An eagle-eyed TTAC commentator unearthed this little gem from AutoWeek of April ’07. Like Mr. Chen, I think it’s sufficiently germane (House Bunny!) to last month’s Flex sales that it deserves resurrection. “The pivotal moment in the Flex’s development came, Ford design chief J Mays said, when he and his North American lieutenant, Peter Horbury, convinced the rest of the organization that rear sliding doors cost too much. Even though the Fairlane concept that inspired the Flex had suicide doors, the production vehicle was being planned with rear sliders. ‘When we took the sliding doors off, suddenly there was money in the product program freed up magically to put higher-grade materials, fantastic-quality leather, 8-inch DVD drop-down screen in the back, optional refrigerator, glass roof,’ Mays said. “Suddenly money was falling from the heavens because we didn’t have those damn sliding doors on it anymore.” So, Ford says it sold 1,959 Flexes in September, 7552 year-to-date. (Early sales stats were pinned on a slow roll-out.) Meanwhile, Ford’s “other crossovers” have tanked. The Ford Edge slipped 43 percent for the month, while the Taurus X was down 63 percent. Should the Flex have been a minivan? Or… not bothered in the first place, and promoted the Hell out of the X instead?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I think that’s a crock of shit. The engineering cost can’t be that much. But, if someone in management thought that regular doors would sell more than sliding doors, then perhaps some more money was “freed-up”. More vehicles sold = increased revenues = more money “freed-up” to put in r&d = percieved premium interior = higher price = increased revenues. But it is a nice thought that someone actually thought that some more money invested in r&d actually can increase sales and revenue.
I don’t have an easy way to access the archives of TTAC by date. You should go back to mid-2006 and identify what you had posted about the upcoming minivan market at that time. I’d wager that their product group needed to make a “sliding door or conventional door” decision very early in the game.
Hindsight isn’t always 20/20 – there’s no way to determine if 2 sliding doors or 1 sliding door and a fixed panel would have yielded success. Based on the feedback of people who dislike the Flex… the customers usually stay away because of perceived poor mpg (even though it’s almost best in class, it seems it’s easy to shy away from this entire class of product). Second is the high price. Third is usually the polarizing styling.
The mpg is what it is – physics determines this. The affordable engine and transmission technology we have today coupled with the emissions requirements results in vehicles of this class with this mpg. DI-Turbo or hybrid adds too much cost that customers don’t want to pay for. This is evident in how so many people here keep saying that they think a $2,000 price premium for advanced technology is way too much. Which leads me to the next item.
The price is something American automakers have screwed themselves with in the past, which makes it almost impossible to sustain their business. If you compare the transaction price of an automobile as a % of their income of Americans versus other countries, you’ll find that Americans have it easy. Americans feel it is their entitlement to be able to drive nice cars for cheap. Even the requirements to get a license in America is relaxed versus most developed nations. American Auto has let people have their cake and eat it too – and they found a way to prosper with that business model.
Unfortunately, cars aren’t as profitable as they once were. But the carmakers cannot request higher prices since the population has been spoiled for decades. Ford actually delivered a vehicle with an excellent interior and chassis feel. Take off your race helmet and just drive the car as a normal person – the Flex rates very well. But in the end, regardless of how good the car is, other automakers have reasonable substitutes that are much cheaper.
Styling is always subjective. There are already some great products that cater to the least common denominator in style (Toyota). Ford chose to target a different customer with the Flex and Edge. The problem is, the customers that like style don’t allow a car to retain high volume over time. Those customers don’t want a car that is 3 years old – they want a car that is a new and fresh. If the Flex isn’t even able to attract buyers now, it’ll turn out like the Dodge Nitro. The irony is that many people felt the Nitro (assuming you wanted it built) could have been an “hit” as a FWD utility vehicle with a nice interior.
Ingvar: Since you seem to know the answer, how much do you know it costs in investment $ and added variable cost per unit to put in 2 power sliding doors in place of a conventional setup? I’m assuming you have knowledge that the Ford/Volvo D3 platform could be used in this execution without a complete tear-up.
“American Auto has let people have their cake and eat it too – and they found a way to prosper with that business model.”
They found a way of prosper with the business model of letting the rest of the world pay for their taste in cheap cars. Prices in Europe are at least 40% higher, thankyouverymuch…
“Ingvar: Since you seem to know the answer, how much do you know it costs in investment $ and added variable cost to put in 2 power sliding doors in place of a conventional setup? I’m assuming you have knowledge that Ford D3 platform could be used in this execution without a complete tear-up.”
