|
It's funny, because the Flex is actually substantially bigger than the Edge.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
I love the Flex and wanted to get one instead of our Explorer. We go on tons of road trips (6 to 7 a year), and I can't think of a more comfy people mover that isn't a minivan. My wife Vetoed the styling though. I think the best part about them is all the gadgets and gizmos on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's funny, because the Flex is actually substantially bigger than the Edge. Yeah this just underscores my point about how they did a bad job of marketing it as the minivan alternative it is. Maybe they should have kept to the "Ford Fairlane" badging of the original concept, although I suppose only about 10 people in their target demos would recognize that name anyway. Thing's got three rows of seats and is 201 inches long (16' 9"), or basically exactly the same size as the Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey. It's ENORMOUS. Also, I believe the giant FLEX lettering is optional on some trims. Or like 15 minutes with a heat gun and dental floss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:VW does about 2,000-2,500/mo of the Jetta SportWagen and that may be at present the best selling traditional wagon in the United States. It's also (I believe) the cheapest and on the smaller side. I'm (wildly) guessing that there might be a relation there. I know they're low-volume, but treating wagons like some sort of luxury option instead of a utility thing is kind of nonsensical to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's funny, because the Flex is actually substantially bigger than the Edge. Really? Wow, I actually never would have thought that, the Edge seems quite large.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:I've always like the Flex. It's just such a drat weird box. The new face makes me like it even more. I really really love how horizontal the accent lines down the side make it look. A Flex in dark blue with a white roof would own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's also (I believe) the cheapest and on the smaller side. I'm (wildly) guessing that there might be a relation there. I know they're low-volume, but treating wagons like some sort of luxury option instead of a utility thing is kind of nonsensical to me. You kind of missed my point. It's relatively cheap and a very good value compared to the sedan... which sells 10x the volume. It's exactly the type of market targeted at exactly the demographic which should cause it to do well, and it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Really? Wow, I actually never would have thought that, the Edge seems quite large. The Flex is huge. It's like a minivan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You kind of missed my point. It's relatively cheap and a very good value compared to the sedan... which sells 10x the volume. It's exactly the type of market targeted at exactly the demographic which should cause it to do well, and it doesn't. Yeah, you're right. Reality kind of sucks, huh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Flex is huge. It's like a minivan. More like a small bus. Speaking of which, what was the last word about VW bringing back the Microbus?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:More like a small bus. Why, the Routan isn't good enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Is it wrong to ask for some spunk in my Town & Country/Grand Caravan?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
The reality is that design and styling are what sells cars. The Flex, MKT, and even Crosstour are technically good cars that mostly failed because the styling didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Whenever I see a Flex, I think of it being the car that people in the 60s always thought we all would be driving now. Even now it looks pretty dystopian futuristic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Whenever I see a Flex, all I can think about is how it needs woodgrain siding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The reality is that design and styling are what sells cars. The Flex, MKT, and even Crosstour are technically good cars that mostly failed because the styling didn't work. The Flex is a million times better looking than the Crosstour. I've had non-car people actually come up to me talking about this "really ugly new honda thing" they saw in the street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The Flex is a million times better looking than the Crosstour. I've had non-car people actually come up to me talking about this "really ugly new honda thing" they saw in the street. The Crosstour has this weird size problem. It's like they took a design for an Accord hatchback variant and made it bigger by dragging an enlargement slider on a computer. It looks like an Accord but clearly isn't. It doesn't look like it's as big as a Venza but is. Something about it just feels wrong in an uncanny valley sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Well I'm pretty sure even the flex is selling substantially better than the Crosstour so there's that. The other problem was that when it came out at least the Crosstour only came fully loaded with a V6 and everything, there just aren't that many people who buy fully loaded V6 Accords in any case and making it a hatchback didn't change anyone's mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The Flex makes me think of plastic garden furniture. The Flex rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:The Crosstour has this weird size problem. It's like they took a design for an Accord hatchback variant and made it bigger by dragging an enlargement slider on a computer. Also the simple fact that a hatchback Accord with a super low cut roof makes no sense at all.   I offers an absolutely miniscule amount of additional width, length, and cargo room. It's ugly as hell. So ugly and impractical. It's basically copied off of BMW's weirdo sedan hatch idea, but god only knows what they're thinking anymnore. I mean look at the specs: pre:2012 Honda Accord LX (4-cylinder) Wheelbase (in) 110.2 Length (in) 194.9 Height (in) 58.1 Width (in) 72.7 Track (in, front/rear) 62.6 / 62.6 Curb Weight (lbs, MT/AT) 3216 / 3279 (LX) 2012 Honda Crosstour EX (4-cylinder) Wheelbase (in) 110.1 Length (in) 196.8 Height (in) 65.7 Width (in) 74.7 Track (in, front/rear) 64.9 / 64.9 Curb Weight (lbs) 3664
