Talk:Ford Flex

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Timeline

Shouldn't Flex be in the Crossover SUV lineup in the timeline? rather than large SUV. Pautlorius 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Done. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior

Does anyone else notice the strong similarities in styling with the British Range Rover, which is also owned by Ford. The front views are particularly close in detail, and I believe the Range Rover was launched prior to the Flex which would suggest the Range Rover at least get a mention in the article. ^[1] AD227529 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of this is original research which is not allowed in articles. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=range+rover&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

Crossover minivan

Whoever undid that edit with a lame excuse this is not a van doesn't know jack, honestly. First of all, nobody even said that Flex was a van. It's a minivan. Second, it's NOT a minivan. It's a crossover minivan, or CMV. Look it up, it's a new term that exists. Very much like CUV, a car that borrows feats from an SUV, this is a minivan that borrows feats from an SUV. And yes, Ford were the first to come up with that concept, pretty much like they did with Edge on CUVs. Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such phrase "crossover minivan." You didn't link to an article "crossover minivan" -- you linked to two different articles about two different vehicle types. A crossover is by definition two different types of vehicles, so it doesn't make sense to combine it with another class. Reverted. IFCAR (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not exist on Wikipedia does not mean that the term does not exist at all. I'm okay to call it a crossover as long as we know that it has nothing to do with a station wagon. Ford Flex is a crossover between a minivan and an SUV. If you know how to write it any clearer then tell me, but the article should not confuse by saying that it is a station wagon derivative borrowing features from an SUV (i.e. a CUV). Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

This section needed some rework to be a little more neutral. Quoting a newspaper that was clearly editorializing doesn't meet the wiki encyclopedia quality requirements. Also, added some reviews and some real data as to the sales so readers can judge for themselves on if the sales are good. Personally, I think the sales have been mediocre and not a "dud" as the globe and mail says. I've been tempted to go back and edit further since that 100,000 is still being taken out of context as the sales VP was simply ambitiously saying it was possible that the sales could hit that number. Now it's a "dud" because it didn't achieve that. Crossover sales aren't going to match that of top leading mini-vans. They just don't have the same utility for the price. --Jponline77 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to make it "neutral" you just removed anything that doesn't portray it in a positive light. Your POV is obvious.

This isn't an editorial. I found that difficult to make Neutral. The 100,000 target was something thrown out as a side comment by Jim Farley and not an official target. So, it's really not very good information. As well, this reference is a blog and I'm not sure constitutes a reliable reference. --Jponline77 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "top ranked fullsize SUV" bit isn't actually in the cited source, and the source that supposedly says it's highest in owner satisfaction is conveniently unreachable by someone who isn't a registered user of the website. --Sable232 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Consumer Reports site (I'm a subscriber) and reworded the edit based on that. A citation can be from a source that requires registration, and in this case Consumer Reports is also widely available in print. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on consumer reports the Ford Flex SEL is rated at 77, however, the Ford Flex ecoboost is rated at 85, which is the best large SUV. --Jponline77 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The Limited model of the Flex was rated the most reliable of the large SUVs per Consumer Reports with a rating of 85. The SEL model had the 77 rating, so my error. I did not see any mention of the Flex being the most reliable Ford vehicle, though. Please put the page number or URL for that part of the sentence. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Updated. --Jponline77 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining Article Problems

Here are changes that I think still need to be made to this article:

The features section has a heavy focus on model years and listing which optional features are available on which model. It's boring, and makes the article look like a wikipedia-endorsed advertisement for the car. tommylommykins (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some headway in trying to make it less of a brochure. It seems to happen a bit in articles for cars that don't have multiple generations. However, the fundamentals are now here to make some progress. --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 10:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ford Flex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Flex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124201709/http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Affordable-Midsize-SUVs/ to http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Affordable-Midsize-SUVs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Flex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=range+rover&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

[1]