What’s it with Ford and sliding doors? After getting its butt kicked by every minivan manufacturer known to man (excepting GM and including a descendant Chrysler), the Blue Oval Boyz got out of the minivan biz. Ford then got it into their head that there’s a huge swath of American consumers who want a minivan, but won’t buy it because it’s a minivan. “Sliding doors carry a stigma, which is why the minivan has fallen” out of favor with some US buyers, Ford group vice president of global product development Derrick Kuzak told Automotive News [sub]. Instead of selling these minivan refugees an existing SUV or CUV, Dearborn’s darlings spent billions developing a car that looks like something between a scaled-up MINI Clubman and a funeral hearse (a.k.a. the Flex). Wrong answer. And just in case that answer wasn’t wrong enough, Ford’s bringing over the C-Max. It’s a seven passenger vehicle—with hidden sliding doors! So it’s not a minivan. It’s not a wagon. It’s not a Flex (whatever that is). It’s a . . . “multi-activity vehicle.”
So, no more of that minivan niche sales stuff then, right? Mass market is where it’s at! Only . . .
Today, U.S. competitors for the seven-passenger C-Max would include the Mazda5 and the Kia Rondo. The Chevrolet Orlando will arrive in 2011.
Strange; I can’t find the Mazda5 on Automotive News‘ spreadsheet. OK, her name is Rio. Last month, Kia sold 6,951 units, for an eight-month, year-to-date total of 20,422. Guess how many went into rental fleets? Seriously, I don’t know. But I’m betting it was a lot (so to speak).
What are the odds the C-Max will take the market by storm? And can Ford please stop making new models now?
RF: Did you mean “Rondo” for your data dive?
As for Ford, I like the Transit Connect, but it’s not 7-passenger in the US yet.
And I dubious of any 7-passenger claims until I actually sit in the vehicle. The back row occupants usually get the squeeze unless it’s a real minivan (Chrysler).
Instead of trying to change their previous perceptions for a new reality, why not bring over the Galaxy instead? No sliding doors = no need for spin. And is Ford taking all the R&D from Ford Europe? Not everything from Europe is gonna do well in America.
All we need is the Transit (and Connect), Focus and Fiesta. They’re planning on consolidating Fusion/Taurus/Mondeo onto one platform, and that’s good too.
At some point they’ll have to make an American platform with American engineering. The Panther and Mustang can’t hold the fort and expand the market by themselves.
It’s a car that sells in droves in Europe, it’s the sixth car off the C platform (and they are not rebadges by any means), so A) the investment has already been made for a market it is a success in. B) It can be made off the same assembly line as 5 other vehicles (in several low cost producer nations (Thailand, Mexico, etc.) So why not bring it over, everyone they sell in US will be bonus and considering the things that other automakers sell in this segment it could very well be a success.
In recap, ford was going to die because they did not have competitive vehicles across thier line-up. They have competitive vehicles across thier line up and this is reason they are going to die?
So long as it doesn’t turn into a new acronym, MAV.
For many people, a five-seater is plenty, with one or two kids in the back seat. As long as the third row is not microscopic, it’ll be enough for the once-in-a-while hauling of kids with their friends.
As it’s based on the C1 platform like the Focus, it should drive much better than the typical minivan, and use less fuel.
Whether they can market it is a whole other question, though.
I’ll take mine with a small turbodiesel please. Since VWoA won’t bring the Touran, I guess this will have to do.
I’m thrilled that the kind of practical family vehicles so popular in Europe are going to be available in the US.
+1 to everything rnc said.
rnc
1. Europe is not the U.S. I am not now, nor have I ever been, one to say that Ford should brings its Euro vehicles stateside.
2. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
3. The “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” approach to a product lineup is a hiding to nowhere. Each vehicle costs tens of millions to federalize, market and promote. Then there’s dealer and technician training, parts, etc.
4. Don’t misrepresent my argument. Ford needs a tightly focused, non-overlapping range of high quality, high value cars that embody their brand promise. [NB: ONE promise.] And then market the beJesus out of them.
As RNC points out, there are limited additional costs in bringing the vehicle to North America.
Ford’s previous failures in the minivan segment had to do with weak product, no fourth door (for too long after competitors had it), Mercury copy of the Nissan minivan too small, etc. And I wouldn’t compare the old Ford with the Mulally Ford of today…almost a different company, culture, products, etc.