No, I don’t know the answer, I don’t know the cost, and I don’t have the knowledge. But since the D3 spawned an SUV (Volvo XC90), a sedan (Ford 500/Taurus) and a minivan (Flex), common sense tells me that the cost differentiation between having or not a couple of sliding doors can’t equal the cost of “higher-grade materials, fantastic-quality leather, 8-inch DVD drop-down screen in the back, optional refrigerator, glass roof,”. It just doesn’t add up. The money for the upscale interior and equipment must have come from somewhere else. And it was probably a marketing decision concerning real/percieved quality.
When Mercedes-Benz engineered their cars like no other car in the world, their business model was to charge a 50% premium with a 25% extra investment in r&d and engineering. And people bought into that, as their cars obviously was built of a higher standard. That little trick is much used nowadays in the so called premium segment, especially by Volkswagen. Charge a 25& premium with only 5% going into extra engineering. The difference between Volkswagen and Mercedes is the difference between real and percieved quality improvement.
Mercedes recent quality problems comes from them lowering their quality standard in quest for bigger revenues. But they are tapping into their customer confidence when doing that. The point of all this, I think Ford put some extra money into the interior of the Flex, to make the car more upscale, and thus enabling them to charge more money for it. And for a premium car, sliding doors are simply not hip enough. It is as simple as that.
Sales would be even worse with sliders. The doors aren’t the issue here.
holydonut pretty well covers what is.
Were sliding doors crucial? I dunno about that. I question whether the Flex should have been launched in the first place. This strikes me as a good example of how model proliferation has gotten way out of hand. Why didn’t they instead improve upon the (poorly renamed) Taurus X?
My sense is that they didn’t go that route for two reasons: 1) Ford would lose face for abandoning the minivan market without displaying a flashy foray into a new one; and 2) J Mays seemed to think that the Flex’s styling direction would be the Next Big Thing.
Not surprised that it wasn’t. I think that the Flex is ugly — and powerfully illustrates what’s wrong with Ford’s American arm. Those guys are remarkably tone deaf to a fast-changing market. Maybe America isn’t quite ready for a largely Europeanized lineup, but how could Ford do any worse than it has under the corn-fed old boys?
BTW: What did Ford see in J Mays, anyway? He strikes me as in way over his head.
Sliding doors equals minivan.
Minivan buyers want minivans.
If you are building a car for people who need a minivan, but won’t buy one due to anti-minivan snobbery, then don’t put sliding doors on it.
Ingvar, my take is not that engineering costs had much to do with it, but that the recurring costs of sliding doors were the issue. Engineering costs are usually lost in the noise compared to recurring component costs on a mass-market product.
If Ford had settled on an invoice of, say, $27K, with a certain gross margin, then what Mays said makes some sense (except the part about the options, which should pay for themselves). And they probably believed that an upgraded base interior would sell more vehicles than sliding doors – I can’t say I blame them for that notion.
The problem with the Flex, IMO, is that its styling is too radical for a market segment that was rocked by the meteoric rise in fuel prices over the last year. It’s big and boxy and screams “MPGs, what MPGs?” It might have seemed fresh and sold well in the market of 2006, when a gallon of gas was a couple of bucks, but it rolled out when fuel was roughly twice that price.
Sliding doors equals minivan.
Minivan buyers want minivans.
If you are building a car for people who need a minivan, but won’t buy one due to anti-minivan snobbery, then don’t put sliding doors on it.….
That pretty much sums up why dumping the sliders was a smart idea. Like it or not, the stigma associated with the “minivan” – which is hardly mini today- would have been a deal breaker for many. Too bad, though. Sliders would have made this vehicle unique.
I think the general public, and some people here at TTAC seems lost on who the Flex was made for. After some twenty odd years of dismal sales and me-too offerings in the minivan market, Ford finally catered for those who needed a minivan but didn’t want the soccer-mom cachet of minivans. The Flex is more upscale, and has a style and presence unheard of in that category. They offer something that none of their competitors do. And that was a really sharp move.
Thus, tapping into the art director/web designer-crowd, who thinks the Mini looks really neat, but needs something bigger to haul the family. Thus, upscale interior, no sliding-doors, and “polarizing design”. And for those in the post-post-ironic generation, it would be a nice statement if it had faux-wood cladding as well. Perhaps I am in demographic for that car, because I really liked it. If I needed a family-hauler, the Flex is what I would buy, on style alone.
Ingvar, your argument makes sense. However, holydonut also makes the useful point that a styling exercise is going to have a more volatile and perhaps short-lived existence. In addition, I don’t think Ford’s execution was terribly good. Why copy the Mini so slavishly when Ford has a rich heritage it could plausibly draw upon in ways that build brand equity rather than throws up the white flag? In a very real sense, the design direction of the Flex suggests a strikingly lack of corporate self confidence.
