When it comes to family-hauling vehicular solutions, we're at the end of the tunnel. In the face of $5 a gallon gas, SUV and minivan sales have vaporized. The mushroom cloud of market crash is overhead. One need only look at the discrepancy between SUV/CUV and small car sales to realize we're in the dystopic, post-apocalyptic era– as far as Detroit's concerned. While Ford rushes its Fiesta compact into production (hola!) and focuses on its existing passenger cars, they've come up with the Flex, a big-ass people mover. Seven seats and xB style. How great is that?
Rather than opt for a swoopy crossover or an SUV lookalike, the Flex's designers settled on a boxy two-box design. The headline details: the contrasting color roof, the Woody-reminiscent side strakes and an aluminum trimmed tailgate. The Flex looks great. Even better– and more significantly– it looks different. The Flex stands apart from its competitors, from the Honda Pilot to the GMC Acadia. In today's market– where many products are comparable in overall function and performance– that's a good thing, not a bad thing. The Flex may not be polarizing enough to fall into J. Mays's intended "love it or hate it" category, but it's what Ford needed to do here. It's a distinctive vehicle in the overcrowded segment.
Once you get the people in the dealership door, what's it like inside? Inside the door of the Ford dealership, it's dusty. Inside the Flex, we find Ford's finest-ever interior, at least on this side of the Atlantic. The Flex's fit and finish, the interior detailing and the materials involved are all top shelf. If I was a Ford dealer, I'd be worried about having a Flex on the floor next to everything else.
The Flex's seats are extremely cushy and supporting, wrapped with either herringbone patterned cloth (shades of VW) or leather. Frasier's father would want one of these chairs in his son's living room, which is probably smaller than the Flex's second row. The six-inch-stretched D3 platform's wheelbase makes for such an expansive second row that the Flex betters the livery-standard Lincoln Towncar in every way.
The Flex's third row is… functional. Functional in the sense that the way back is inside the car, that it is, in fact, the third row, and a few smaller human beings of smaller stature would be happy in situ, though only two at a time (or three, if the people are Jessica Biel, Kate Beckinsdale and me).
The flip ‘n fold mechanism is the same one that's used in the what-the-hell-do-we-do-with-it-now? Ford Taurus X. The Flex's folding seats are jerky and not especially intuitive. They also became stuck on my test car. (Oops.) Once everything is folded flat, including the front passenger seat, we're looking enough cargo space for the most lifestyle challenged slacker. But let's not carried away here (literally): the Flex is not a realistic alternative to a mega-SUV or minivan for hauling aptitude.
Ford is touting the Flex's available toys and creature comforts. In the interest of space, we're talking about a huge touch-screen navigation system, SYNC gen 2, a compressor-driven refrigerator, up to four sunroofs (or as few as none), optional 19" wheels, heated rear seats, rear A/C outlet, etc.. Either you want these fripperies (Jeez that's expensive for a Ford) or you don't (flexible credit terms available ).
The Flex's driving experience– previously embargoed in the name of "Save the Buff Books"– is perfectly fine. The CUV packs a 262 horsepower 3.5-liter V6 hooked up to a six-speed automatic and optional all wheel drive. None of the these three factoids is particularly relevant. This is a car for people who don't care about driving. By the same token, insulation isolation is the Flex's trump card. The Flex has a Tempurpedic-quality ride and enough laminated glass to crate a recording studio. In fact, you could hear a pin drop at 75 miles per hour– although what you're doing fooling around with a sharp object at that speed is anybody's guess.
There are two reasons for FoMoCo suits to be worried about the Flex's prospects. First, this concept isn't new; even in recent years (see: Chrysler Pacifica and Ford Taurus X). Second, the Flex's fuel economy (17/24 mpg) is no better than other crossovers like GMC's Acadia (16/24). As Frank Williams has reported, SUV refugees are skipping straight to cars, and for good reason.
Still, the Ford Flex is a lovable machine. It's the first completely, bumper-to-bumper "finished" car Ford has made in many, many years. And it's one of the most– if not THE most– pleasant machine in which to passenger– at least in the first two rows. With the SUV exodus in full swing, Ford will have to hope that style trumps fuel economy. Chances are iffy.
The right car at the wrong time. How ’bout a tossable 3/4 scale version?
Range Rover meets Mini Crossman? Zexxxxxy.
I still think it’s too van-like, and will fail sales -wise like the R350. But unlike the R, it seems like a really earnest and good effort from Ford. This is the kind of product that will get people to consider Ford again. No more black brick radios, lots of thoughtful and unique style touches… wonderful show of progress for the Blue Oval!
I like it. The interior looks especially nice.
Now Ford just needs to make all its cars like this.