I still think the Flex’s two biggest problems can be tied to pricing and marketing. It’s overpriced, and marketing to hip urban young couples is NOT the real buyer group…it’s a Mommy mobile.
Dear Ford,
please give us the S-Max instead.
thanks in advance,
me
I actually saw a Transit the other day in traffic! It was… well… man, did it stand out. Like, wow, A TRANSIT!!
Ah and there are the fond memories of a certain Ford Aerostar. Sure, why not?
Can’t say that I agree, Robert. The problem with having more than 2 kids (as you know) is that minivans are such a drag to drive. And so people resort to all manner of ridiculous SUV’s to hide the simple fact that they are taking their kids to soccer practice and not headed off to some extreme sports fantasy adventureland.
With a 4 cylinder Ecoboost and decent handling, this would be a nice ride. I like how the middle seat in the middle row folds away, allowing easy access to the back. This means that all 3 of my kids would essentially have their own space, which is the whole point of a minivan.
And yes, sliding doors are essential for preventing parking lot dings and allowing easy ingress/egress. I am hopeful this new vehicle category is a hit, and I am encouraged that Ford is getting in while there’s still time.
As a relatively new parent I can see this as an interesting alternative to the “classic” minivan. The Mazda 5 is not bad if it fits for you. Most of these Euro-Fords are pretty cool cars
The C-Max will come at the perfect time. Just as the economy improves and gas prices start to go up AND the new CAFE standards start to kick in, Ford will have a 4 cylinder people mover for people who want to escape their hulking V6 full size “mini” vans. Now they need to commit to the 5 passenger version. One question: if this is the first vehicle off the new chassis for Europe, who do we have to wait an extra year for it, when we get the new Focus at the end of next year? Can’t they start production of both at the same time?
In my little patch of New Jersey, I’ve seen a lot of Mazda 5s. Based on the photos, this looks to be maybe a bit longer, but not long enough to stuff yet a fourth row of seats. So I’m guessing that it’s three across the back to the Mazda 5’s three rows of two seats.
Now there’s the rub. The price of the Mazda 5 starts at $19k. How much will the market bear for a third seat that only a youthful Bashful, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Sleazy, Alchy or Druggy will sit in?
In my little patch of New Jersey, I’ve seen a lot of Mazda 5s. Based on the photos, this looks to be maybe a bit longer, but not long enough to stuff yet a fourth row of seats. So I’m guessing that it’s three across the back to the Mazda 5’s three rows of two seats.
Now there’s the rub. The price of the Mazda 5 starts at $19k. How much will the market bear for a third seat that only a youthful Bashful, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Sleazy, Alchy or Druggy will sit in?
In my little patch of New Jersey, I’ve seen a lot of Mazda 5s. Based on the photos, this looks to be maybe a bit longer, but not long enough to stuff yet a fourth row of seats. So I’m guessing that it’s three across the back to the Mazda 5’s three rows of two seats.
Now there’s the rub. The price of the Mazda 5 starts at $19k. How much will the market bear for a third seat that only a youthful Bashful, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Sleazy, Alchy or Druggy will sit in?
After getting its butt kicked by every minivan manufacturer known to man
Except GM. If you can say something good about the Freestar, it’s that it was a better van the Uplander/Montana/Relay/Terazza.
I don’t know if this is a good idea, but not because it’s not a good vehicle. Ford does need a cheap people mover, and the Flex is too costly to fit, this is true. The problem is that this makes it really hard to sell certain other cash-cow vehicles that Ford makes, and that it really is very small inside next to a “real” van (just as the 5 and Rondo are) and would get passed over for discounted Caravans and Sedonas (just as the 5 and Rondo are).
I’m wondering if a decontented Flex with a smaller engine and less bling might not be a better idea? A C-Max would have to have a compelling feature (hybrid power? really, really good fuel economy, sub-CA$20K price) to be relevant.
2-3-2 7-seater with a stick, tight handling, and decent power, please.
I should add that the C-Max looks great in the above photo. Nice subtle kick to the beltline aft of the C-pillar.
psarhjinian: The Flex is simply too large and too expensive to serve this segment. Not everyone wants a huge vehicle, and the Flex is huge.
How did they manage to make it look so fussy (and ugly) compared to the first Generation C-Max?
In the picture it looks as tall as the Transit (not the Connect variety either), nothing like the much more car like current generation.