“Ingvar, my take is not that engineering costs had much to do with it, but that the recurring costs of sliding doors were the issue. Engineering costs are usually lost in the noise compared to recurring component costs on a mass-market product.”
No, this issue is not based on engineering costs, but business decisions.
If the car sells more with sliding doors, then add sliding doors.
If the cars sells more with an upscale interior, then add upscale interior.
I really think Ford thought they had a segment buster on their hand. And I really think J Mays thought the Flex would be the “next big thing”. The problems with the Flex is that the market changed between incept date and completion. Perhaps it is the right car in the wrong time? I don’t know why the Flex doesn’t sell, but there is nothing wrong with the concept of the car itself, or its execution. When it came out, I thought it would be a hit.
“In addition, I don’t think Ford’s execution was terribly good. Why copy the Mini so slavishly when Ford has a rich heritage it could plausibly draw upon in ways that build brand equity rather than throws up the white flag?”
I think it works fine. The design do it for me, more so than any other minivan offering. Perhaps it is a generationl thing? Though, Ford made a terrible marketing flunder when they named the car “Flex” instead of “Fairlane”. Fairlane would have suited that car like a glove, it fits with the heritage and brand equity. Flex, on the other hand, doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. Terrible, terrible mistake.
Ingvar:
As John McEnroe used to say, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars Ford put into naming the Flex?
First, there’s the initial brief. Then the creatives get cracking. Then hundreds of hours of marketing meetings, followed by consumer clinics. Followed by more management meetings. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
What I wouldn’t give to not hear some of the meetings…
We tested the names. People like Flex.
Flex?
Yes. Like flexible.
I like it! A vehicle that’s suitable for all your family’s needs. Ready when you are.
And flexible like limber. Not like big over-muscled SUVs.
Yes! But at the same time, Flex like flexing your muscles. You know for buyers who don’t want a girly minivan.
But not steroidal like SUVs. Strong but flexible.
You mean like limber.
Yes. But not girly.
Like a tight end.
A what?
That’s a football position. Tight end.
Grown men call themselves a tight end? Seriously?
Let’s focus people.
Yeah, look how THAT turned out…
What else do we have?
Fairlane.
What’s that?
A Ford name.
What do you mean? There’s already a vehicle named Fairlane?
Not now.
You mean not yet?
No, not now. Before.
Before what?
Before this one.
Why would we name this one after that one?
Which one?
The Fairlane.
I hate it. Reminds me of bowling.
Football’s way better than bowling.
Is it more popular?
Sure! I mean, I think so. We can look into that…
Is there overlap?
I like the fact that it’s fair. People like fairness.
But fair also means not so great. You know; how are things going? Fair to midland.
Don’t we like the midland?
No, we like the heartland.
We do. But we also like the coasts.
Coasts have highways. The heartland has lanes.
You mean bowling lanes?
No, country lanes. You know: roads.
It’s middling.
What’s middling?
Fair to middling. Not fair to midland. Fair to middling.
I don’t like “lings.” It implies small. Ducklings. Siblings.
Siblings aren’t necessarily small.
Yes, they are. Siblings are younger brothers or sisters.
Isn’t an older brother the sibling of the younger one?
What do you mean?
Aren’t they both siblings?
What’s this got to do with Fairlane?
Wasn’t there a comedian named Ford Fairlane? I think he owns the copyright.
How could he own the copyright? It’s a car.
The comedian’s a car?
Forget it. Let’s go with Flex.
Done. Now, what about the MKS?
I don’t like lings either.
Fairlane might have been a hip nameplate in the 1950s, when it was first used, but today it has a decidedly dated quality. I could see Ford using Fairlane on a vehicle that directly appealed to older, long-time Ford buyers, but that doesn’t sound like the Flex’s primary target.
Ingvar,
If you (admittedly) don’t know what you’re talking about, then how can you manage to be so sure of yourself?
There is engineering cost, and there is variable cost . . . but don’t forget Facilities and Tooling costs. That is what makes or breaks a program. It’s entirely possible that adding sliding rear doors would lead to a nine-figure increase in the F&T costs. You can wail about ‘flexible manufacturing’ all you want, but the fact is you can’t account for every flexibility in a plant, and sometimes a seemingly minor change can drive hundreds of millions of dollars in added investment to accommodate it.
I’ve noticed that many posters here automatically blame every disagreement with their own personal viewpoint as being due to management stupidity or greed. It’s time to take a deep breath and acknowledge that it’s as likely (or more likely) to be due to your own ignorance.
While not 100% true, many decisions are made within a set of hard constraints that limit what is and is not possible. For whatever historical reason, the domestics have more constraints on them, and therefore must make more thoroughly compromised decisions. Those of you who think you could simply introduce your own particular brand of ‘intelligence’ and ‘ethics’ and lead one of these companies would either repeat the same ‘mistakes’, or make your own and simply die a different death.