I dug this thing from the very first photo I saw. The only thing that would keep me from buying is the MPG. A stationwagon makes more sense.
I hope this one is a hit out of the park; it’s the first daring design from Ford since the original Taurus and deserves attention. Unfortunately, as you point out, the herd has now moved back to small cars (remember 1975?), so they may have some difficulty with it.
Is this platform the same that underpins the Mazda CX9? Everyone I know who has one of those is very happy with the way that it drives.
One question I have: Will women see this as too much of a minivan? I know so many women who would rather be boiled in oil than drive a minivan. The flex,despite it's doors, looks like…a minivan. Still, this may eat Chryslers lunch…the market can take a domestic van with a decent interior.
Interesting times…
I suppose if you have to debut yet another CUV into such a crowded segment while in a $4+/gallon fuel reality, this is the way to do it right.
I think they have a winner based on looks alone, but I would feel more confident predicting a success when the EcoBoost engine arrives (only if there is a fuel economy benefit, of course.)
$38,000, like in 38 thousand dollars for a freaking ford? somebody is out of their right mind.
So, let me summarize here:
– it’s a ford;
– fuel economy sucks;
– looks are arguable. I am in the “hate it” side of it.
– price is scary.. to say the least.
– interior is nicer than any other ford out there. Does anybody buy a car based on that kind of an argument?!
– did I mentioned the price?
Why would anybody buy this versus a quality minivan?
Justin, you should have give it 5 stars just because is the best piece of garbage from the fords trash can. That’s a hell of a good reason to buy it.
This should’ve had a hybrid option right out of the gate. Stick those batteries under the front row so as not to compromise the rear rows’ folding abilities.
Or, if battery supplies are too low, start/stop and cylinder deactivation (which should be standard on all cars).
As an aside, what’s the tow rating? I realize it’s a unibody, but so is the Pilot.
Looks good, sad I’m into other things. If I had a family and money I’d consider it. E30s and E34s for the time being though.
Towing is 4,500 lbs when properly equipped. I think that is the same as the Pilot in AWD. I think the FWD Pilot only tows 3,500.
The gas mileage is competitive with every other car in its class – and its class isn’t dead yet (some people are somewhat immune to gas, others still need room for 6-7). It might be bad timing for the overall market, but it isn’t a bad time to debut a competitive product because there are still some buyers out there (an estimated 1,000,000 in the 3-row CUV and minivan market).
This is a great idea that needs 4 or 5 more mpg to be fantastic. What about the EcoBoost thing? A turbo four with better mileage and you’d have everything.
Alternatively, they could improve the aerodynamics and find ways to lighten it, but it might ruin it’s good looks and quiet interior.
Though the style isn’t for me I applaud Ford for going bold instead of going home.
I maintain that if an automaker is on the ropes it’s head-turning, standout styling blessed on a competitive product that gives the automaker the best chance of turning the tide or at least grabbing some conquests.
The Flex will certainly stand out in the sea of jellybean-shaped, dull-colored appliances. More than I can say for the Edge, Pilot, Highlander and the Acadia.
For many people that will count for a lot, let’s hope fuel prices don’t kill this vehicle because it sounds very good.
Great vehicle, wrong power plant. With better fuel efficiency (hybrid from Escape?), this would be a big hit.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw the picture and thought “Hey, they brought the original xB back! …oh, wait, no, that’s not right.”
Well, it’s an innovative solution, at any rate! If you can’t make it look like an SUV because of mpg stigma, and if you can’t make it look like a minivan because of soccer-mom stigma… make it look like a super-successful little toaster car! Only…bigger! And…much more expensive! And with worse mileage! Great!
I kind of feel obligated to purchase one just to reward the fact that Ford has apparently made an interior that won’t make me want to shoot myself, for once.
This Vehicle is dommed from the start, with Gas heading for $5.00 a US Gallon, its a no win vehicle in my estimation.
Still, the Ford Flex is a lovable machine. It’s the first completely, bumper-to-bumper “finished” car Ford has made in many, many years.
Now if only Ford can apply that sort of thinking to all of its vehicles.
Regarding the Flex, I’m on the like-it-sorta side. The interior looks very upscale (for a Ford on this side of the Atlantic) and the gas mileage, when you look at it, isn’t all that bad when compared to what else is out there. And truth be told, yes you can probably get a nicer minivan for the price (it is kinda excessive) but not many buyers are logic minded like that, reference the booming CUV segment. I think the Flex will do well simply because it doesn’t try to look the part of a bonafide SUV. It’s a people hauler in the purest two box sense and with an interior like that, coupled with competitive fuel economy (which can only get better when the EcoBoost 4 cylinder comes online eventually) Ford will sell quite a few of these.
Great review!
