freestyle / Freestar / Aerostar before it.
No it won’t fail, in my opinion. If it does, it won’t fail because of the reasons the cars you listed failed. Those cars were bland looking to a fault. This one doesn’t. If it fails, it will be because it lacks a rolling side door like a traditional minivan.
As for the “ugly” styling: When I took my mom to see the Ford Focus she thought it was cool-looking, that the spoiler and side scoops made it look sporty, and that it looked much better than the car it replaced.
Not everybody thinks the same as anyone else does. We’re all looking at this car from different perspectives, and after the roaring success of the Ford Focus I’d be willing to bet there are more people who are willing to “buy ugly” than you’d think.
They do sell Toyotas, after all. Show me a Tacoma that’s pretty and I’ll… well… it’s not. But it sells.
Question:
If Mullaly is trying to model Ford after Toyota, what of it? Isn’t it sound business sense to model one’s business after the industry leader?
I like the Flex.
I like the looks and I like its function.
And I like the Taurus and Taurus X.
I think they are the tops in their classes.
Ford did not market the Taurus X, Freestar or any of the other recent “family mobiles” listed here….so to throw these out as examples of why the Flex will fail is like saying Ford cannot produce a quality vehicle because they produced crap in the 70’s and 80’s.
If the Flex fails—it won’t be because of a small marketing budget. Farley has a major stake in this launch and the F150.
I happen to think it will do OK—-because it is different and Ford will market it. 100K Units may be a bit ambitious though—probably more like 70-80K.
Why the Flex will fail is that it and its competitors are too thirsty to be mass market vehicles at $4.00+ a gallon.
Cato declares that all Ford’s marketing-speak, brand sell-off and quality initiatives are essentially Big Al’s push to turn Ford into Toyota. You know: one global brand, a solid reputation for quality and billions in profits posted like clockwork every quarter.
And that’s a bad thing, how?
The Flex is Hot! If you haven’t seen it in person, sat in it, or kicked the tires, you should hold off on your negative comments until you do.
Drive reviews should start popping up in a couple weeks….this vechical will defy the gas situation. Just wait and see…..
I think the Flex shows a lot of promise. It’s not a minivan, with the negative image that has nowadays, but it has the virtues of a minivan. Basically, it’s a next-generation station wagon. Maybe someone at Ford remembers when it bragged about being “the wagonmaster.”
Moreover, the Flex could be popular with niche markets, such as airport shuttle services and wheelchair-accessible taxicabs. And I think Ford would be foolish if it doesn’t offer it in formal black luxury trim with super-sumptuous second-row seating. (With privacy glass divider.) As a reborn Lincoln Town Car it could keep the limo and livery markets for Ford.
Mullaly gets shuttled around the complex in a Lincoln Town Car.
Whether he drives his Lexus to/from work, I don’t know…
IMHO this Flex is a turd as is the upcoming Lincoln MKS.
for another $0.02 on the Flex – I find it a handsome car, yet it is distinctive without the kind of cheesy detailing that make most of Chris Bangle’s designs so unattractive. The roving herds of SUV’s we see certainly suggest that some number of American drivers feel the need to haul a lot of stuff or people, and the Flex appears capable of doing so at a 20% improvement in fuel mileage (assuming it is not just another two and a quarter ton also-ran). I certainly remember all of the rude comments made about the original Taurus, yet it really caught on in part because of its distinctive design and in part because it was just a superb packaging job. Had Ford kept investing in the Taurus platform in the way that Toyota has done with the Camry, it would remain one of the top sellers in the U.S. They just took their eye off the ball and put their money into the Explorer and F-150.
And if Mulally is at least familiar with the Lexus LS, he understands why it is at the top of the market. Forget all of our enthusiast nagging about it being an appliance and not “matching” the handling of the German cars; the switchgear, ergonomics and interior finish quality are simply the best in the world. It may need a little more soul, but it gets better with each iteration and the current version is a far better looking car than either the current S-class or 7-series. Doesn’t have the drama of the big Maser, but it doesn’t cost as much either.