So . . . while I don’t know the particulars, I’d be more willing to bet that based on the quote we’ve seen, the lack of sliding doors was in fact driven by financials. Not by greed, nor by a sub-Ingvar intelligence level.
Ah Robert, that is comedy gold.
However, having been a marketing person at one point in my life, it sounds like a few meetings that I’ve attended. So… it’s also sad at the same time because you know they pulled the name out of their collective asses and got “consensus”. Meh.
I thought about the Flex at one point. My g/f and I like to take trips, we have 2 large dogs and I have 2 older teenage children that accompany us occasionally. I stopped and looked at one and boy it’s big. Hoo boy, it’s really big. More than I need. As others have said, it is more of a minivan for people who don’t want a minivan.
I ended up buying a low-mileage 4 year old Grand Cherokee for basically wholesale. If I take the amount I saved in purchase price (assuming $28K for the Flex OTD, 19 overall mpg for the GC and $3.50 gasoline), I can drive the Grand for almost 120,000 miles. While I have to put some stuff on the roof if I have kids and dogs on a trip, the Grand is 20″ shorter, 3″ narrower and is only one inch taller than the Flex.
The Fairlane concept was a great idea, but now I am not sure who the Flex was really aimed at.
There is a dealer in San Diego, Ca advertising a Flex for $21,989 (including a 4,000 credit from trading in any car).
If I wanted a family hauler right now I’d snap that up. I have to admit for that price it has me sold. Otherwise 18 mpg combined doesn’t do much for me when I can get a new truck for $10-15K around the same combined mpg.
Ford should have priced this (again as others have said and I have for a long time) not with the expectation of the same SUV profit margins. Sure they worry about losing sales of high margin SUVs but they to realize they will only lose customers in the meantime. Trying and focusing on high margin options as well and losing the base models basically represents why Ford and Chevy have lost major market share.
Is there anyone else who has noticed when they (GM/Ford) dropped the stripped down base model cars and trucks they started losing customers? It is better to sell more cars and trucks period because otherwise they lose the customer to someone else. Trying a strategy to go up market only decreases the market share more and more and more and more. GM will eventually just be selling cars to those other people who can afford a $40,000 Flex during a recession, not to the masses.
Otherwise, the Flex is damn nice looking car. But when I saw one drive by, the guy looked like he was a child in this thing. do the seats really sit that low down???
I just want to add to dkulmacz’s point… if anyone reading this site can commit to knowing a vehicle will be a high-volume market success in 2011, please go submit your plan to an automaker now.
But keep in mind that this car must achieve other metrics above and beyond reasonable retail sales (since every pundit loves to look at retail sales). This vehicle must also be developed with reasonable R&D, Fixed Asset Investment, and be able to be built by workers in a normal Unionized production plant. The vehicle must also have reasonable variable margins during its life time.
If in 2011, your car is sub-standard, then we all reserve the right call you a greedy punk who doesn’t understand what the customer wants.
Ford is in a no-win situation here. First, they didn’t want to do the same-old, same-old, even admitted that the style was polarizing –and still people criticize the styling. This is after they get bashed (by the same people?) for being too conservative (500/new Taurus).
When they did a conventional minivan (Aerostar, Windstar, Freestar) it just didn’t sell as well as the market leaders, so finally they tried something else, something VERY different –and still people criticize the effort.
I’ll never defend J Mays but, FWIW, he did try to appease the critics.
Maybe the Flex’s timing sucks, maybe the design is too polarizing, maybe they need sliders, maybe it’s too expensive, who knows –it could be a combo platter of all of the above. But Ford did try. They put in the nice msterials that they got criticized for not putting in previous models. Suppose they put in sliders and was forced to scrimp on material quality –then they would be bashed here, too.
Again, Ford is in a no-win situation.
Next thing, we’ll hear someone bashing Ford for bringing the Fiesta over…
If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit.
I’m not sure how dropping the Flex’ rear sliding doors gave Ford the financial room to offer higher grade optional materials and features. What does an extra-cost DVD player have to do with sliding doors?
Lousy design, engineering and quality killed the domestic minivans, not rear sliding doors. Honda and Toyota still sell lots of them notwithstanding premium pricing.
“If you (admittedly) don’t know what you’re talking about, then how can you manage to be so sure of yourself?”
Give me hard numbers and prove me wrong. Give me numbers that factually states sliding doors are so-and-so much more expensive than regular ones, in a magnitude that equals the addition of “higher-grade materials, fantastic-quality leather, 8-inch DVD drop-down screen in the back, optional refrigerator, glass roof”. Then I will gladly stand in the corner. Until then, I say that statement is a crock of shit.
