"shpuker" (shpuker)
07/26/2017 at 23:01 • Filed to: None
5
49|
"shpuker" (shpuker)
07/26/2017 at 23:01 • Filed to: None | 5
| 49 |
Due to the fact that I enjoy being super critical of the lineup choices that automakers make, I figured why not share my liquor fueled internet rage with the rest of you hoons. Thus a new (hopefully not overly short) series is born. Come and join in on the hate. First up: Ford/Lincoln
First things first, who the fuck approved the MKT and why the fuck aren’t they in jail? Honestly I’m amazed they’ve sold any, let alone 26,000 in the last 5 years. Even then though the MKX out sold it.... As in they sold 31,000 of them in 2016 alone...
MOVING ON. This is more than just shitting on the MKT (which is literally the worst thing you could ever spend $43,000 on... Yea that’s what it starts at...). Lets look at the entire Ford lineup first. Ford sells 17 individual models... I’m not joking go count yourself. Fucking 17 models, and among those 17 models they have 18 (These #’s are just in the US market) unique engine options. I could divert now and bitch and moan about Ford selling a 1.5L and a 1.6L, or a 2.7L, 3.0L, a 3.3L, and a 3.5L, but I’d rather focus just on the engines that really don’t make any sense to sell anymore.
First up, the 3.5L N/A V6
On paper this engine doesn’t sound so bad, 290 HP, 255 Lb*Ft of torque. Well until you remember the 2.3L EcoBoost exists at the 280 HP and 310 Lb*Ft mark, and the 2.0L EcoBoost at 252 HP and 270 Lb*Ft. Now both of these engines perform better and achieve better fuel economy than the 3.5L, and to be fair the 2.3L is an option. But why not have the 2.0L as your entry level engine, minimize manufacturing costs, and achieve a better fuel economy label? Now to be fair the 3.3L replaced it in the F150, and has some improved specs... And by improved specs I mean 10 Lb*Ft of torque more and that’s it... What the shit Ford. Why do you have 3 engines sitting at the same performance metric?
Fuck it whats next? The 2.0L N/A? Oh for fucks sake.
160 HP, zero torque, this is the piece of shit they use in the base Focus and the hybrid Fusion and C-Min. This motor couldn’t have much less life in it if it tried, and Ford already has a fucking motor that can replace it no problem! Just use the god-damned 1.6L EcoBoost you cheap fucks. Shit you could even tweak the power output between the base and Titanium trim and not spend shit all for cash doing it while justifying a higher price! What a fucking idea! Making money on something other than the F150! Now if you wanna say “Ooo that motors just too expensive to use in that model!” Well then why the fuck did you make a 1.5L EcoBoost and put it in the fucking Escape? YOU ALREADY HAD A GOOD MOTOR WHY DIDN’T YOU USE IT?! Oh wait, you fucking did and then switched it out for one that’s worse. My bad.
Ok fuck the engines, what about the model lineup. Oh yea, the Flex is still a thing...
Because offering a $29,000 CUV, a $30,000 CUV, and a $31,000 CUV makes perfect fucking sense. That’s why... (That’s the Edge, Flex, and Explorer for all 5 of you reading this). To be completely fair, Ford did sell over 20,000 of them last year... To be even more fair, all 20,000 of those fucking people would’ve wither bought an Edge or an Explorer because those sold 134,000 and 248,000 units... Why the fuck does this ugly ass car exist, and why on Earth did you pay to have it face-lifted?
What else is stupid that you do... Oh yea, Lincolns interiors... There’s plenty of WTF’s to go around so let’s just focus on the gear selection/start button first.
Ok nothing out of place here right? That big ass knob in the middle is obviously the gear selector like it is on all the Fords and wait no the fuck it isn’t. Are those... buttons?... directly connecting to the touch screen?... Oh because that’s exactly what I want to do when driving down the highway, go to change the song and instead change into fucking reverse. Thanks Ford! But seriously, you already had to recall a shit load of vehicles for this dumb-ass design flaw so why do you keep re-using it? Nobody wants it.
Last but not least, Ford’s batshit pricing model between Ford and Lincoln. Let’s run through some examples of what to do, and what not to do.