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
I'll give it one thing, I was driving next to one this morning and I couldn't stop looking at it. It's so odd. There's just something about it that makes my brain itch/break.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Volvo still makes wagons in the states, right? There's no more vanilla V70, and the V50 was discontinued in 2011; the only Volvo wagon option is the XC70. I was trying to include only brands that sold cars that were indisputably wagons, which is why I didn't include the XC70 or the Flex, even though they are kinda really basically wagons that aren't called that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
I'm surprised to see all the Flex love here. I always thought of it as a limo version of the Scion xb. It just makes me wish Ford sold an actual wagon stateside. It does look different though, I'll give it that. Edit: also if you sign up for e-mail updates for the 2013 Ford Fusion, they send you handy e-mails that link to the website even when they've made absolutely no changes since the last 20 times you visited. Thanks Ford! davebo fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
The xB, Flex, Nissan Cube and the Honda Element (and maybe later versions of the Honda Pilot) all seemed to emerge in the early-to-mid 2000s where designers thought boxy could work again. I think all of them disappointed despite their upsides. The exception, however, is the Kia Soul which has really emerged as a box that people actually bought into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:The xB, Flex, Nissan Cube and the Honda Element (and maybe later versions of the Honda Pilot) all seemed to emerge in the early-to-mid 2000s where designers thought boxy could work again. Didn't the first-gen Scion xB sell pretty well until it was replaced by the second-gen? pre:2003 6,936 2004 47,013 2005 54,037 2006 61,306 2007 45,834 (1G sales end June 2007, second-gen released) 2008 45,220 2009 25,461 2010 20,364 2011 17,017
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Didn't the first-gen Scion xB sell pretty well until it was replaced by the second-gen? It still appears to sell better than most other Scions (except maybe the tC). Don't know how that compares to the rest of the subcompact market since Scion/Toyota took big hits during the recession and tsunami. edit: NA numbers for the Fit: pre:Calendar Year US 2006 27,934 2007 56,432 2008 79,794[69] 2009 67,315 Thwomp fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
But Ford just did 63K Fiestas in '11. I agree, Cream_filling, reality sucks. I would love more wagons, but it just isn't a realistic proposition for automakers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:But Ford just did 63K Fiestas in '11. Supposedly GM is doing okay with their most elusive and exclusive of vehicles, the CTS-V Sport Wagon, having sold several hundred when they expected to move fewer than fifty. Sadly, the only CTS Wagon of any kind I've seen was in captivity at Hertz MIA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
People don't buy wagons in the U.S. because they're a compromise nobody wants. If you want a sedan, you buy a sedan. You don't buy the wagon because it's not a sedan. If you want something with cargo room and four doors, you buy a SUV or a (not-so)-mini-van. They offer even more room and are easier to load stuff in/out of than a wagon. Many tow somewhat better or much better, depending on the vehicle. SUVs and mini-vans are thirstier and much larger. But neither of those problems are a major obstacle in the U.S. The only reason to buy a wagon here is because you want some versatility but also want a sportier feel than an SUV/van. That's a small market, of course. Wagons managed to be popular for a while because there weren't good non-wagon options for families. As they became more numerous wagons became less popular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:People don't buy wagons in the U.S. because they're a compromise nobody wants. I was with you until you said "easier to load stuff in/out of". For two row cars, a wagon is arguably superior to an equivalent SUV/CUV to load stuff into because it's lower to the ground. Most SUVs and minivans drive really poorly on the road. The reason you buy a wagon is if you want more versatility than a sedan but still enjoy driving. Of course, considering how most mainstream sedans are no more engaging than a minivan or any other car, there's no reason to get a wagon except for fuel mileage, which at least on a theoretical basis should be better since wagons aren't as tall or large as minivans (less mass/frontal area) and also usually will be lower to the ground and have better aerodynamics than a comparable high-rider CUV. The reason people switched from wagons to minivans and suvs was arguably twofold: first of all, early unibody minivans were both lighter and significantly more roomy because FWD let you have a flat load floor, which swayed the most practical people who wanted maximum room and didn't care that they were driving slightly dorky, tippy little boxes. Then, the big RWD sedans that were the favored basis for most station wagons began to disappear from the market due to things like CAFE - first the Country Squire and then the Chevrolet B-body (the latter being discontinued even though it was Chevy's best-seller at the time), leaving the rest of the people to migrate over to the still giant and RWD SUVs. And on top of that was the fact that SUVs looked butcher or at least less lame than the new generation of jellybean styled station wagons, which had already been stereotyped as the "mom jean" of automobiles. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I was with you until you said "easier to load stuff in/out of". For two row cars, a wagon is arguably superior to an equivalent SUV/CUV to load stuff into because it's lower to the ground. But don't most wagons (and hatchbacks) have a lip to deal with? I feel like I see even load floors in vans and SUVs more frequently. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Basically I agree with you. I get frustrated with enthusiasts who act like people don't buy wagons in the United States because they're stupid. Maybe people are stupid, but not for that reason. Wagons don't make a lot of sense here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