And about people not knowing what they are talking about, I say that 90% of what is stated in these comments sections is personal opinions and severe bullshit provided by happy amateurs writing for fun. There’s not many people here that actually knows for a fact that what they are talking about is the absolute truth and certainty. It’s merely a question of personal opinions. There have even been moments where Robert Farago has been proven wrong.
So, I really don’t understand what fuzz is all about. I just tried to prevent further argumentation by saying when questioned that I did not know for a fact, and if I hadn’t done that, I would have been attacked further in my opinions. Call it pre-emptive damage control, it’s only a mechanism of rhetoric and argumentation. The point is, no one really knows these facts, unless someone with real intelligence comes forward and puts those on the table, and if so, my opinion in any matter is as valid as anybody elses. As long as I can back up my argumentation with any logic or sense. And that goes for the rest of you as well…
“Wasn’t there a comedian named Ford Fairlane? I think he owns the copyright.
How could he own the copyright? It’s a car.
The comedian’s a car?”
RF, if you ever get tired of the auto biz, Hollywood is in desperate need of sitcom script doctors. ROTFL…
(OK, now I’ve recovered) I don’t buy the connection between dropping the sliding doors idea and “suddenly there was money in the product program freed up magically.” R&D means Research and Development. Jeez, how much R&D is needed for sliding doors, which Detroit has been doing for decades? Incremental production costs can’t be all that much either.
The thing is, when people first saw the Flex they also saw $40K Monroney stickers. Ford forgot what an instant smash hit the Mustang was. When it came out the ads made a big deal of the low price (about $2,300 IIRC–menno would know) on this stylish coupe. With the Flex, Ford repeated their pricing mistake with the revived Thunderbird, which wasn’t hobbled by a no-heritage name.
Maybe the Flex should have been a Lincoln, with a name like “Capri” or “Premiere.” No cryptographic letters, please.
Robert:
“As John McEnroe used to say, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars Ford put into naming the Flex? “
It doesn’t matter. Flex is a bad name, Fairlane is a good name. Flex doesn’t mean a thing, where Fairlane has connotations of heritage and history. Don’t forget that “Fairlane” also was the name of the Fords family estate. A rose by any other name? It doesn’t matter how many millions are buried in the branding and naming circus, if the name they finally chose are as dead as a dodo. Ford should have learnt that lessons with the Edsel disaster.
I did read a review that the parents with 4 kids and bags for a trip the Flex returned 21.6 mpg over 812 miles. Good mileage.
The downside was the disparity between the second and third row. The bucket seat second row was comfortable while the third sucked. Kids wouldn’t shut up. Not to mention with the third row up, 6 people and bags meant putting next to nothing in the bags. There was very little room behind the third row.
I guess the majority of people do not bother getting a trailer or external hitch mounted trunk baggage holder.
I think holydonut has come closest to the truth here… let’s first review a couple facts and then we can return to why the Flex’s sales are slow.
Farley mentioned on the July or August sales call that Flex was enjoying Ford’s highest customer satisfaction at launch ever (even higher than the Edge that rolled on to become the best selling midsize CUV last year). This month, Farley talked about conquest rates in this market and noted that Flex had the highest conquest among Ford vehicles – and while I’m sure that could mean anywhere from 30-50%, what was more significant is the skew in the profile of customers trading in: luxury owners, particularly import luxury owners.
Why? Ford’s original demographic was the SUV owner who was trading down to something more fuel-efficent; from the Expedition/Tahoe or Explorer/4Runner to the Flex. The pricing in the Flex was set up to raise the price point for Fords to Honda/Toyota levels at equal equipment but still fall below that of, say, an Expedition. So, why is it skewing differently? The inability to trade-in your SUV without taking a bath in depreciated, unwanted, junk-status SUV-ness. No one *can* trade-in their SUVs! So, who does that leave shopping at that price point? Some CUV drivers, a few minivan drivers, and luxury nameplate owners.
Now, let’s look at the two complaints levied at the Flex: is gas mileage the problem? Yes and no. Yes in that a huge number of people just aren’t shopping the segment because they don’t see at least city mileage around 20. The retail mid-size/large CUV market was down around 40% last month. Ford may have moved 3,000-3,500 units in September if the markets were trending like they were last year. But, the answer is no, in that it is competitive with anything in its vague class (let’s say seating, size and non-hybrid – it’s even better than the less powerful, smaller Pilot) and gets much better gas mileage than BOF truck-based utility vehicles.