Example 1, what not to do: Ford Escape vs. Lincoln MKC
Rule #1 of a luxury brand: Don’t create competition for your own fucking car. A top of the line Escape will come in at a cool $30,000, which is a decent amount for an Escape sure, but the MKC starts at $32,000 with the same engine, and less equipment... So why on would you ever buy a lower range MKC? Answer: You wouldn’t, and thus you’d only sell 25,000 of them compared to 307,000 of it’s cheaper sibling.
Example 2, what to do: Toyota Camry vs Lexus ES
Now if your initial response is, “WTF why are you comparing those they have basically nothing in common, are they even the same platform?” Then you’ve proven my fucking point. A top of the line Camry (Non-Hybrid) will slide in at a cool $30,000 as well, but the Lexus ES starts at $39,000. On top of that the Lexus comes in at 268 HP in its base configuration and the Camry maxed out is at 206 HP. Result? You sell 58,000 ESs (at a notably higher average sale price than the MKC) and 388,000 Camrys.
Example 3, What not to do: Ford Fusion vs Lincoln MKZ
What’s a loaded Fusion come in at you ask? Oh just a fairly ridiculous $35,000 (Love you Fusion Sport, the Platinum actually starts at $36,000). Oh and what’s the MKZ start at? Oh also $35,000?.... Well it has a better engi... Oh it comes with the 2.0L EcoBoost while the Fusion Sport has AWD and the 2.7L EcoBoost and like 100 Lb*Ft of torque more?... Seriously what the shit Ford? Are you actively trying to not sell MKZs? Again that’s 30,000 MKZs sold and 265,000 Fusions, but I’m honestly amazed anyone bought an MKZ, especially given the fact that it uses that shit-ass button system.
Final one I promise: Honda CR-V vs Acura RDX
Let’s make one thing clear, I can’t stand the RDX. I think it’s bland, and it looks like it’s trying to chop down a goddamn forest at all times. BUT. Let’s look at this objectively. A maxed out CR-V (which is essentially a base CR-V with fucking AWD added on, seriously they have almost no options for it) is about $26,000 and has a 2.4L and makes like 190 HP. Not great at all, but the RDX? It starts at about $36,000 and 279 HP. The result? The CR-V sold 357,000 fucking units last year at what I assume is the greatest profit margin of any vehicle ever, other than the RDX which in all it’s hideous glory somehow still sold 52,000 units... You hear that Ford? Acura DOUBLED the sales of your shitty MKC with the RDX and only ONE engine option...
tl;dr
Ford What the literal fuck are you doing with anything?
Also: Kinja please stop fucking with my formatting you shit
Also 2.0: IDK if it’s just on my end, but it keeps pushing the Acura pic all the way to the top how do I stop it.
6691 zapS
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:07 |
|
I like the flex
interstate366, now In The Industry
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:14 |
|
I like the RDX. Because of the reason you said.
|
shpuker
> 6691 zapS
07/26/2017 at 23:15 |
|
|
shpuker
> interstate366, now In The Industry
07/26/2017 at 23:16 |
|
Because it’s brilliantly slotted into its market segment and maintains a phenomenal profit margin? Why thank you!
AestheticsInMotion
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:18 |
|
So who are the other 4 people reading this?
|
6691 zapS
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:18 |
|
But hey, Doesn’t really matter liking =/= buying.
Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:19 |
|
I like the Flex
Pls do honda/acura
TheTurbochargedSquirrel
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:24 |
|
TL;DR: Why the fuck does Lincoln still exist?
Nothing
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:27 |
|
I kinda like the Ford lineup. Nearly a performance version for every model they have. Pissing on Lincoln products, well that’s just low hanging fruit. Pretty sure all MKT sales have been for livery. They’re probably all parked at an airport now, waiting to pick up a fare.
It seems everyone knows what to do with Lincoln except Ford.
|
interstate366, now In The Industry
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:29 |
|
Yep. Plus, take CR-V, make it nicer inside, faster, and crazy-looking. Even the original one with the turbo 4 was awesome. And before the beak came around it actually looked good (well, for a crossover).
|
shpuker
> 6691 zapS
07/26/2017 at 23:29 |
|
This is too true.
i.e. I LOVE the Focus RS, however I’m also not going to buy one.
EL_ULY
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:29 |
|
The Flex is so rad!