The Flex is simply too large and too expensive to serve this segment. Not everyone wants a huge vehicle, and the Flex is huge.
I don’t disagree with you, but there’s a reason why the 5 and Rondo don’t sell as well as the Sienna and Oddy and that’s largely because they’re really a two-rows with notional rear seats and no cargo space. I really liked both of them, but for what North Americans do with these kinds of vehicles they’re too small. Believe me, I like small cars and I tried really hard to make them work.
Three children and cargo for a weekend can’t work in a 5 or Rondo without a roof box. The Rondo can manage one child in a rear-facing car seat in the second and a tall adult passenger (the 5 cannot do this). Neither can do three child seats. The Flex, meanwhile, can do all of this and the Sienna, Oddy, Caravan or Sedona can do it better (they allow much more cargo space). The Sedona can do it for the price of a Mazda5.
I don’t think Ford can make this segment work in North America. Mazda, VW or Scion can, but it would be tough for a mainstream mass-market brand to make it worthwhile. I think they’d be better-served with a steel-wheeled Flex equipped with a smaller engine and a more spartan equipment level (even the base Flex is very well equipped).
We used to have multi-activity vehicles in Nevada–they were motor homes filled with hookers.
A few points.
1) Keep in mind this is the Grand C-Max. So far as I know the 5-seater regular C-Max will not be crossing the pond, probably so as not to cannibalize the 5-door Focus (which, thank god is coming our way!).
2) Minivans of late have gotten ginormous and expensive. The Honda Odyssey STARTS at nearly $27k. Everyone always complains about bloat, and here Ford comes along with a compelling reset of sorts, and they get attacked for it?
3) The argument that mini-minivans won’t sell because they don’t sell is retarded. Back in 2002 nobody thought the Mini stood a chance in the U.S. We didn’t like small cars. Look how that turned out. What the mini-minivan segment has been missing is what the compact/subcompact segment was missing prior to 2002 – compelling product.
4) I think dwford is on to something about timing. Higher fuel prices, CAFE regs, the growing acceptance of smaller cars in general, could turn people’s eyes toward this thing. I’m personally looking forward to the next-gen Focus a lot more, but I’d give this thing a look if it offered similar driving dynamics combined with better interior packaging.
5) Don’t forget Canada. If I recall the “we-never-got-it” Mercedes B-Class sells pretty well up there, and it’s about the same class of vehicle. Guaranteed Canadian sales and some pickups in the U.S. probably make this a no-brainer to help spread the cost of N.A. C-segment production.
If this latest attempt at a euphemism to avoid saying “station wagon” or “minivan” catches on, can we expect to see Ford come to market with a new MAVerick?
@Doogs: the Mazda5 doesn’t sell all that well, <2K/month in the US, and almost half has historically gone to fleets. As psarhjinian said, North Americans just pile lots of crap in the back and full-sized vans are a cheap way to go.
I see that ChryCo vans and Routans are going for $20K these days, and Kia/Hyundai probably, too. Sienna CE’s usually start a couple thousand higher.
I like what I see above, but then again I’m a Mazda5 + Sienna owner. The Mazda doesn’t get much family use, it’s just not as practical especially with 3 kids in booster/car seats and 2+2+2 seating.
From a dealers perspective, the last thing we need is more models on the ground, especially with the rumors of the Kuga also coming stateside.
However, the C-Max looks like it could be a sucess if –
1. The Flex is given curvier sheetmetal to appeal to more buyers, and a lower cost 4 cylinder model is added to the lineup.
2. The Edge is killed off and replaced by this C-Max. The Flex is a far superior vehicle to the Edge in every way, and currently isnt priced much higher, by addressing the styling which is the only reason the Flex isn’t lighting up the sales charts, Ford can allow the Flex to carry most Edge business, and have the C-max pick up the rest.
I like it! Don’t need one and will not buy one, but I like it.
The only car this competes directly against in the US is the Mazda5. The main complaint I always see about that car is that it is underpowered when you get a good load of people in it. The Ecoboost should help Ford from falling into that trap.
I have never understood the prejudice against sliding doors. They are insanely practical, especially the motorized ones. They are also great in parking lots where you have been squeezed by other cars. If you have swinging doors you wind up doing the vertical limbo trying to get into the car.