Is it price? Again, yes and no. No, because if you price a Flex with similar content to an Odyssey or Sienna or Highlander or GM Lambda, you’ll find that the Flex is equivalently priced for size/features, etc. But, it’s also yes, because the actual transaction price (due to lower discounts than what you’ll find on SUVs) is higher than what Ford has charged for comparably equipped/sized vehicles recently, and with the market as it is, people are more sensitive to price than style. It’s true that the SUV crowd is used to paying more so could probably understand the price, but they can’t trade-in their SUV to save their life. Someone moving up from, say, a Freestyle, probably saw a sticker of $32000 and paid $24000. But the Flex prices higher (and it is, in fact, far superior to the Taurus X) and still has low discounts, comparably. So, that leaves basically luxury buyers. But most luxury buyers are people with good credit, some sense of financial responsibility. And few in that group are going to be swinging for a big ticket item unless they need to.
It’s been sort of the perfect storm. I’m sure I could oversimplify the debate and focus on what Ford might have done (because obviously if the Flex is only seeing a 30k/year sales rate, it has to be Ford’s fault and not the market at all). But in reality, Ford’s target audience is stuck because of low residuals and the industry as a whole is in the crapper. I suppose that means Ford failed. Not that the Flex is a bad vehicle. Frankly, if you like its exterior, the Flex is probably the best vehicle in its class and certainly the best that has come from the Blue Oval in a very long time. But failed in that they set our expectations within the context of different market conditions and launched a product that, while stellar, is not what people can buy right now either by choice or by financial restrictions. And as a result, instead of focusing on what Ford got *right* – and they got a lot right – we’re asking what Ford may have got wrong.
If you believe the research, a feature like sliding doors would have been a hard sell. If they didn’t hurt Flex sales, they likely would not have budged them much. The cost of engineering the platform for sliders was in the tens of millions because of the safety ratings Ford was shooting for. The variable costs of manufacturing to support a feature that likely would have appeared on maybe 10-20% of vehicles was not insignificant either. At the end of the day, I don’t think Ford made the wrong decision. If they went that way and traded off some of the interior refinement, they would have been skewered even more deeply by the editors and perusers of this board.
I think Ford’s biggest mistake was talking up the Flex too much, placing our expectations where they could never match the reality of what the industry now faces. As to whether or not the Flex can succeed in the long-run, that depends on both what the industry and Ford do next.
Gardiner,
If you plan on selling 30,000 vehicles a year, and it costs you $30M to change your line and your tools to allow sliding doors, that is $1000 per vehicle in the first year, or about $330 per vehicle over three years. If you don’t spend the $30M for the doors, then you can afford to add $330 worth of content to your vehicle, sell it at the same price, and provide the same margin.
That is what sliding doors have to do with extra-cost DVD players.
50merc,
Again, it’s not Research & Development, it’s Facilities and Tooling. If the plant where the Flex is built was not set up to accommodate sliding doors, then that would need to be changed. That costs money. Sometimes lots of money. That’s not something that can be mitigated by experience or good engineering . . . unless you planned for that flexibility the last time you changed the plant, you’re stuck spending the money.
dkulmacz – very few people would believe that the tooling/plant-costs would run $30M to allow sliding doors because that type of money is counter-intuitive. Heck, some people posting here think you can fund a completely new platform and all the vendor tooling for a volume automobile for about $500M.
You won’t convince the armchair pundit unless you whip out a internal memo showing the cost build-up. Same thing goes for the expected millions you have to spend to develop the door and the extra costs incurred with reinforcing the unibody to have the requisite crash ratings in spite of a big hole in the side of the car.
Also, don’t forget that sliding doors in general have a higher material cost and warranty to execute on a variable basis. Opting for regular doors means you have bucket loads of money to spend on other things, but you’ll never be able to convince them of the indirect consequences. For most people, a door is just a door.
But in the end, the problem for the automaker is that it needs to have the right answer planned out years in advance. If they cannot figure out a way to deliver what the customer wants – it’s just a big case of “coulda-shoulda.” In the case of the Flex, they went so far into the mindset of up-contenting that they delivered a car few could afford even if they felt compelled to purchase it. I think the Japanese are much more in tune with the slow progress and steady commitments necessary to develop their products. They don’t overcompensate or strive for home runs. Instead, they focus on saving a few bucks in all venues to build their vehicle programs.
I can’t say I speak from any experience, but it seems to me things like better materials and toys would have a tooling cost of almost nothing, giving them a far better ratio of perceived value/actual cost until you start selling a lot of units.
If they’d expected this to be their next big seller, the tooling costs on the sliding doors would have made sense. What I’m guessing happened is that midway through the development, they saw the SUV market take a nosedive, and decided that if this was destined to be a niche product, it makes more sense to pimp it out with a nice interior for far cheaper than the sliding doors would have cost.
donut,
I don’t know the F&T cost of sliding doors since I wasn’t involved . . . so any figure is pure conjecture and guaranteed to be wrong. But I have been involved in other programs and I’ve seen the investment driven by seemingly minor changes — the rake of the windshield, the position of the beltline, a centimeter of width — and so I would not be shocked at about any number I saw.