And as is tradition, the actual cool cars are the ones that don’t sell (because humans suck) and get discontinued
TFen
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:31 |
|
I just bought a 2017 F350. You’re opinion on Ford’s lineup/endless options (engine and otherwise) is shared by the dealers, too.
Apparently it creates absolute nightmare for “stock” orders and they lose sales left and right because the clients don’t want to wait for a factory order.
I was in this position and had to take a few options I had no desire for, just to avoid a 6 week wait for a factory order. Pretty frustrating experience when buying a $75k vehicle.
|
shpuker
> interstate366, now In The Industry
07/26/2017 at 23:33 |
|
This is fair. Personally I’d be far more open to it if they went with a front end that was slightly less hawkish. Most of my hate for it stems from the original MDX, which isn’t really fair. That car was comically slow and just shit in more ways than one.
rillweid - Now with more TRD and less TDI
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:35 |
|
Hot take - Lincoln shifter buttons are a pleasure when you have to deal with the stupid stupid Honda button shifter things. Every single button on the thing operates differently. Way dumber than a Lincoln.
|
shpuker
> Nothing
07/26/2017 at 23:39 |
|
I don’t quite like sections of the Ford lineup. Namely the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, and Escape. Even just among those models though Ford uses 8 unique engines. Simple fix though really, just sell the Fusion with the 1.6L EcoBoost as the base engine and in the hybrid and use it as the base motor for the Escape. Then use the 2.3L EcoBoost as the Fusion Sports engine and call it the Fusion ST. Suddenly you’ve cut down from 8 engines in 4 platforms to 5 offerings.
Plus the Escape and Fusion are both CD platforms so why the shit does the Escape not even have the 2.0L EcoBoost? It only gets the 2.0L N/A and the 1.5L EcoBoost that isn’t used in anything else in the US market... Just why.
bhtooefr
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:39 |
|
I wouldn’t be so sure that the 3.5 is less efficient than a hot 2.0T - putting an undersized engine in a big vehicle, and boosting it, is the fast route to only doing well on standardized tests.
Also, the 2.0 is almost certainly far cheaper than the 1.5T or 1.6Ts, and it’s going into cars that are far cheaper, at least in non-hybrid trim. As far as hybrid trim, the engine’s actually less powerful and less torquey there, but the electric motor’s there to make up for it.
LongbowMkII
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:41 |
|
The ecoboost’s aren’t exactly cheap to run either
|
shpuker
> bhtooefr
07/26/2017 at 23:48 |
|
Luckily Ford already made the lineup moves to show the contrast there. The 2015 Edge used a 3.5L N/A or a 2.0L and Car and Driver observed ~18mpg average in the 3.5L and 21 mpg in the 2.0L EcoBoost. (Yea, they sold both in one fucking vehicle at the same time...)
Or in their words
“The 35-hp gap between the EcoBoost four-cylinder and the 3.5-liter V-6 doesn’t loom large considering that the smaller turbo engine has a 25 lb-ft torque advantage that also peaks 1000-rpm lower on the tach. At the track, the difference is that the four requires 0.6-second longer to reach 60 mph, taking 8.3 seconds. For comparison, Kia’s lighter, slightly less roomy Sorento with a turbo 2.0-liter managed 8.0 seconds flat.
In the quarter-mile, the difference between this EcoBoost and Ford’s V-6 shrinks to only 0.1 second and 3 mph. The four delivers slightly better 50-to-70-mph passing acceleration (5.5 seconds versus 5.8) but takes a little longer than the V-6 to get from 30 to 50 mph. Both are mated to a six-speed automatic (but with different gearing), which can be sluggish on downshifts even if the driver commands them through the standard paddles. The transmission did seem to respond a little better to this car’s beefier torque output than it did with the six.”
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-edge-titanium-20t-ecoboost-awd-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-edge-titanium-35l-v-6-awd-test-review
|
shpuker
> LongbowMkII
07/26/2017 at 23:50 |
|
If they were more heavily relied upon in the lineup then the price per-unit would come down, as would maintenance (to a degree)
|
bhtooefr
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:51 |
|
But that’s not the same hot 2.0T that you’re talking about, it’s detuned...
|
shpuker
> bhtooefr
07/26/2017 at 23:55 |
|
Ok so 245 HP instead of 252 HP and 275 Lb*Ft instead of 270 Lb*Ft... The Edge engine is tuned for more bottom end torque and less top end power than the ST’s 2.0L. That’s pretty much it...