I’m with RNC on this one – if the CMax were like the Pacifica – then Ford should be slapped around for their stupidity. But he CMax is a vehicle that has already been engineered for several markets outside of the USA, and it even shares a common base-platform with existing vehicles.
Although, I don’t think we can draw a conclusion about the total investment without knowing where it’ll be built for the USA market. If they build the car in North America then they’ll have to tool up several plants and suppliers to make the components. This could be a costly route to follow.
But if they’re going to continue to build them abroad and import them, that’ll be a different story (the Fit, VW GTI, Prius, Mazda3 and Mazda5 pull this off). At this point they still have to invest in homologation, fixed marketing dollars, and some costs for the Ford techs in the USA to diagnose/fix the thing.
Mazda has sold about 50,000 of their Mazda5 over the last few years; if you think about them making a conservative $3,000 variable profit per car you’re looking at $150M contribution to pay off their minimal investment. I’m sure the CMax could offer Ford a similar benefit if they go with the route to import the vehicle and keep their assumptions of success to a reasonable level.
I can only think that they’re purposely choosing the CMax over the SMax just because of the price point and risk involved… the CMax is probably less likely to encroach on their high-margin huge-mobiles already in the Ford fleet.
psarhjinian
You see how forgettable GM’s entries were? Text amended. Thanks.
I’ve heard a lot about why the C-Max won’t work in the U.S., but nearly nothing about WHAT WILL WORK. Everyone has their criticisms, but they’re all out of solutions.
Seems like the Sienna and Odyssey sell well enough, usually to people who simply accept minivans for what they are and have no pretenses of “hipness” or an “active lifestyle” image. For them, minivans are the best choice — they work and they work well.
What Ford could do is simply move the marketing for the Flex from the hip, urban set who probably can’t afford it and won’t buy it anyway to the soccer moms and “sensible shoes” types who CAN. Then take the Escape and morph it into a C-Max-like CUV that just happens to have a lot of functionality, then market that to the hip crowd.
The C-Max in Europe has seating for 5 only (ford.uk). For 7 you must move up to the S-Max or Galaxy. Ford has only stated that the C-Max will come to North America and denies the S-Max and Galaxy will come…what gives? Is the 7 seat statement error,wish, or suggestion? Ford has said we may get AWD with our C-Max, perhaps this will this could be the next generation?
Re: Jac:
Yeah, that Grand CMax in the photo is supposed to be a 7 seater new for 2011. So it’ll actually be slightly more useful than the 2+2+2 configuration of the Mazda5 and Pacifica. Although I really doubt shoving 7 life forms into that thing will be an appealing action.
Also, there are a ton of small little nit-picky things that determine whether or not someone’s grand idea in a blog entry can actually be implemented in reality. Changes to Fed-Regs for roof crush requirements could mean a car just needs to go away since the alternative is too expensive. Just ask anyone who liked the reincarnated GT40.
I would like to see them build something along the lines of a smaller cube myself. The flex is a cool idea but to big for most people.
I like the way this looks. Unless they make a “true” passenger version of the Transit Connect (which I think would be come the anti-minivan minivan, like the VW Microbus of yore) this would be on my short list for a family hauler.
Don’t forget Canada. If I recall the “we-never-got-it” Mercedes B-Class sells pretty well up there, and it’s about the same class of vehicle.
The B doesn’t actually sell all that well. I mean, it sells well enough to be viable, but the Mini and Smart give it a run for it’s money in raw sales terms. The B is also a two-row; it’s marketed as an upmarket Toyota Matrix. The C-Max is a three-row; it’d be up against the very slim market Mazda and Kia have carved out.
If the B didn’t have Mercedes’ fat margins, I don’t think it would be here.
Ford hurt itself when it killed both the Focus wagon and the Freestar. Suddenly, they had no cheap people mover that wasn’t the Escape, and the Escape doesn’t quite work as well as either.
I’ve heard a lot about why the C-Max won’t work in the U.S., but nearly nothing about WHAT WILL WORK. Everyone has their criticisms, but they’re all out of solutions.
A cheaper Flex. See below:
What Ford could do is simply move the marketing for the Flex from the hip, urban set who probably can’t afford it and won’t buy it anyway to the soccer moms and “sensible shoes” types who CAN.
And to do that, it needs to be a lot cheaper.
