Ford tries for blandest, ugliest vehicle in the World

dwight wrote:
> "Rich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.
>>
>> http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...mentid=8401510
>>
>
> Why didn't you just go to the source?
> http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/flex/
>
> There's nothing new here. The Flex has been shown for quite a while. I
> don't know about bland or ugly (some folks will tell you that the new
> Corvette is ugly, too), but I see an updated station wagon with more
> utility than the old ones ever had.
>
> dwight
>
>

I seem to see in the snoot of those three vehicles on that page, a
lot of the concept Bronco that I saw in pictures several years ago. But
yeah, it looks like a utilitarian vehicle styled to appeal to the same
crowd as the Element and that boxy little Scion thing.

--


Perhaps a metaphor might help:

1. Your emails are like sperm, ready to dash out and do their thing.
2. Your ISP is a prick.
3. APEWS is a condom.
4. We are innocent maidens who do not like surprises.
5. You are asking for one teeny hole in the rubber.

You'll have to get us drunk first. - Hey Bub

On Jul 16, 7:19 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
> "Rich" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.
>
> >http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...icle.aspx?cp-d...
>
> Why didn't you just go to the source?http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/flex/
>
> There's nothing new here. The Flex has been shown for quite a while. I don't
> know about bland or ugly (some folks will tell you that the new Corvette is
> ugly, too), but I see an updated station wagon with more utility than the
> old ones ever had.

Updated modern station... yup, I agree.

Patrick

On Jul 16, 8:02 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
...
> >> It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.

> >>http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...icle.aspx?cp-d...
>
> > Why didn't you just go to the source?
> >http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/flex/

> > There's nothing new here. The Flex has been shown for quite a while. I
> > don't know about bland or ugly (some folks will tell you that the new
> > Corvette is ugly, too), but I see an updated station wagon with more
> > utility than the old ones ever had.

> I seem to see in the snoot of those three vehicles on that page, a
> lot of the concept Bronco that I saw in pictures several years ago. But
> yeah, it looks like a utilitarian vehicle styled to appeal to the same
> crowd as the Element and that boxy little Scion thing.

I drive an Element, so I'm biased, but I think the Element has better
proportions.

The Flex's main problem, besides it's stupid name, is the front and
rear overhangs. Move the wheels out further to the ends and it would
look much better.

That's my two.

Patrick

> --
>
> Perhaps a metaphor might help:
>
> 1. Your emails are like sperm, ready to dash out and do their thing.
> 2. Your ISP is a prick.
> 3. APEWS is a condom.
> 4. We are innocent maidens who do not like surprises.
> 5. You are asking for one teeny hole in the rubber.
>
> You'll have to get us drunk first. - Hey Bub

On Jul 16, 9:08 am, Rich > wrote:
> It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.
>
> http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...icle.aspx?cp-d...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If this was labeled a Pontiac Aztec or an American badged vehicle, it
looks ugly.
If Honda put a label on it, the auto "critics" would call it a beauty.

Whatever. If gas doesn't stabilize in price, nobody will be driving
any of these vehicles anyway.

I think the buying public is in the mood for something they perceive as
practical.

Problem with Flex is that - unlike Honda and Scion - it's HUGE. Base
model weight is nearly 4900 pounds!!!!!

We'll see, but looks like shades of Pacifica to me.......about as in
step with the times as the new Lincoln MKS that requires premium gas.

On Jul 16, 9:02*pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> dwight wrote:
> > "Rich" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.
>
> >>http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...icle.aspx?cp-d....
>
> > Why didn't you just go to the source?
> >http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/flex/
>
> > There's nothing new here. The Flex has been shown for quite a while. I
> > don't know about bland or ugly (some folks will tell you that the new
> > Corvette is ugly, too), but I see an updated station wagon with more
> > utility than the old ones ever had.
>
> > dwight
>
> * * I seem to see in the snoot of those three vehicles on that page, a
> lot of the concept Bronco that I saw in pictures several years ago. But
> yeah, it looks like a utilitarian vehicle styled to appeal to the same
> crowd as the Element and that boxy little Scion thing.
>

The Element is an abomination. I hate any vehicle that has as an
exterior panel, ugly black plastic.

On Jul 17, 8:06*am, (Itsfrom Click) wrote:
> I think the buying public is in the mood *for something they perceive as
> practical.
>
> Problem with Flex is that - unlike Honda and Scion - it's HUGE. *Base
> model weight is nearly 4900 pounds!!!!! *

Well, apparently despite gas prices, hybrids are getting bigger. But
one person I know labelled the Ford a "bread delivery truck." I think
I said that about the Chrysler PT Cruiser and it sold...

"Itsfrom Click" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I think the buying public is in the mood for something they perceive as
> practical.
>
> Problem with Flex is that - unlike Honda and Scion - it's HUGE. Base
> model weight is nearly 4900 pounds!!!!!

CR claims a curb weight of 4150 lb for the Flex. This over 300 pounds less
than the Toyota Higlander which is a close competitor (but thousands more
expensive when similarly equipped, and smaller too). The much smaller Honda
Element has a curb weight of 3650 lbs.

> We'll see, but looks like shades of Pacifica to me.......about as in
> step with the times as the new Lincoln MKS that requires premium gas.

Lots of vehicles "require" premium fuel, many sold by Toyota / Nissan / Audi
/ Cadillac....

I suspect the MKS will run fine on regular (with reduced fuel economy and
power).

Ed

Rich wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:02 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> It's hard to go bankrupt without help like this.
>>>> http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/cro...icle.aspx?cp-d...
>>> Why didn't you just go to the source?
>>> http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/flex/
>>> There's nothing new here. The Flex has been shown for quite a while. I
>>> don't know about bland or ugly (some folks will tell you that the new
>>> Corvette is ugly, too), but I see an updated station wagon with more
>>> utility than the old ones ever had.
>>> dwight
>> I seem to see in the snoot of those three vehicles on that page, a
>> lot of the concept Bronco that I saw in pictures several years ago. But
>> yeah, it looks like a utilitarian vehicle styled to appeal to the same
>> crowd as the Element and that boxy little Scion thing.
>>
>
> The Element is an abomination. I hate any vehicle that has as an
> exterior panel, ugly black plastic.


Then you aren't the target demo for that vehicle...

--


Perhaps a metaphor might help:

1. Your emails are like sperm, ready to dash out and do their thing.
2. Your ISP is a prick.
3. APEWS is a condom.
4. We are innocent maidens who do not like surprises.
5. You are asking for one teeny hole in the rubber.

You'll have to get us drunk first. - Hey Bub

On Jul 17, 12:27 pm, Rich > wrote:

> The Element is an abomination.
> I hate any vehicle that has as an exterior panel, ugly black plastic.

They come fully painted now.

Here's exactly -- color, trim, year, etc -- what mine looks like.

http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...Element-lg.jpg

Patrick
'93 Cobra
'06 Element