Carbon Fiber Sasquatch
> shpuker
07/26/2017 at 23:57 |
|
I was with you until I got to the too many engines part, then we became best friends.
Why doesn’t the base focus have the 1.5T? Why don’t they dump the 3.5L for the 2.3T? Why does the fusion sport 2.7T make less power than the Focus RS 2.3T?
How come American car companies can’t figure this streamlining shit out but literally every one is else can. How many base engines does BMW have? 4? 5? C’mon Ford, get your shit together!
|
shpuker
> TFen
07/26/2017 at 23:59 |
|
That’s no joke. Can you imagine trying to stock that many fucking combos? I didn’t even dig into the total with AWD vs FWD options and Lincoln’s combos with it. It just takes off.
|
shpuker
> Carbon Fiber Sasquatch
07/27/2017 at 00:06 |
|
EXACTLY. Shit BMW uses 7 engine combinations total, and that’s including all M vehicles, the i’s, AND Mini... WTF are you doing Ford?!
QCGoose
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 00:11 |
|
Spend time riding in a Flex, then ask yourself again why it exists. You’ll know the answer.
Plus it’s a cool boxy wagon in a sea of anonymous blobs.
|
shpuker
> QCGoose
07/27/2017 at 00:12 |
|
I have on multiple occasions. They aren’t bad cars, but that doesn’t mean they should exist. It’s out dated, it doesn’t make money, and it poaches sales from other vehicles and keeps the per-unit cost of those higher than it would otherwise be. It doesn’t makes sense to make it.
|
QCGoose
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 00:18 |
|
If it poaches sales from other vehicles, then it has every reason to exist.
|
shpuker
> QCGoose
07/27/2017 at 00:20 |
|
Not if the net profit without it is significantly more than with it.
Essentially what I’m trying to say is that sales in general are less desirable than sales at an optimized profit margin. It’s basically a really rough way of looking at Toyota’s lean engineering platform at a vehicle lineup level.
StoneCold
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 00:26 |
|
I’m a little sad you didn’t mention the Taurus, because I have no idea what niche that car is for. I would take one over a Fusion, but I wouldn’t pay THAT much more for it.
Also, I’m a fan of the Flex. I hear good things from people who own them.
|
shpuker
> StoneCold
07/27/2017 at 00:36 |
|
I honestly forgot to tear it apart. Problem is, size wise it actually fits a massive market segment. It’s just such a shit car for its price point that there’s literally no reason to ever buy one. (I wouldn’t take one over a Fusion even at the same price).
|
shpuker
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 00:38 |
|
I’m great at typing. That’s supposed to start with, “I quite like”
SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 00:42 |
|
Meanwhile in Oz: Fiesta , Focus, Mondeo (Fusion), Mustang, Ecosport , Escape, Everest, Ranger, Transit and Transit Custom. That’s it.
Lot’s of similar engines too. Just different tunes.
|
shpuker
> SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
07/27/2017 at 00:55 |
|
Meanwhile back in the US again we’re adding the EcoSport, Ranger, and the Bronco to an already saturated lineup...
dsgolson
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 03:03 |
|
“A maxed out CR-V (which is essentially a base CR-V with fucking AWD added on, seriously they have almost no options for it) is about $26,000 and has a 2.4L and makes like 190 HP.”
Uhhh... A maxed-out CR-V, the Touring model with AWD, is $34,735 and has a turbocharged 1.5-liter engine with 190 horsepower (everything above LX has this engine). The base model LX has a naturally aspirated 2.4-liter engine that makes 184 horsepower.
“A top of the line Escape will come in at a cool $30,000, which is a decent amount for an Escape sure, but the MKC starts at $32,000 with the same engine, and less equipment...”
A FWD Escape Titanium with the 2.0 EcoBoost is a little over $27,000. The MKC has more stuff as standard. A loaded-up Escape is a bit over $35,000, but the MKC is still nicer and has even more stuff available.