I think there is still a market for these cars, albeit a smaller one. Honda proved with the Odyssey that you can make inroads into markets dominated by one maker, this could be the vehicle to do that for Ford. I hope it succeeds, they need a hit right now as F-150 sales head south.
I wonder how the efficiency of this compares to a 1972 Pontiac Catalina station wagon with a 400CID V8.
Yes, Virginia, we have come a long way.
I commend Ford for taking a risk on the styling and for coming out with a new vehicle that does not have fender vents. The basic premise of the Flex business case makes sense (if you ignore the fact that they already have the Taurus X on the market), but I’m also in the iffy prospects camp.
I wonder, how easy is it to drive? What is the turning circle? Do the sunroofs have shades?
Dorkmobile.
An interesting vehicle at too high of a price. Fuel economy needs to be better, too.
I have to say I like the style a lot. And I’m glad Ford is finally competitive on quality. But since I don’t have a family and don’t plan to have that BIG of a family, this car is just too big and too much of a gas hog for me. They REALLY need to build a short wheelbase version of this car that seats 4/5 people and starts with the new Ford/Mazda 2.5 liter 4 cylinder as the base engine. It sure looks a hell of a lot better and would be better quality interior than the Scion Xb.
For the love of all that is holy why don’t these manufacturers give us vehicles that have, within a whisker, the same utility as this inefficient machine. In particular i’d love to see a rash of new wagons on the market…in all shapes and sizes.
And while some say there is a market of over 1 mil for seven passenger vehicles I wonder how needed that is. I’m not here to police what one can buy or thinks they need but 20 years ago virtually nobody (as a significan percentage) had seven passenger vehicles for daily travel. Full-size fans existed primarily for long-distance travel and Suburban/full-size SUV’s were a complete niche vehicle used by people in Tejas and a few other states. And now, with birthrates down in the US (my point-fewer kids in general to haul around) seven passenger vehicles are a necessity for middle America. What has really changed is the number of times we think we need to get in our vehicle for whatever it may be…and with $4+ gasoline that is going to change and personally I think vehicles such as the Flex (I actually find it to kinda be appealing) will fade fast and crash hard in the next five years.
Ford had this too far down the pipeline and near completion when gas was still in the high $2’s so it was a forgone conclusion you’d see it. I’ll bet if Ford cold take back time/effort/dollars they’d be coming out with something different today.
All of this is opinion of course and mine hardly counts and I could be wrong.
It sucks when the best guests show up too late to enjoy the party!
Cool car, I liked it when I saw it at the NAIAS. But that was in a vacuum: I don’t know who will actually buy the Flex for that price. Its gonna be a tough sell, maybe even tougher than the GM Lambda CUVs.
Which sounds not unlike the rest of Ford’s D3 lineup.
One more thing: a Thursday review?
If Ford can actually do a nice interior as this review suggests why didn’t they apply it to the 4 cylinder Escape. Raise the price as needed (2-3K?) and then they might have a hit on their hands.
I am of the opinion that there would be a strong market for a 4 cyl Escape/RAV4/CRV class vehicle with a Lexus interior but without a Lexus price.
Add 3K to the price of any of the above and you probably could do a very nice interior and still keep the price point below 25K
Truly the rebirth of the full-size stationwagon. Thank goodness they didn’t revive “Country Squire”.
Like I said before, it’s the Mini for the rest of us.
Fuel economy is the killer for me. 17/24 is pathetic for a vehicle like this. Why not provide another, smaller engine choice for the efficiency-minded, and offer the V6 for those who aren’t concerned about mileage?
Just how much cubic footage of cargo room is there in that thing? The all-seats-folded photo makes it look enormous.
Great to see such a well executed effort, if it had only come out in 2007…
Continuing the in-the-park-home-run analogy, this seems like somebody making a fantastic catch, but crashing into the wall and being knocked unconscious. Gonna be *really* tough to sell anything that doesn’t get at least in the low 20’s/city nowadays, and going forward.
Ooooooh.
Re: 4 Cylinder Engine
This would be a death sentence for the Flex. I realize we all want better mileage. But the car is 4000+ lbs unladen and needs the torque to get up to speed.
Keep in mind that even with the V6 and six speed auto and 262 hp, the 0-60 time is still 9 seconds.
A bigger 4-cylinder diesel might work, but that’s not in Ford’s plans right now.
In terms of EcoBoost, it is going to be a turbocharged V6 for this car. Will probably have the same mileage as the V6 tested here, but much more power.
The styling may be a hit with some people, to me it is just so much a gigantic Mini rip off, particularly the white roof, and the ever so slightly lower towards the rear taper of the roofline.
I drive a 1st GEN XB- it’s amazing how many designs it has influenced- this looks like they took a XB, chopped the top and added another foot of rear overhand. Unfortunately they did what Toyota did. Made it fat with crappy gas mileage. Once again Ford has missed the target- no one is going to buy it- costs too much and doesn’t get good mileage.
