Ford is accustomed to leaving products to die on the vine: Crown Victoria, Lincoln LS, Ranger, etc. Apparently, no more. Speaking to Automotive News [sub] about the Flex, Ford's design director Horbury found it "odd" that the design team is already working on a reworked design while the vehicle is still brand new. "To be working on the next one immediately is quite unnerving. It is strange, really." According to Horbury, the Flex's doors, greenhouse and glass are staying put; everything else is up to the designers. As those three elements are especially trick, we think this is the right kinda bold movement. And if you consider the money-making Mustang's countless iterations as mid-cycle refreshes, this type of thinking is doubly true. It sounds as if we can expect big changes, especially as Ford's internal research has shown that small changes aren't enough to bolster sales. Proof, pudding, time, tell.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
A while back I read the book CAR which was about the redesigned 1996 Taurus, and when the redesigned 1992 Taurus was out they were already working on the 1996, and when the 1996 Taurus was released they were already working on the year 2000 refresh. It seems Ford has been working on redesigns in this sort of fashion for years. Now, however, they are actually trying to get them to market sooner. The book also mentioned that Ford was trying to cut development time in refreshes and bring things more inline with the Japanese marquees. Too bad it took 10 years for that to become a reality.
From what I hear they are working much harder to improve cycle time and to make more dramatic mid cycle refreshes. This is a much better strategy then spending all resources decontenting products to match their falling demand, as was done in the not too distant past. Hopefully there are still enough engineers around after the next round of cuts to keep this going…
Personally I’d rather see a full refresh every 5 years, than new headlights every 3.
Am I missing something? The doors, greenhouse, and glass? That’s 80% of the Flex! So what exactly can they change, other than the headlights, taillights, grille, and bumpers? Maybe the front fenders?
Just because they are doing this every 3 years instead of 4 or 5 does not make it news. This is the kind of fake PR that Autoblog swoons over.
rodster205 :Am I missing something? The doors, greenhouse, and glass? That’s 80% of the Flex! So what exactly can they change, other than the headlights, taillights, grille, and bumpers? Maybe the front fenders?
Fenders, quarter panels, dashboards, seats, interior/exterior door skins…its a large chunk of the car. Probably costs several million dollars to make it happen.
Good idea to speed up the cycle. But I’ll believe it when I see it.
rodster205 :
Am I missing something? The doors, greenhouse, and glass? That’s 80% of the Flex! So what exactly can they change, other than the headlights, taillights, grille, and bumpers? Maybe the front fenders?
Um, that leaves the entire front clip open for change, the wheels, rear fascia, and the door skins. That’s a lot when talking about design. By doors, he’s talking about the shape, not the sheetmetal.
Back in the mid-1950s through early-1960s, they were working on entirely new designs even before they launched the current one.
So it can be done, especially with all the computing power they could ask for at their disposal.
It is good to hear they might finally realize that simply redoing the fascias is a waste of money. Too few people can tell the difference when the changes are so small. Toyota and Honda are at least as guilty of this as anyone else.
How quickly an industry forgets. Through the 1960s Detroit was a master of annual refreshes and complete redesigns every 3-6 years. The famous tri-five Chevys of 1955, 56 and 57 all differ in the details from one another, and are very different from the 1954s and 1958s.
Sprucing the car up every year to create new car lust was an essential part of the car makers games. The European companies like VW, Volvo and others made a counter-culture point of not doing this and stood out a little for being different by not being different any year.
When emissions regulations, safety regulations and gas supply crunches hit in the 1970s Detroit got knocked off it’s game and in many ways has never recovered. Meanwhile, the major Japanese players settled into a rhythm of complete redesigns for their best sellers every five to six years, often with a mid-cycle mild refresh as a kicker. The Accord, for example, had an all-new design for 2003, a refresh (new tail treatment, etc.) in 2006 and was already all new again for 2008.
So Mr. Horbury, that is how it is done if you want to be a real player in the competitive market.
Don’t forget the Accord got all red tail lights in 2005!!! I’m sure that gave ’em a sales edge. Of course, for ’06 they got all new lights, so the edge must have not been enough.
Well, Ford said last year that refreshes would be every 3 years with new top hats and some platform updates at 6 years. Completely new platforms, ground up, every 12. This isn’t new news, just a little PR for a slow news day.
John Horner:
Sprucing the car up every year to create new car lust was an essential part of the car makers games. The European companies like VW, Volvo and others made a counter-culture point of not doing this and stood out a little for being different by not being different any year.
Don’t forget that it was much easier/cheaper to redesign the body shell when most of the cars back then were BOF.
Incidentally, to Jonny’s point, the Crown Victoria is supposed to be getting a “refresh” in 2009 just before they take the platform out behind the barn.
“if you consider the money-making Mustang’s countless iterations as mid-cycle refreshes”
I dont.
I dont understand Ford’s reasoning on a new Mustang special edition every six months, but hey whatever floats your boat. However, for the 95% of Mustang buyers, the car hasnt changed since 2005. And is 2010 the update? Five years? For an update? The last gen lasted 10 years. And it got regular updates, but it LASTED TEN YEARS. Can we say 14 years on the one before that???? Granted the ’87 update was pretty huge, but even that took 8 years since the ’79 intro.
No, Ford has a BAD history of updates. Special editions dont cut it.
Every time a new model debuts, I try to guess what the two or three year update will look like. (It used to be two years for the Japanese cars, now it seems to be three.) Eg, I’m thinking the next Camry will have a smoother nose and new tailights this year. You might even be able to count on new engines if new ones dont debut in the generation changeovers. Camry as an example again, I’m anticipating a new 4 cylinder engine. (Anticpating is a strong word, since I dont actually desire Camrys, just using them as an example, but I digress…)
Anyhoo…Ford needs this philosophy. 2-4-8. 2 year refresh, 4 year completely new gen, 8 year all new platform. Or even 3-5-9. Or anything remotely similar. Maybe they’re finally learning.
The last gen lasted 10 years. And it got regular updates, but it LASTED TEN YEARS. Can we say 14 years on the one before that???? Granted the ‘87 update was pretty huge, but even that took 8 years since the ‘79 intro.
Actually, the Mustang stayed on the same basic Fox chassis platform, with only structural and cosmetic modifications, from 1979 to 2003. The 1994 refresh primarily included changing the look, adding stiffeners and insulation to reduce NVH, and new engines. They were planning on making it brand new in 1987, but with front wheel drive and a V-6, which was probably the dumbest idea Ford ever had and resulted in a huge mess resulting in the Ford Probe. I mean, they pretty much missed the concept of a muscle car entirely.
So yeah, Ford’s refresh cycle sucks. At least they understood the concept of the Ranger (Ranger=compact truck, not midsize) and chose not to supersize the thing, which is more than can be said of Toyota, Chevy, and Nissan.
What killed the annual facelift were rising costs for safety and pollution equipment, along with model proliferation.
In 1955-57 it was easy for GM to bring out a heavily facelifted Chevrolet every year because Chevrolet sold two cars – the “standard” Chevrolet and the Corvette.
By 1967, Chevrolet was selling the Corvette and the standard Chevrolet, along with the Chevelle/Malibu, the Chevy II/Nova and the Corvair. By 1971 Chevrolet would lose the Corvair, but add the Vega and the Monte Carlo. With that number of models, there was no way that GM could afford to facelift EVERY Chevrolet every year – or even every two years.
Note that as Honda, for example, has introduced more new models, it has also stretched out the model cycle of the Accord and Civic from four years to five.