I could dive deeper into some more of the stuff that you’ve said, but... You probably don’t care anyway.
|
Carbon Fiber Sasquatch
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 08:00 |
|
“how do they do it!? How do the Germans have better profits than us and still develop new technologies!?“
Because they put the new stuff in the products they sell to cover the cost! How is this complicated!?
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> StoneCold
07/27/2017 at 08:40 |
|
Last time I was at a car dealership the Taurus wasn’t much more than a Fusion due to the higher amount of incentives on it. I will add that it was like 3 or 4 years ago.
|
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 08:46 |
|
A lot of your comments make a lot of sense, but I do have to pick on a few:
“Why the fuck does this ugly ass car exist, and why on Earth did you pay to have it face-lifted?”
Plenty of people around here like the Flex. I think it’s delightfully odd. If Ford is making money off of selling 20k of these, then I’m fine with it.
“The 2.0L N/A? Oh for fucks sake.”
This and the 3.5/3.3L N/A make sense to me. My dad has the 2.0 in his Focus. He doesn’t drive much, like maybe 8k miles per year. It’s great for his needs. It was cheaper, it’s less complex, it powers the Focus more than adequately. It’s not meant to be an enthusiasts engine.
In the F150 the 3.3L makes sense because some people just really want a bare-bones work/fleet truck with an uncomplicated engine.
“Are those... buttons?... directly connecting to the touch screen?... Oh because that’s exactly what I want to do when driving down the highway, go to change the song and instead change into fucking reverse.”
I am fucking ecstatic that they are located where they are, more room for storage/cupholders and better looking interior. And it WONT go in reverse when you are doing 65-80 on the highway, the car is smart enough not to.
|
shpuker
> Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
07/27/2017 at 10:47 |
|
Counterpoints incoming:
Flex: True most of the points I made about it are subjective and thus subject to disagreement. So let me clarify my objective distaste for the vehicle.
Right now Ford has 3 CUVs/SUVs right around the same price/performance/size point. No matter how well all three vehicles sell, your profits are going to increase as you simplify this lineup (reduced factory upkeep, opens up production space for the other models, and you’d see an increase in sales of the other two models which will reduce per-vehicle costs directly). So yes Ford might make money selling 20,000 Flexs (Flexi?), they would in all likelihood make far more money by simplifying the lineup and promoting better selling models.
1.6/1.5EB vs 2.0 N/A and 3.3L vs 3.5L
First things first, there’s no reason to have the 1.5 and 1.6 on the market at the same time, so i’ll pick the 1.6EB to focus on just for arguments sake. (Not the ST’s 1.6EB, but rather the Escape’s)
1.6EB vs 2.0L: Yes the 2.0L isn’t meant to be a performance minded motor, and I understand that. However the 1.6EB would give it better acceleration feel and a significant bump in base fuel economy. Sure your per-unit cost may go up initially but replace the 2.0L N/A in all applications with the 1.6EB and suddenlyy the per-unit cost on the 1.6 drops notably and you’re making more money.
3.3L vs 3.5L: This wasn’t the argument I intended to dive into really. The 3.3L is the next generation of the 3.5L so it makes sense in that regard.
3.3L vs 2.7EB: Both are already offered in the F150, the 2.7EB performs better and returns better fuel economy. If they dropped the 3.3L N/A (not the 3.5EB, or I presume the 3.3EB whenever that happens) in favor of the 2.7EB in every application, once again development costs and tooling costs drop allowing for the 2.7's per-unit to come down and increasing profits.
Those shitty push buttons: Not sure we’re gonna come to any common agreement on the aesthetics but let me just go after them from a more subjective standpoint.
First of all, yes I know the vehicle won’t actually go into reverse at highway speed. It will however shut off, aka the reason they had to recall a shit load of MKC’s, MKZ’s, and I’m pretty sure something else as well. Push buttons to shift in general are fine I guess, just not in the way they’re implemented.
