Originally Posted by Ford#1

Ford own's Land Rover, Volvo and Jaguar. They are in the process of selling Land Rover and Jag to a Indian company called Tata. I myself think it is a bad move on Fords part only because now the Indian automaker will be able to introduce it's cars to the American market, the last thing we need is more competition, but on the other hand Land Rover and Jag have been very unprofitable and unreliable and Ford can use the money towards their way forward plan. But besides that, I think the Flex falls in the middle of a already crowded Ford SUV line up. They have the Edge and the Taurus X, the Explorer and the Expedition, can it compete.?? The Flex is getting some attention and just won some kind of award at the New England auto show, I myself think that it will be a hit for Ford only for the fact that, the Ugly Honda Elements sell fairly well and the Flex is a whole lot nicer. Seems to me that there is a market for these ugly Suvs, people like to be noticed and stand out from the ordinary car or truck and with gas prices headed to $4.00 a gallon, people are going to want a smaller family SUV. The only think I don't get is that this is really not that much different from the Tarus X.

Originally Posted by closer9

I doubt I would ever buy one, but I kinda like it. But then I've been driving my wife's Element for quite some time now...


I absolutely hated these things when they first came out, but it really helped when they offered an alternative to the checkerboard panels. I won't own one of those. And while it wouldn't have been my first choice, I kinda like it now... The seats fold up onto the sides or come out. I can easily seat 4 large Americans, and it will tow my trailer... I've hauled many things for the new house including an old kitchen range inside...

So, I think Ford is just jumping on the bandwagon, and will probably do well...

Originally Posted by TX-FX-4

Those elements aren't much for sights. But they have great ultility. they also sell quite a bit which is a good sign that looks is not ALL that matters in a vehicle. You can have a great looking car have issues and get a car that is not as visually appealing and have great functionality. I drove a 1991 Dodge Omni (standard) I hated the look but that thing hauled ***. It turned out to be a great little car. interior was ackward and exterior boxy, but there was something about that car that I was happy with. I even remember putting one of those Oakley stickers on the rear glass. Who remembers that phase??

Originally Posted by Ford#1

The Taurus X is almost the same thing.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-conte...67&idg=1&idi=5

Originally Posted by ManualF150

I wouldn't mind driving it... but honestly, I was talking to a few people today where I work, and a lot of them are really upset that Ford got rid of the Freestar because they want an economical van that isn't like an E150 or E350, but in a way that it is still comfortable and offers that extra seat along with all the room the Windstar/Freestar had to offer.

This is no lie... some of the stuff I've loaded into our Windstar and the company's Windstars and Freestars, was some really big computer equipment like Color Laserjets and such, that have like 5 paper trays and such. Those Windstars work great. Not to mention they had the hauling power of a truck.. a 3.5l v6 is not going to cut the mustard compared to the last generation of the Freestar with the 4.2l V6... I drove one with that engine... and it was a fast moving van... wayyyy faster than the 3.8l v6 we had.

I hate how everything is moving to "car-like"... those Windstars/Freestars were built like a truck, but handled like a car. Even being as heavy as our Windstar was... it handled the road like a family sedan... hardly any roll.

A lot of people have agreed with me... they need a heavy duty family van. Heck, I would love to see how well that 3.5l v6 is going to hold up against the tried, true, and simple 3.8l v6. My next door neighbor had a 1997 Windstar with 467,000+ miles. Only regularly scheduled maintainance... our first Windstar we put on about 147,000+ on our 1998, and on our 2003, we put on about 121,000+ miles... all ran perfect... never left us stranded, and the hauling power was impressive. Some of the company vans have over 200,000+ miles on them... and none of them were bad, and figuring how hard people drive company vehicles... none of them blew out. They got a huge ROI off of those vans.

I'd trust a pushrod over any of those DOHC engines with 24 valves and such.

My rant is more like; why did Ford kill off such a good thing?

If Ford really thinks that companies are going to buy that Flex... they are mistaken. Companies are a lot smarter now than they were years ago, and they have experts that when ordering fleet vehicles, they know what to look for. Sadly, they are looking towards the DaimlerChrysler products for their minivans.

Personally in retrospect to the F150, I see them killing off the 4.2l v6, not because no one buys it... it's more of the fact that it will last a LONG time, and someone who has one in their truck is unlikely to buy a new F150 every 3 years because it is saving them money because the engine works so well and still is efficient. Heck, I know because I see a lot of them out on the road... a lot more than the Tritons. Now I am not saying that the Triton is a bad engine... but something is wrong when I see too many V6 F150s going up and down the roads. Especially now in the winter time, since alot of people are taking the trucks and suvs out of storage because of the snow. But this is my own sighting... whether someone wants to disagree with me, that's fine... but the point at which I am getting at, is that it seems as if Ford and other manufacturers wants consumers to buy and trade every 3 years. For what purpose? The only thing I can see is the possibility of monetary benefits to the manufacturers. If they can make an infererior product last a certain amount of time, the manufacturer then knows that the consumer will have a higher likelyhood of returning to say Ford, to buy a new vehicle within that time frame. Personally, I see that as a dictatorship among a consumer - producer relationship, whereas the producer tells the consumer when to buy. Not letting the consumer buy and trade whenever they want to.

I just find it odd though... that's all.