New car template:
have a coolness factor ( 1st XB, Mini, Smart)
get at least 30 mpg city
weigh less than 3000 lbs
The “Big 3” deserve to go under- they just don’t seem to look at the real world- this is another product that no one asked for- hence no one will buy it
Question: does the rear glass hatch separate from the door and swing up, or is it one hatch entirely? With an interior that large and a nice flat roof, this could be a great utility vehicle.
I like it very much, but have no use for this size vehicle right now (there are only 3 of us).
At 17/24 the Flex must not be as much as a windpig as it looks. Although, I bet few owners driving 65-70 mph will ever see the 24 mpg figure. With GM’s Lambdas taking 20+ percent sales hits already, one wonders if there is enough 3-row crossover market to go around. You can dress up a 4600 lb. pig, but it’s still a pig.
Personally, I’ll stick with my 06 Dodge Grand Caravan. It may not be as fast, but it is fast enough, and it actually has room in the wayback for passengers and cargo. The sto-n-go bins are really handy. The sliding doors may not be cool, but I can actually open the sliding door while the other car is in the garage. I couldn’t do that with a swing-out. Finally, loaded with leather (ish), power doors & hatch, DVD, etc., my out-the-door price was $25238 after incentives & discount. A friend just bought an ’08 Town & Country slightly better equipped and paid about $26,000 on a list price just over $32k.
The best of the three-row crossovers still can’t match the utility of a traditional minivan, and they usually cost more.
38 Farking grand for a station wagon? Why buy this when a NEW Volvo V70 starts at $33K or a CPO V70 for $10K less and get 27MPG on the freeway. Nice try, wrong price, wrong MPG.
@XCSC
20 years ago nobody had 7 passenger vehicles, but there were also not mandatory seatbelt laws and carseats were much less bulky (read less safe) than they are now. If you have two kids in a car seat, you almost have to have the third row if you want to carry a third adult along. With one rear facing and one front facing toddler seat in our Subaru, there is no way we can get an adult between them, so when Grandma wants to come along, someone is sitting in the third row. Back when I was a kid, we just packed all the youngsters into the package tray on Dad’s Oldmobile 98 or everyone climbed in the back of the Chevy wagon. No seatbelts, no carseats. Driving around like that now could net you some serious jail time depending on the area. However, I would feel 100% safer in our Subaru than I would in any of the vehicles from my childhood in the event of an accident and I know that no one would be ejected because they all have seatbelts/carseats.
I like the style…not sure if it’s for me (or enough people in this tough economic climate, to be honest), but I appreciate the effort Ford put into this – if they work similarly hard on all their vehicles, maybe Kerkorian is right to buy stock and bet on the last man standing.
I don’t say this often, but I think Chrysler and Mitsubishi are right and Ford/GM/Honda/Toyota/Nissan are wrong in their product planning–GM and Ford particularly because they have _no_ inexpensive cars that seat more than five. The not-great sales of the Lambdas and Taurus X should have been evidence of this; now that the Pilot and Highlander are _also_ tanking, it should be doubly notable.
The Journey and Outlander, by comparison, are not at all expensive and do get more reasonable mileage. Neither are at all bad-looking vehicles, either, where the Flex and Lambdas are rather polarizing.
This is not the time to introduce a big, expensive crossover that gets poor mileage. Pragmatic times require pragmatic measures.
I’d be interested to see what Journey, Outlander, Rondo and Mazda5 sales are like.
sbelgin:
“I drive a 1st GEN XB- it’s amazing how many designs it has influenced-”
Sbelgin, it is amazing how many designs the Honda Element has influenced in this country, eh?
Either way, I’m pro-box. Its all about space efficency that S/CUVs can’t mimic. Hence, I dig this thing, however when I first saw it I was under the impression it was station wagon sized.
This is just a bit too overgrown to be as awesome as it could be, and the sales hit I really want Ford to have.
The vehicle starts at $28,995, not $38K.
I like the interior, but I have to say the retro exterior just isn’t doing anything for me. I poked all around the Flex at the LA Auto Show and was quite impressed, good to know that Ford didn’t screw it up when it came to production.
@psarhjinian:
Dodge sold some 7500 Journeys in May, which is a fantastic number. No clue how many are fleet sales though, no indication in their sales states about the breakdown is between 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder.
Mazda sold about 2000 Mazda5s in May (best ever for that model in the US).
Couple things to clarify with this car. TrueDelta’s comparative cost measures have this vehicle priced only about $1,000 above a Highlander or Pilot at equal/balanced equipment levels and priced below the Lambdas at equal/balanced equipment levels. Just want to state that.