People who buy utilitarian boxes aren’t looking for the Flex’s feature content. Call it the Pacifica dilemma: too much stuff, too high a price. Right now, the Flex is equipped more or less like a Sienna LE or XLE, but buyers are actually snapping up Sienna CEs, Sedonas and base Caravans. The Flex has a lot to offer these people**, but they can’t afford it.
If they can’t get the Flex down to this price level, I think they’d be better-served by a two-row Transit Connect (which could be sold more cheaply and is more versatile) than the C-Max.
Then take the Escape and morph it into a C-Max-like CUV that just happens to have a lot of functionality, then market that to the hip crowd.
The C-Max’ish CUV that’s sized like an Escape is, basically, the Edge. The Edge’s problem is that those reasonable interior dimensions are wrapped in a big, big exterior. I would instead keep the Escape*** and replace the Edge with something trimmer, yet just as curvaceous. The Kuga would be a good choice, and the theory has tested out in the sales of Rogue and Tiguan versus the DOA Murano and Toureg.
** except a ding-free parking lot experience, but that’s what you get when you trade versatility for an in-car fridge.
*** because it’s cheap and the look has some appeal.
What’s up with all the hate? Seriously, there might just be people in this country (US) that would be excited about a C-Max. First person that comes to mind? ME! The Minivan is a wonderfully utilitarian vehicle for those of us with 2 kids and the gobs of “stuff” that having so causes one to have to schlep around. Yes, there are people in this country capable of a maturity level that puts utlity above image (don’t know if I’m one of those yet). Bottom line, when my current Mercury Villager bites the big one, this vehicle would easily in the top 3 for consideration as replacement.
Thank you for your time and attention.
The problem with US minivans is that they are not so mini! The original Dogde Caravan was but over the year and especially in the 90’s with low fuel prices everyone thought bigger was better.
The new Grand C-Max is based on the Ford C Platform – The Madza 5 is also based on the Ford C platform. Both of these are probably too small for most americans
To summarize the message from the above posts – The C Max is too small and the Flex is too big. So what we need is something in the middle. What could that be???
The sooner ford bring the S-Max (and Galaxy) to the US the better. Before it’s release in Europe no-one thought that a MPV (as they are known) could be sporty – The S-Max changed all that.
NulloModo :
As many Flex’s as I am seeing in my area I’m seeing three 3-4 times as many Edges. The C-Max is a classic (mini) mini-van and will function as such. I think the Edge looks like what a CUV should look like, it’s not made to look like a funky/make believe SUV, it has smooth lines and curves and aims for the sweet spot 2 kids to school, the mall and grandma’s but you’re co-workers won’t make fun of you, regular driver. The Flex is almost a premium specialty vehicle like the Suburban used to be and the ones I see on the road are all high spec. versions (but yes a larger EB 4 cyl. would be a nice option, it seems that Ford is getting ready to make this the base engine in alot of cars).
Basically what I’m saying is that the C-Max and Edge (Flex somewhat) can over-lap they are aimed at different needs/wants. And since they are based on the same platform (not the flex) the costs of having both do not outweigh the sales they would take from each other
I like the Grand C-Max (I like the S-Max too). As a family of 4 with two little ones and a lot of stuff, this would definitely be an appealing option. I don’t like the size and inefficiency of the current crop of vans (they aren’t mini any more), though I do like the Mazda5. The S-Max does look nice as well.
All I want is a flexible, efficient, practical, safe, reliable people mover. I don’t need lots of power or all the latest tech and I don’t even know if the Odyssey or Sienna would even fit in the same garage as our other car.
Since there isn’t an edit anymore, the Edge is based on the CD3 platform.
The C-Max will probably sell well in Canada. I see lots of Kia Rondos, Mazda 5s, Mercedes B-Class and similar small minivans on our roads. They are sometimes called urban utility vehicles here. Hatchbacks are also very popular, though I understand you can’t give them away in the U.S.A.
The original Ford whateverthehellStar was an excellent minivan, and looked brilliant. I wish this one looked similar.
But Ford said that the Flex was their (pitiful) minivan replacement…
This C-Max is further proof that Ford does not have their eye on the ball.
RF Sez:
Strange; I can’t find the Mazda5 on Automotive News’ spreadsheet. OK, her name is Rio. Last month, Kia sold 6,951 units, for an eight-month, year-to-date total of 20,422. Guess how many went into rental fleets? Seriously, I don’t know. But I’m betting it was a lot (so to speak).
