The Detroit Free Press’ Mark Phelan is one of Motown’s most reliable cheerleaders. So it was no surprise when Phelan gushed all over the new Ford Flex back in August. “The 300,000-plus people who used to buy Ford Explorer SUVs every year are the group who will decide whether the Flex experiment pays off. If 80,000 to 120,000 of them year plunk down $35K or more for the Flex, Ford’s future immediately starts to look brighter.” Notice the if? Ah, but then… “It should.” Anyway, big whoop. Phelan does this shit for a living. But why did fellow Freep Sarah Webster shiv Phelan in this morning’s paper? “Boxy Ford Flex isn’t selling as expected in brutal market” is the most ambivalent mea culpa I’ve ever encountered (other than Richard Nixon’s remarks to David Frost). Phelan’s fellow scribe starts by cataloguing the carnage. “Earlier this year, {Ford marketing maven Jim] Farley said Ford hoped to sell between 70,000 and 100,000 of the Flex crossovers annually. At its current selling rate, though, Ford would sell about 24,000 a year.” Then she recaps Phelan’s positive review, and other positive reviews, and customers’ positive reviews. So what gives? Bad marketing! Cue Farley’s black-is-white PR thing: “Farley said the market conditions are so bad that it’s tough to tell how the Flex would be selling otherwise. Putting aside the lower-than-expected sales volume, Farley said the Flex has actually been a success.” In other words, the operation’s a success but the patient’s dead. Focus people! Focus!
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Inspired by the comments on my Flex-Traverse comparison, I posted about the Ford Flex Flop a few days ago to TrueDelta’s blog. My hypothesis: some men really like it, but seem to be unable to convince their partners to even test drive one, much less own one.
A Ford communications dropped by today, calling my piece anecdotal (which it is) and claiming that the Flex has simply had a slow launch. Because Ford doesn’t really need the sales right now, right?
The September numbers are in, and GM sold about seven times as many Lambdas. This relative performance is not subject to economic conditions.
Unless the Flex really starts to grow on people–and public opinion hasn’t irretrievably negative the way it was for the Aztek–t’s a flop.
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=275
Per Kicking Tires, there’s now up to $2500 cash back. Financing is as low as 0.9% for 36 months.
The concept Fairlane had subtle but different proportions than the production Flex. Looking at those old pictures, I’m guessing that the Fairlane had gobs of headroom but limited hip and leg room, perfect for ferrying Formula One drivers. This being vehicle intended for America, however, meant that it would grow wider.
I’ve said it before, but if Ford wanted to build a wagon, they should have just built a wagon. The Germans and the Sweeds can do it, so can Ford.
Same upscale-ish interior, same target market, same price, without the goofy ‘next big thing’ styling. Did Ford really think they could fool people that this wasn’t just another family truckster? Clark Griswold would have loved the Flex.
It seems like all the reviewers like the Flex but people won’t buy it. It should be selling at least 5000 pcs per month even in a down market.
Darn customers!
They’re too expensive for current market conditions. Ford is loading the cars on the lot with all kinds of options leading to $$$ sticker shock. I’m not sure I would even test drive a $40K Flex – I’m afraid it would get scratched or something. GM is more desperate, they have quite a few 08 Lamdas (okay thousands of them) rotting on the lot waiting to be sold at bargain basement prices.
If I really wanted a Flex I’d wait until this time next year when Ford will be even more desperate to sell them. Perhaps it’s time to do a Employee Pricing + 0% for 72 month incentive??
I would have bought it but my wife really, really hated the “hearse” look.
I’ll get the CTS wagon instead, probably.
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….
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?
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.
@ 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.
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. :)
@ 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?
Richard, the original concept was built atop the Fusion and was about a foot shorter than the production vehicle.
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.
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.
Well it is simple. It costs too much and only gets 19mpg.
If they would have BUILT the Fairlane and CALLED IT the Fairlane….
I still think it will be a hit as the Volvo V100, if it has good build quality.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.