Secondly, 17/24 is not bad for a vehicle like this (it’s 4,600 lbs), it’s just bad for this market. It is competitive with or better than any vehicle in its class, including the smaller Pilot and Highlander.
The 3.5 Ecoboost next year will not be tuned for mileage. It is all about performance, but the mileage out of it (it’s only AWD) probably won’t be much different than the 16/22 the AWD Flex currently gets. Ford is also looking at the 2.0 Ecoboost and a hybrid for this vehicle. With a 2.0 Ecoboost, you’re probably talking closer to 20/27 for a FWD version. The hybrid would likely be their V6 program that was revived last year. Expect real news in the next year or so.
Nah!!
to late to market this. Gas prices will be hitting at 5 buck this summer.
Hello Ford!!! where is the Ford Probe RS? we waiting in America with 276 bhp and 395 ft of torque almost the same category with WRX/EVOS.
See Pic http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2009-ford-focus-rs/857786/
The original Fairlane concept was smaller. In order to put it in production, Ford had two choices: make it a bit smaller yet and put it on the Escape platform, or lengthen it and put it on the Freestyle/TaurusX platform. They made the wrong choice, pure and simple.
If they had scaled it down a bit, the Escape’s hybrid drivetrain would have come along with the bargain. Meanwhile, Ford put a big, macho F-Series inspired grill on the Escape!
We want to like Ford, but they don’t make it easy.
Interesting comments about the xB: this thing literally weighs a ton more than the xB.
I don’t think the fuel economy is bad, or even the price. I just looked at a Toyota Sienna, which gets 17/23 (about the same). The two vehicles are about the same size as well. Now, the Sienna starts at three grand less (25k vs 28k), although the top of the line models are about the same as the Flex (35k for both).
Styling is nice, fit and finish is nice, minivan levels of fuel economy-I think Ford has a hit here, provided everybody doesn’t start buying compact cars.
BuckD :
June 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Fuel economy is the killer for me. 17/24 is pathetic for a vehicle like this. Why not provide another, smaller engine choice for the efficiency-minded, and offer the V6 for those who aren’t concerned about mileage?
I am trying to understand why you feel the 17/24 is pathetic. I own a current gen Odyssey (which compared to other minivans is a great drive but is otherwise a horrid driving experience) whose interior is suspect (poorly aligned and mismatch color for the dash) and combined cycle mileage is about 18 mpg over the past two years. This thing looks much better (imho) – has what appears to be a nicer and nearly as functional interior and is competitive on mileage. What mileage do you expect, and what vehicle that can carry this many passengers and their stuff actually meets your benchmark?
Let’s see… this vehicle is pretty much a functional equivalent of the Taurus X, but a different vehicle. The Taurus X is rightly branded as a Ford. Now, if only there were some other brand under Ford Motor Co. under which they could sell this vehicle. Ideally something positioned between Ford and Lincoln.
Does Ford have such a brand? I mean, I think they did long ago, but I’m completely unaware of its existence today.
Also, didn’t Ford ditch the whole models-have-to-start-with-F thing?
@ hankscorpio
Very good point of which I’ve mentioned even a few times to people but in my rash to put my morning rant out there I forgot my own previous thoughts.
My mother has a great picture of me coming home from the hospital (newborn) in the 1966 Chevy Impala SS 396 while she’s holding me in the front seat (I don’t even think she had a seatbelt on).
In spite of that I still think the need is over stated for the seven passenger vehicle and especially of the Flex/CUV kind.
I also understand the hate for minivans and I personally can NEVER see myself in one regardless of the logic behind them. I guess that makes me part of the problem?
We have one child and the ’05 Subaru Legacy GT we have suits us very well…although the MPG’s for it aren’t that great (once you get into that turbo it’s an incredible thirsty four cyclinder…but fun).
As a wagon enthusiast, that picture of the inside of the Flex with all the seats folded down was a “Wow!” moment. That’s an impressive amount of room! Even better, it looks like real carpet on the backs of those chairs so anything you put there has some chance of staying put. Awesome!
And that interior is really nice. Whoever discounted interiors as unimportant must have spent the last 20 years inside a GM car. They do matter, people do care, and yes they aren’t willing to put up with lousy looking interiors. Especially non-pistonheads, which make up the vast majority of the market.
17/24 is, unfortunately, the price physics takes with all vehicles of this size. Personally, I’d like it to be a few points higher at least on the highway, but with the weight it has to carry around I can understand that’s impossible. All the talk about the Ecoboost stuff saving every Ford product tested makes me laugh. It sounds so similar to the pathetic chest beating I hear from the GM camp about the Volt.
And for those of you who want a cheap Ford 6 seater, there is the Taurus X and the Mazda6 wagon.