What about their relevance in per-unit profits? Well most manufacturers will opt for retaining interior structures that the customer doesn’t see wherever possible between their upper and lower end brands. Thus you drastically reduce development and tooling costs. By relocating the shift mechanism and completely redesigning the center console Ford increases baseline costs for both the Ford and Lincoln model for really no great reason. Honestly as much as I dislike the buttons Ford would be better off using only the buttons than they are using both buttons, and the dials, and the console gear stick, and the column gear shift...
|
shpuker
> Carbon Fiber Sasquatch
07/27/2017 at 10:49 |
|
It’s only complicated when your top two product metrics are competitive benchmarking and quarterly returns.
cmill189 - sans Volvo
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 10:58 |
|
Someone commented on David Tracy’s Trailblazer article about how disproportionate the long-wheel-base Trailblazer is and I completely agree.
I believe the Lincoln MKT has taken that crown and doubled down on the ugly. My god, they are truly terrible in pictures and in person.
|
shpuker
> dsgolson
07/27/2017 at 10:59 |
|
CR-V: Read off the wrong engine, doesn’t change the point of the argument. Sue me.
MKC vs Escape: “Has more stuff available” Why yes, yes it does. However the majority of those options you can add (which cost money) are already on a loaded Escape. To the average buyer that’s going to pull away a lot of motivation they would have to jump up to the MKC, and for a lot of potential MKC buyers it may give them reason to jump down and buy a loaded Escape.
Also a loaded Escape FWD 2.0EB is just under $33,000... Don’t believe me? Here’s one with an MSRP of $36,000, with FWD...
Pyrochazm
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 11:40 |
|
The ass on the MKT makes it look like a hyrax.
|
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 11:59 |
|
“It will however shut off”
That’s a design flaw. I would assume it should just not do anything when you attempt to reverse on the highway, maybe flash a message saying “you are going 70 miles an hour, did you really think I’d let you shift into reverse?”
So maybe the execution went a bit wrong, but I think the idea is right, even with the increased cost. But I’m one of those people that thinks this is right for every automatic car, ever. To at least have column mounted shifter, but buttons are a nice solution too, gear selectors are a waste of space!
As for engines, I am mostly arguing in favor of the N/A engines due to their simplicity. When it comes to trucks especially, it may not make sense, but a lot of fleet buyers still want them. I’ll admit the arguments for keeping the 2.0 are getting weaker and weaker by the day. And I agree the 1.5 was a dumb redundant idea.
As for the lineup bloat in general? 3 CUV’s. The only way to know if having only one or two is better is by A-B testing in two different timelines and that won’t happen, haha. I think they are distinctly different enough to warrant having all 3 available. The Flex and Explorer both offer 3rd row seating, yet are significantly different vehicles. I do have a feeling the Flex might be on the chopping block, but it’s survived so far. The Edge is the one I understand the least. No 3rd row and not significantly cheaper or better mpg than the other two.
|
shpuker
> Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
07/27/2017 at 12:25 |
|
By it will shut off I mean if you hit the power button while driving (Which on the MKC and MKZ is located also directly next to the touch screen).
The buttons take up significantly more space than the dial-shifters.
I get the simplicity argument, but by having both in the lineup you don’t simplify it for the ones actually doing the maintenance, your dealers. Suddenly they have to train their mechanics on both platforms and they have to stock parts for both.
I would argue that the Explorer and Flex are virtually no different from a customers perspective. The Flex is a larger vehicle overall with less cargo volume (or just barely more with seats down), the same base engine as the Explorer, and virtually the same starting price.
The Edge doesn’t make much sense either though as it’s pitched as a higher end version of the Escape essentially, but all that really does is poach sales off the MKC.
TFSIVTEC drivesavolvo
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 13:05 |
|
Yes I agree the MKT is a failed abortion on wheels. I however disagree with your thoughts on the Flex. I’d take a Flex over an Edge 100x over. The Edge has got to be one of the most stereotypically bland, non offensively designed cuv out there
|
shpuker
> TFSIVTEC drivesavolvo
07/27/2017 at 13:45 |
|
Yes but would you take it over the Explorer?
|
TFSIVTEC drivesavolvo
> shpuker
07/27/2017 at 16:24 |
|
Both can be had with the 3.5 ecoboost so that’s a moot point. I’ve operated both and can confirm the Flex feels more spacious on the inside and is the only one available with a built in fridge. Also I tend to prefer more obscure vehicles in general. The Flex is the gem of Fords cuv lineup in my opinion.
|
Carbon Fiber Sasquatch
> shpuker
10/04/2017 at 14:30 |
|
Apparently Ford read your post lol