Is there a huge market for this car? Hard to tell. In theory, I think there is – young families who can’t afford a full size minivan. There have to be a lot of ’em.
The cars you mentioned missed the mark, but it’s gotta be said: they’re both butt ugly, particularly the Rondo. The Mazda 5 drove sweetly, but again – ugly.
The C-Max is a nice looking piece. If any vehicle can succeed in this niche, this is it.
Is there a huge market for this car? Hard to tell. In theory, I think there is – young families who can’t afford a full size minivan. There have to be a lot of ‘em.
Most of those buyers just buy… a used full-size minivan. If a 5 or Rondo work for them, they’ll go that route, but a CPO Sienna or Oddy (on the high) or a low-mileage Caravan (on the low) are the usual choices. Heck, new Caravans are more or less feature-competitive with the Mazda5 and retail for less. Sedonas cost only a little more.
That’s a tough sell. Unless you have a really good reason to buy a 5 or Rondo (and there are lots of good reasons) the bigger van is pretty appealing. It took me only an hour or two of futzing with car seats and cargo in 5s and Rondos to sell me on the Super Size option.
This is why I wonder about a C-Max: it’ll need to be a lot cheaper or somehow much more compelling, than the Mazda5. I can’t see that happening, not unless gas goes through the roof.
psarhjinian :
September 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Most of those buyers just buy… a used full-size minivan. If a 5 or Rondo work for them, they’ll go that route, but a CPO Sienna or Oddy (on the high) or a low-mileage Caravan (on the low) are the usual choices.
I’m going to disagree with you on this one. I’d say the most likely avenue for that buyer is actually a small SUV, like a CR-V, or a RAV4. Look at the sales of these vehicles – they’re booming.
Who buys them? Young families who are price and mieage-conscious, and need more cargo room than a compact or small midsize sedan but don’t need a huge vehicle. But here’s the rub – what these compact SUVs don’t come with is a third seat.
The C-Max has neat styling and the third seat option. I think it’ll actually steal sales from the small SUV crowd.
Want to revisit for a six-pack in a year?
I’m not knocking Ford as this is not even Ford specific, but the problem will be that, based on current Ford methodology, they’ll price this econobox-based vehicle close to what you can buy a one or two year old full sized, more luxurious crossover for, and much higher than what you could buy a three or four year old one for.
And you know what? It would take A LOT of driving over MANY YEARS to justify that price based on gas prices even at much higher levels, even if one assumes the CMAX will be that much more fuel efficient.
Seems like the Sienna and Odyssey sell well enough, usually to people who simply accept minivans for what they are and have no pretenses of “hipness” or an “active lifestyle” image.
Funny thing is that Sienna and Odyssey are great for actual active lifestyles even though they totally suck for the image. Minivans are better than SUVs for hauling people and outdoor toys (backpacks, bikes, kayaks). They’re even better for towing than compact and most midsize SUVs (equal capacity but lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase for a more stable platform).
The market is there, but it would help if they put a diesel under the hood: Mazda5s and Rondos are too small for many, especially if you have more than one child in a child seat. The Odyssey/Sienna are expensive, huge, gas guzzlers (that likewise cry for a diesel engine). If this new Ford is larger than the Mazda/Rondo but smaller and more efficient than the big minivans, they might have something…although I sure would like a Galaxy.
And is it not embarassing that the nation’s #1 and #2 automakers abandoned the minivan market? Forget about trying to show leadership–they abandoned it outright rather than put in the effort to compete.
I agree with Rob. Sliding doors scare many moms, yet I do believe that the smaller size and weight of the doors on this diminutive human hauler might do better sales wise. I do believe that it will with it’s appealing style and better fuel economy add a unique choice for many mothers.
Different segment, but the Transit Connect is a testament (assuming it succeeds) that you don’t need to drive a boat just to do a bit of fishing, no wait, bad analogy.
Of course I’m talking about right sizing. If you can perform the equivalent task of a larger vehicle 80 or 90% of the time in a smaller package that’s easier to drive and better on gas then buying the bigger vehicle for that 10% of the time is a waste.
Minivans have been on an aggressive pig fattening regime and have outgrown their ideal size. If North America ever woke up and realized that SUV/CUVs are just over-priced/weight/kill wagons then they might consider the right car for their actual needs.