There are niches, and then there is the Ford ute line-up. In attempting to be all things to all people, I believe Ford has lost, er, focus. There is nothing worse than adding a new model that only pilfers sales from your existing line-up. Although the original aim was, no doubt, conquest sales. With so many overlapping models, the potential buyer can get confused. Sometimes choice really is too much of a good thing.
I rented a Flex last weekend and was completely underwhelmed. An AWD SEL, it could not get better than 21 mpg at highway speeds. A buyer looking for a 4-5 passenger midsize ute would do much better with an Escape, IMHO.
I don’t understand why Ford has three different models all aimed at the exact same segment. Flex, Edge and Taurus X are all built on the same platform and go after the same market. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Oh, and I hate the names. “Flex” and “Edge” sound like exercise machines being sold through infomercials, or the stage names of washed up guitar players. But as names for a family vehicle? Not.
“Ok hon, I will back take the Edge to go pick up the kids from practice.”
“Sure dear, let’s get a Flex, it will be great for the weekly Costco trip and our antiquing adventures.”
Doesn’t sound right, does it?
dkulmacz – Yeah, I don’t know how much the investment or the variable component cost is to go between normal doors and sliding doors. The problem is sliding doors have many other configurations, and I don’t know what they were thinking about back in late 2005 when they started planning for this vehicle. But it remains that the dollar amounts are huge, and customers don’t see the value there since a door is just a door. It better work as a portal to enter/exit the car… every other benefit is a freebie.
The funny thing is that not all sliding doors are made equal. Some sliding doors have windows that can roll down… some don’t. Dual power sliding doors have many varying mechanisms to facilitate that option; obviously some cost more than others. And with all this focus on safety, you know that door has to be one robust piece of kit so there are zero incidents of that door flying open in rollover accidents.
Personally, I think your $30M figure understates the cost. But it’s obvious that most customers really don’t care. So maybe there’s an ancillary benefit for the shrinking of the minivan segment?
The complexity of sliders is much greater than that of normally hinged doors, especially once you talk power sliding doors.
You have to design the frame to accomodate the tracks, and since you want a bigger opening, use more material to strengthen the frame. You also have to design it so that the seals, tracks, and runners last the life of the vehicle.
Too many GM products had problems with dirt getting into the tracks on the sliding doors and making them impossible to open and close. No amount of cleaning or lube would fix the problem. Customers don’t like cars with doors that can’t open.
The hinge system of a regular door has been around for a hundred years and is simple. There is no engineering that has to go into it.
One other thing. Unless Ford was going to recycle old parts from their last craptastic minivans for the sliding doors, any new part costs ~$1,000,000. That isn’t just the door, that’s any new part in the door.
I can see why ditching dual power sliders freed up enough money to upgrade the interior.
“Flex” is for Flexibility, yet most customers think it means it can run on e85.
haha, what a great name choice.
It has the retro look, why not the name. There are still people who grew up with those name of Fairlane… there is some brand equity there.
Oh, that would mean it’s a station wagon and not a CUV/SUV?
They are really trying hard to get SUV buyers. Yet as was pointed out, SUV buyers can’t trade in since their cars are worth crap now…
Note, people are wondering about the overlap of models. The Taurus X just doesn’t have towing capacity rating as the Flex [er, *cough* Fairlane] does.
Oh and the Taurus X doesn’t have arm rests for the second row… Just who the hell is getting paid for these ideas?
There are dealers selling them for $21,989 with a ($4000 trade in for any post 1995 car). If they sold all those base models at that price, well they might move a lot more metal.
OOPS! The rental I had was an Edge, not a Flex. I thought it was good looking, but average in every way. It was larger than an Escape, for example, but didn’t offer that much more people or cargo room. The driving experience was quite forgettable. Nice steering (fast and direct) but body control was poor (it felt oversprung and under damped.) I found finding a comfortable driving position rather difficult. While engine and wind noise were well attenuated, road noise was too prominent. The car felt heavy, but not particularly rigid, body wise. And the gas mileage was truly atrocious. Whatever were they thinking?
The Edge is CD3. The Flex is D3-2. Different platforms. Taurus X is a dead car driving and is on the old D3 platform. Ford doesn’t actually have three CUVs covering one area. They actually have two, but Ford will never admit the second one still exists, and it will be forgotten (and almost six months out of production) by this time next year.
This economy cares less about product excellence than it does about cash on hand.
Flex/Fairlane would have been a solid success as the direct replacement to the Windstar.