Even though I haven’t owned a Ford in years, I’m rooting for them. I think Mulally’s more committed than Wagoner, and it’s apparent we can just put a fork in Chrysler.
Starts @ 28k, tops out @ 37k for the Limited with AWD. Whew!
And nowhere to be seen is the optional “Country Squire” package (woodgrain sides, roof rack). that would actually sell a couple of these things, mainly due to the “schlock” value.
Then again, they could offer a Funkmaster “City Squire” package, complete with 22’s, with the slab sides covered with simulated cinder-block, ready to be parked overnight in town to attract graffiti “artists” who will make your Flex unique in all the world.
An eminently practical vehicle, ten years ago; that little V6 hauling around all that baggage is gonna drink gas like Foster Brooks.
Robert Farago: You have written a very favorable review of the Flex in another publication (albeit about 1 year ago).
You have now had a chance to see it in person and “kick the tires” a bit. What is your view of the vehicle now (other than you prior comments arounf thrid row room) ?
umterp85:
You have now had a chance to see it in person and “kick the tires” a bit. What is your view of the vehicle now (other than you prior comments arounf thrid row room) ?
Man, you’re like a dog with a bone. Once again and for the record, I predict the Flex will be a hit. There’s many a slip between the cup and the lip, but the basics are there: style, space, price, ye olde initial build quality, SYNC, etc.
I reckon the Flex is the xB Toyota should have built. Almost literally. There are plenty of questions though, most important of which: will it steal sales from the Edge, Explorer and other Ford vehicles? Cannibalism ain’t pretty, or particularly profitable.
RF: “Man, you’re like a dog with a bone”
Robert…I learn from the best :)
Seriously—I ask for your post-production opinion as some in this thread can’t seem to recall any positive Flex comments. I reckon your opinion holds alot of weight in these parts.
BTW—Agree that Flex will take Explorer sales and put Taurus X out to pasture….not sure that on a per unit basis that the canibalism story will be that bad expecially considering the incentives it takes now to move the Explorer and Taurus X. I do believe that if properly positioned—the Flex and Edge can live well together.
quasimondo: And I still like it.
Robert Farago: There are plenty of questions though, most important of which: will it steal sales from the Edge, Explorer and other Ford vehicles? Cannibalism ain’t pretty, or particularly profitable.
The Taurus X never sold well in the first place, and the Explorer is dying on the vine.
With the Flex, Ford has a chance of capturing those who no longer want an Explorer, as opposed to watching those buyers migrate to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, etc.
The only thing polarizing to me is the name. I thought AM learned his lesson with the 500/Taurus names. This should be a Fairlane. Flex is absolutely stupid. I’ll consider purchasing when they change the name in a year and a half.
crc….could not agree more. As previously suggested…at least offer the Country Squire version
picard234 :
Mullaly gets shuttled around the complex in a Lincoln Town Car.
Whether he drives his Lexus to/from work, I don’t know…
IMHO this Flex is a turd as is the upcoming Lincoln MKS.
Excellent – misinformed people trying to make out they know what is going on at Ford. Well done sir.
You are wrong on every count. How Mulally (please note the spelling of your own CEO by the way) travels depends on a whole host of things and is of little or no concern. Either way, he drives or is driven in, FMC product.
The Flex and MKS will obviously not be ‘turds’ as you so delicately put it. The Flex is a stand out vehicle, well manufactured and admired already by consumers and press alike. Sorry to disappoint the doomsayers but Ford is very much alive and kicking. Hope that anyone working for Ford who disagrees moves on as quickly as possible.
I feel sorry for theTaurus X as I feel with the new changes, it actually is a very fine vehicle.
If only Ford had let people know about it.
The Flex and the X cannot occupy the same showroom floors without hurting each other.
To bad…I like them both.
And yes, even the Flex look…but I also loved the old Intl. Harvester looks.
Having sat in both along with the competion crossovers…these seem sooo much larger.
Very nice.
If only they had diesel.