Apart from quality of the interior, you’d by this over a Mazda5 why?
I think that the styling is a problem. It screams out, “I’m an SUV (sort of), and I suck gas like it’s going out of style.” Which in this case is true.
It’s too bad that the current Focus didn’t get the benefit of all of that R&D money. If Ford wants to be perceived as a maker of cars, this isn’t quite the way to do it.
netrun,
The Mazda6 wagon is gone (and sat 5, not 6), likely not to return, and the Taurus X is not really any cheaper than this car. There’s the Mazda5, but again, it’s a Mazda. It makes Ford some money, but not a lot.
Hence the problem: it’s still big, expensive and somewhat thirsty and just coming in at a time when the market as a whole is imploding–and Ford has nothing to fill the huge hole in it’s lineup between inexpensive five-seaters like the Escape and expensive seven-seaters like this or the Taurus.
Meanwhile, Dodge, Mitsu, Mazda and Kia all do.
While I don’t need to seat 7 passengers, I do need to seat 4 passengers and their luggage. We currently have a Subaru Outback it fails miserably in that regard. If I want space I have to fold down the rear seats, so I can take my family OR their stuff. Not good.
So do we go through the expense and inconvenience of renting a mini-van when we go on a trip OR do we live with the sucky gas mileage and buy something like this?
Is the Outback smaller than a V70 or XC70? You can find those, a few years old, for a helluva good deal. Probably not space enough to compensate for having to fold down the rear seat for luggage. How much are you hauling?!
I have been toying with the idea of picking up an 05-06 XC70 next year, replace the 3. Fits my needs perfectly, living in Idaho. Hardly ever haul more than 2-3 others, but the emergency 3rd row is handy for around town.
Make mine in 7/8th size please.
Never fear people, the Taurus X is gone after 2009 MY. Another 12 months and *poof*.
I’m sure those last few units will be very affordable.
TEXN3 Is the Outback smaller than a V70 or XC70?
Yes, much. The Outback is small and cramped for a midsize. Gotta put that driveshaft and diff somewhere, I guess.
You’d save $10k and 10 MPG if you got a Vibe/Matrix with virtually the same capacity as an Outback. Just, uh, try not to change lanes all that often. Or find some giant aftermarket mirrors like they put on semis.
Drifting further off-topic, I didn’t realize the NUMMIwagon was available in AWD again until I saw an AWD 2009 Vibe in the wild yesterday.
@keepaustinweird
Have you seen a Mazda5? I can’t get past “Yuck.”
@psarhjinian
The Taurus X is listed with a $24k invoice, maxing out at $29k. The Flex isn’t likely to get off the lot under $30k, so they are at least at different price points. They are running very similar gear underneath and get the same mileage, unfortunately.
And the 2009 Mazda6 is getting introduced in Frankfurt in September. If someone wants to forward me a plane ticket, (round trip, please) I’d be happy to take all the full-color pictures you’d like!
This is still a completely useless vehicle considering Ford already has a brand new, well reviewed, extremely capable seven-seat station wagon on the market already.
Oh well…why does Ford need to spend money wisely??
The XC70 is AWD too, and needs room for that equipment.
Those seem a bit roomier, may just be the more upright upperbody.
The Taurus X will be one helluva deal if you don’t mind the staid styling.
I looked at the Flex before buying my Taurus X Limited, for about $10K less than a simlar Flex. The T-X is 97% of the Flex in a different package – wagon versus box look. The T-X is over 400 lbs lighter and much faster and more maneuverable too. The extra room in the Flex is placed in the second row, where the T-X already has 40″ of ample leg room.
If you want all the features of the Flex, get the T-X for a lot less. You’ll find them collecting dust in the back of the dealer’s lot. The T-X are great cars and fantastic deal. Shhh. It’s a secret.
BTW, I admire Flex’s boldness, and hope it will finally get customers to look at Ford’s great new offerings, especially in the crossover segment.
Netrun,
The T-X and Flex (and Edge, oddly) are priced right on top of each other in Canada. The price differential in each trim is nonexistent, though you’re right that Ford and it’s dealers will undoubtedly give us a big break on the T-X.
As for the Mazda6: North America is not getting the Eurasian model and likely not it’s multiple bodystyles. Ours is longer, wider and–I’ll put money on this–sedan only. Month-over-month sales increases is making Mazda cocky, and they’re going to try gunning for Toyota again. Obviously, they’ve forgotten how well that went the last time.
In spite of that I still think the need is over stated for the seven passenger vehicle and especially of the Flex/CUV kind.
Totally. I look at the rather large pool of friends and acquaintances I’ve accumulated through school and work. About 1/3 of the ones with kids have three, the other 2/3 have two.