I’ve always liked the Mazda5. I’ve never been in one so I might change my tune when that day comes but the concept intrigues me. Maybe they can use the C-Max as an excuse to kill off the Flex when the time is right (yesterday).
I know that lately everyone on here likes to slam Ford and the Flex… but hey, I am seeing them everywhere in Chicago (and of course Michigan, but that doesn’t count), and I think they are pretty handsome.
The Mazda5 may not be a big seller, but after my aunt bought one (prior to cash for clunkers of course) she had an oil change at the dealer… they told her that they had sold out all of the 5’s in the region within a few days of C4C. When she bought hers, they had 18 in stock at a dealer in WI. SO, there you go.
There IS a market in the US for smaller family cars, and with the fuel economy increases coming from the EPA this is indeed the right way to go.
@Kyle Schellenberg: like the car-based station wagon (and for similar reasons), short-wheelbase minivans are an endangered species – besides the Mazda5 only the Kia Sedona remains. The SWB Sedona has the same powertrain and barely weighs less than the LWB version, resulting the same exact EPA rating. The Ford Transit Connect as yet doesn’t have the safety and convenience features Americans expect from their passenger vans.
As for the others: Chrysler nixed theirs in favor of the Dodge Journey, and GM killed the CSV’s. The Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, and Nissan Quest all grew up. Mazda MPV turned into the CX-9.
The market is there, but it would help if they put a diesel under the hood:
Not going to happen. Diesel powertrains add too much cost for not enough return, and North American emissions standards are too strict to let them pass. Diesel only makes sense here in vehicles that carry enough of a premium (or guzzle enough fuel) to make the cost palatable.
You’d likely see the Fusion’s hybrid powertrain before you see a diesel.
The Odyssey/Sienna are expensive, huge, gas guzzlers (that likewise cry for a diesel engine).
I used to say that before I bought a Sienna. I don’t know about the Oddy, but Toyota’s van actually gets very good mileage despite the older transmission. It equals the Rondo V6 in most tasks, especially as the loads rise, and isn’t too far off the automatic Mazda5. I don’t know if this is Toyota’s choice of gearing and ECU tune or what, but it’s much better than most larger crossovers, too.
I think the fuel economy issue could be resolved by lowered expectations. Toyota’s 3.5L is way, way too much power for most of what a Sienna driver would do and the new 2.7L four with a six-speed transmission would do well. When did we need a minivan that can do zero to sixty in the low sevens?
Modern minivans aren’t anything more than the traditional station wagon done right and the size they (and the larger crossovers) have reached is part of their reaching into that market. The Sienna, Oddy and Caravan replace the likes of the Caprice wagon, and they do a pretty good job of it. The C-Max is more a replacement for the smaller wagons (the Reliant, Celebrity, Accord or Camry) and again, it’s better at it.
I think that this will be perfect for young families with 1 or 2 kids who need the cargo space for weekends and who need extra seating when hauling around the neighbor’s / friend’s kids.
That’s the profile of my coworker who just bought a Mazda5 and loves it. They didn’t want the size and fuel costs of a big van and wouldn’t want to be seen in an SUV.
I want it. I don’t normally buy new cars, but I might make an exception. If they can do this car, well equipped, for under $20-22K, they will sell like hotcakes (whatever that means). I always need to haul at least four, but often six or seven. This car is perfect (especially with a roof rack), assuming it has enough power to make occasional runs with a lot of people in it.
Please do not compare this to the Aerostar, arguably the worst vehicle ever to wear a blue oval. The Windstar was no better. Most Fords are good overall cars, and are embarrassed to be seen with them.
So WHY has Ford decided NOT to bring us the 40 and 50 mpg versions of this vehicle? Why would we want the GRAND Gas Guzzler version but not the ordinary CMAX. And why do they target younger folks, not the graying soon-to-retire Boomers?
I am looking at this segment, mostly because my body can no longer bend and twist to fit into smaller cars, and I want HEADROOM, (and yes, a low step-in height). They could make the 3 row version for those wanting an upgrade/larger vehicle.
The sliding doors neither hurt nor help the situation, but I could see a 4 seat version, with a fair amount of storage, and good road manners, with 40 mpg in my future. So WHAT STOPS FORD from filling that market?
Are they DEAF, and BLIND or SIMPLY STUPID? Yes, I remember the Escort, but then I also remember that the Mustang was a practical vehicle, too.