I bought a Pontiac Vibe because I wanted a 4 seater sometimes, a 2 seater when I needed to haul things back and forth. It carried an entire move once, and is still small enough to comfortably parallel park. Wagons are ugly as sin, but the practicality just cannot be beat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:But don't most wagons (and hatchbacks) have a lip to deal with? I feel like I see even load floors in vans and SUVs more frequently. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Do you mean on the rear passenger doors or on the liftgate? Every wagon I've ever seen has a load floor even with the top of the rear bumper, which itself is much lower off the ground than the bumper of a comparable CUV/SUV. Usually minivans have a sunken cargo compartment that drops lower than the rear bumper.   Wagons make plenty of sense in the US. They're usually longer and have better highway manners than tippy hatches, CUVs, or minivans which makes sense in a country like the US where overall vehicle dimensions matter a lot less than highway handling or fuel efficiency. Unless you need three rows of seats, I'd say a wagon is superior to a CUV in every way except maybe ground clearance, and even then there are slightly higher wagons out there with pretty decent ground clearance. An SUV is still superior if you're going to be towing a lot or going off-road, but not a lot of people do those things, and these "real" truck-derived SUVs are a fading breed. Also, wagons tow pretty well since they're stable and tend to have long wheelbases. Hell, a 2009 Subaru Outback with the 3.0 engine is rated to tow 3,000 pounds, which isn't a lot but is comparable to similar sized CUVs. Having a tall roof is useful if you have three rows of seats since people have to actually walk back to that third row, or if you're going to be hauling a LOT of bulky cargo, but otherwise what's the point? If you're reaching into the back seats to strap the kids into carseats or something, that tall roof is only as good as the door openings let you lean in (obviously the best solution is gullwing doors on wagons). "Command driving position" is also kind of a dumb thing, though obviously that's more of a personal opinion thing. More importantly, not having a high ride height and high CG is notably safer since you're more stable during emergency maneuvers and the chance of rollovers is lower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
Not my pic, but a good demonstration of the cargo area you can get on a compact wagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
GM says they, for one, are going to keep making wagons. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/04/cadillac-wagon-here-to-stay/ It's sort of like we all pitched in and kept the Soviet Union going just so they could keep making Mig-25s.  I saw a black -V wagon a while back, looked and sounded like the best thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:GM says they, for one, are going to keep making wagons. Motor Trend did a video comparing the CTS-V and E63 wagons, and in it they mentioned that the CTS wagon has lasted because they needed a seriously small number of sales to make a busniess case for it (IIRC it was something stupid like <50)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
It's not conclusive evidence or anything, but IIHS stats definitely back up my SWAG that wagons are safer than SUVs. Again, it's pretty weak evidence because of lots of reasons, but it's better than nothing. http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?y=2008-2010&cls=5
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
I guess I don't agree with you at all. You seem to think this is the 1990s. It's not. Modern CUV/SUV/Van vehicles ride incredibly well - often, they're more comfortable than their lower cousins because the increased suspension travel helps to soften rough roads. I'm not sure about the load area. I'd have to look at load area shots of a bunch of cars and that is, well, pretty boring. The higher height of a CUV/SUV/Van, along with a typically taller roof, makes it much easier for many people to enter the vehicle. This becomes more and more of an issue as you age. Installing a child seat is easier and these vehicles, particularly vans, for the same reason. The taller load area isn't going to be useful for many people much of the time, but most buyers are going to want it anyway. Like I said, if they didn't care about cargo they'd go with a sedan. But they do care, so why would they buy a vehicle that's only so-so in the respect? Worrying about rollover ins a modern CUV/SUV/Van is silly. Yea, sure, it's more likely to happen in one of those vehicles than a car. But the risk of ever having a rollover accident is small in the first place, and the chance that being in a car instead of a higher vehicle will save you is smaller still. In addition, AFAIK highway death statistics have shown CUV/SUV/Vans experience less deaths than other vehicles. Again, it's a small variance, if anything the higher vehicles are in fact a bit safer. So really the only ways that wagons are superior are is their more sporty driving feeling and better gas mileage. Americans don't car terribly about those aspects, so...they don't sell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's not conclusive evidence or anything, but IIHS stats definitely back up my SWAG that wagons are safer than SUVs. Again, it's pretty weak evidence because of lots of reasons, but it's better than nothing. IIHS data indicates that SUVs have fewer deaths than cars of equivalent size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
They're not controlling for anything in that study though so it means precisely jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:13
|
|