I guess if you have to hustle around a kid of yours and a batch of their friends or something. Anyway, I don’t get it either.
A bit of numerical clarification:
Stripped Flex costs $28,000
Loaded to the gills: $43,000 (that’s with a Fridge)
FWD Flex: 4400 pounds, 17/24
AWD Flex: 4650 pounds, 16/22
And more thing — the Taurus X has trailing arm rear suspension. The Flex has a multi-link set-up.
Most people thought the Chevrolet Uplander was an SUV. The drawback to styling a minivan like an SUV is that people running away in droves from SUVs will runaway from this minivan. So while Ford may think the timing’s swell, that idea only exists in the iconoclastic bubble that is Detroit; where they have time to analyze the difference between an SUV, a CUV, a minivan, a truck, etc., etc. For most Americans, this = BIG = SUV = GAS.
Other than the horrible timing and the horrible name though, it actually looks quite a neat vehicle.
How is it that both GM and Ford manage to screw up their line ups so badly. It seems that everytime they release a new product it only manages to hurt sales of already existing products in the same showrroom. Over at Chevy you have the new Malibu eating the Impalas lunch and Ford now has a Flex/ Edge/ Tauras X all do battle with each other in the same showroom.
If Ford already has an Edge and a Tauras X, maybe just maybe the Flex should have been sold as a Lincoln rather than that obviously badge engineered MKX.
Even with todays gas prices the Flex could have been a viable product if sold up-market rather than as a lowly (Over-priced) Ford. The Flex IS the one unique product that Ford has today and yet its NOT being sold as a Lincoln while that brand trys to push Fusions and Edge re-badges with a strait face????
Even better, maybe Ford could have sold it as a Mercury to help revitalize that brand and dealer network.
Call it a wagon or whatever you want but this is the nicest Ford product to come along in a very long time. It is sad to see it end up mixed up amoung a bunch of lack-luster crap.
@whatdoiknow1
I think the reason that the domestics manage to cannibalize their own vehicles is because they ignore models too long. Instead of incrementally improving the Impala over time (i.e. Camry or Accord), it is developed in fits and starts. Killing the Tarurus to make the 500 is a good example of this mentality. How long did the Grand Prix sit without a major redesign? How many times has GM had a savior vehicle? Saturn the brand, the Aura, new Malibu, Acadia quadruplets, the G8, the Equinox/Vue. Every time they release a vehicle, it is the one that is going to save GM’s market share in that segment. Then the person who was going to buy an Impala decides to buy the shiny new Malibu with the high tech gadgets. And the real kicker is that the Impala is probably priced the same as the Malibu after incentives.
whatdoiknow1 : If Ford already has an Edge and a Tauras X, maybe just maybe the Flex should have been sold as a Lincoln rather than that obviously badge engineered MKX.
The soon-to-be-released Lincoln MKT is basically a gussied-up badge-engineered Ford Flex. The MKT gets a grill similar to the new Lincoln MKS and will probably get the larger 3.7 liter V-6 (instead of the Flex’s 3.5). It also gets unique sheet metal.
The Lincoln MKT is certainly more different from the Ford Flex on which it is based, than the Lincoln MKX is different from the Ford Edge.
Only the most rational person is going to buy a Taurus X over a Flex by deducing that it is the same package for less $$. The styles are too different.
dwford:”Only the most rational person is going to buy a Taurus X over a Flex by deducing that it is the same package for less $$. The styles are too different.”
Agreed. It so happens I love wagons and hate boxes, which helped make my decision easy.
My Taurus X Limited FWD loaded with all options (Navigation, SYNC, Family Entertainment, Aux Climate, Convenience Grp,..) except power second row seats cost me $30,700 out the door, ~$3K below invoice. A similarly equipped Flex invoice is around $40K (using their tool). And I don’t see any rebates on it like the $2K on the T-X I got, before the dealer discounts on top of that.
It must be that the embargo lifted at midnight as there are at least a dozen Ford Flex reviews posted already.
All seem to like the Flex but many have commented on its size and weight.
For an interesting take on a Ford Flex review, check out this one at Automotive Traveler.
http://www.automotivetraveler.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=194
Seems that they drew many of the same conclusions as The Truth About Cars, both the positives as well as the shortcomings.
Ford had a Flex (dark brown, without the white roof) at the Carlisle All-Ford Nationals. It was in a display with other new Ford products.
In real life, it does not give the impression of “bigness,” unlike the GM CUVs and the Honda Pilot, which don’t seem to be all that much smaller than a traditional SUV. The exterior styling is very distinctive, but it “works”. It’s a coherent, attractive design.
The interior is wonderful…great seats, lots of room and quality two cuts above the normal Ford fare.