If you are building a car for people who need a minivan, but won’t buy one due to anti-minivan snobbery, then don’t put sliding doors on it.….
That pretty much sums up why dumping the sliders was a smart idea. Like it or not, the stigma associated with the “minivan” – which is hardly mini today- would have been a deal breaker for many. Too bad, though. Sliders would have made this vehicle unique.
If they wanted to vehicle to be ‘flexible’ then they needed the sliding doors. You just can’t put as large an object in a standard door opening. The baggage room is not ‘there’. And the price is too high and the mileage is too low. The styling is very controversial. Basically I think ford has their new ‘edsel’. A good vehicle but designed for the wrong century.
Robert, your last sentence nailed what is wrong with the Flex…the Taurus X.
Ford had/has a perfectly capable, feature laden, NEW, and attractive station wagon with the Taurus X. WHY DESIGN ANOTHER ONE? Why burn through all of that cash…when you don’t have it? Ford didn’t give the Taurus X a chance.
I truly think there is a bunch of baboons running FMC. How anyone could justify spending that much money on designing a vehicle they already sell s beyond me…and then, all they can come up with is the “must have been designed with a T-square” Flex. Are you kidding me?
I hope beyond hope that the Flex bombs just like the Taurus X. Maybe then Ford will realize how stupid they were burning all of that cash on it’s development.
As for the name…yes it is horrible. There is nothing “flexible” about the Flex. Ford’s so called “minivan replacement” has the cargo room of an Explorer…not a minivan. Why would anyone reasonable buyer that is looking for a family vehicle settle for the Flex and it’s 83 cubic feet of cargo space when they can get a real minivan that has 140 cubic feet of cargo space?
The Flex should have never made it past the concept stage…because Ford already had a seven seat station wagon.
The Flex is [proving to be yet another D3 failure from Ford. Why Ford is in bed with the D3 I’ll never know. It is a platform that spawns failures.
Really great post RF.
I’ve always suspected that Ford’s management meetings are similar to discussions with the members of Spinal Tap.
RobertSD:The Edge is CD3. The Flex is D3-2. Different platforms. Taurus X is a dead car driving and is on the old D3 platform. Ford doesn’t actually have three CUVs covering one area. They actually have two, but Ford will never admit the second one still exists, and it will be forgotten (and almost six months out of production) by this time next year.
The funny part is that here in northern New England, I see a few Freestar/Taurus X models on the road, and have never seen one Flex sans dealer plates.
In my simple observation, the Flex is definitely a more unique product than the Taurus-X, despite the Flex being a dressed-up minivan or wagon or whatever. The Taurus-X was simply another me-too vehicle, regardless of its quality. I feel the Flex was definitely a better product to back in that respect.
@P71_CrownVic : the Flex originally supposed to be on the CD3 platform, per the 2005 Fairlane concept’s press releases. The CD3 platform couldn’t be stretched wide and long enough, and the Flex (plus Lincoln MeerKaT) was moved to D3. Supposedly this switch was made after some of the engineering work was done – perhaps this cost a big bundle of dough, time, or both?
A few years ago there were rumors of a joint Ford/Mazda minivan project to replace the MPV/Freestar/Monterey. That got shelved, and Mazda took their CD3 platform minivan project and turned it into the CX-9, which hit the market 1 1/2 years ago.
The latest Consumer Reports arrived yesterday. They liked the Flex, ranking it above most other CUV’s, but they liked the Taurus X, too and the 2 point difference isn’t much. The Flex got 17mpg on their test route, the Taurus X 16mpg, but the taller and lighter Honda Pilot w/VCM got 18mpg. (So much for those breakthrough aerodynamics.) Scores:
Toyota Highlander: 81/100
Ford Flex: 77
Mazda CX-9: 76
GM Lambda triplets: 75
Ford Taurus X: 75
Honda Pilot: 74
The Flex should have been the S-Max, or the Galaxy, not this regurgitated “Woody” for the ED generation.
Sliding doors aren’t the real problem here. The real problem is that driving a Flex must be the automotive equivalent to arriving at work dressed as Ronald McDonald.
Can you imagine having this rolling clown suit parked in front of your house for the next few years?
Has anyone actually driven the Taurus X? I had one as a rental and really liked it. Why can’t it be the new and improved Explorer?? I think it looks like it should have been just that. Get rid of the explorer, rename the x that and go forward putting r&d into it. For God Sakes keep one line alive for once! They keep feeding us lip service about emulating the Japanese, why not try this??
I’d never buy a Flex or an Edge.
The front driver space sucks and the steering wheel doesn’t have telescoping abilities.
Buying a Flex is like buying a poor man’s Range Rover.
The Edge is cooler, but its too damned small.