I don’t see this as being a flop – but it won’t be a success on the order of the original Mustang or Taurus. I see this as something like the first four-seat Thunderbird – a distinctive, more upscale vehicle that sells well in its price niche, which is one that non-SUV Fords have not enjoyed much success in before.
A bit of perspective is in order for those lambasting the Flex for its fuel economy. My daily driver, a 2006 Impreza WRX wagon, averages a whopping 23 MPG (mostly highway miles). The car weighs damn near a 1000 lbs less and has a 2.5L turbocharged engine.
To those that say, oh, you have a TURBO. Let me remind you that the turbo does not do a darn thing when cruising.
The fuel economy for a vehicle of this size, weight and power is not bad.
Like the old engineering axiom (fast, cheap, reliable – pick two), there is an axiom that applies here, one I kept repeating to my wife in her search for a new car (fast, economical, spacious – pick two).
A “gussied up” vehicle with a new powertrain, new sheetmetal, and a new interior is not ‘badge engineered’. ‘Badge engineering’ comes from the practice of slapping a luxury badge on a standard car . . . the vehicles are the same except for perhaps the grill or taillights.
You can rightly accuse the MKX of being a badge engineered Edge. But the MKT is in no way a badge engineered Flex.
netrun:
“Have you seen a Mazda5? I can’t get past “Yuck.””
Drive one, you’ll be surprised. I was.
’07 Mazda5 owner here. Told my brother & sister-in-law about it, who were expecting child #2. They’re now owners, too.
Joked to my other brother, still single, to get a Mazda5 as well, to make it a clean sleep.
Bring back the Focus Wagon. The fuel economy of the Flex is not good enough.
Can the flex work? It’s an infield double. It would have been a triple or home run in a $3.00 gas environment. The thing that keeps coming up again and again is that wagons or SUV’s have to be close to 5000 pounds in a full sized version. This cannot stand. No V6. V8 or turbo4 is going to move these things around town at better than say 16-18mpg. This is a formula for the past not the future. If this wagon came in at say 3800 pounds in an FWD it could have a city of 20 and a highway of maybe 27. We need to get there. 20 mpg city and 30mpg highway seem to be where the world is going for full sized cars. It is probably not cheap to get the 800 pounds out of these large haulers, however, gravity will not be denied and to think that great fuel economy will come any other way is delusional.
If they put an escape style hybrid in this could win.
it’s the first daring design from Ford since the original Taurus and deserves attention.
I have to say the first gen Focus was a risky design in my mind.
Bring back the Focus Wagon.
Agreed. That car’s balance of edgy looks and tons of room grew on me. The interior was shit, but then again that usually goes with the price point.
The neighbors got a new Taurus X in silver (what else is there?). That’s a great platform design with a very reasonable balance of safety, quality, room and value. They got nearly $5k off msrp, which was to me very reasonable. I’m very impressed with the whole package.
Come on Ford, with a name like Flex and this kind of styling you should have slapped the Escape Hybrid engine in here and you would have had a category killer. Use your head people. PLease offer us some FLEXible engine options soon.
17/24 mpg IS pathetic, considering that this thing has (supposedly) state-of the art engine/engine management system and powertrain/
powertrain management.
My ’91 Grand Caravan had more interior space and got,real-world, slightly more mileage in town and slightly less highway mileage than this on late-’80s technologies.
My current Aztek, with an engine designed in the ’70s for use in the ’80 X-cars and a late ’80s fuel injection system, a transmission dating back to the late’80s, and engine and powertrain management systems designed at least 10 years ago, was rated under “old EPA” at 19/26 and gets real-world averages of 21/26 with an all-time high of 29.3 on the highway.
People SHOULD expect better economy than this.
If it takes a 4-cylinder and a manual transmission
to achieve better than this–what’s wrong with that? We took many family vacations in a 1984 Plymouth Voyager with a 2.2 and a 5-speed manual.
With 2 adults, 4 kids, luggage, snacks, pop cooler, etc. aboard, we weren’t setting any land speed records, but we got 23-26 mpg with a CARBURETORED engine, no less.
With the exception of the dead of winter–when the finicky automatic choke drove mileage down to 16-17, we rarely failed to get at least 20 mpg CITY.
Add me to the group that says “Duh!” to the fuel mileage. It is a big freaking vehicle, one that can do the job, people moving-wise, of a full size SUV. Seen the fuel mileage on one of those lately? 17/24 in a Flex (which is what a FWD T-Rex also gets) looks pretty good compared to 14/19 for RWD Expedition.
That said, in my house there are two cars (Passat, TSX), and compared to the cars, yeah, 17/24 is not so good. Then again, traveling to the airport recently in our 2004 Passat Sedan with two kids in car seats, two strollers, and our luggage meant my wife was squished in between the two cars seats and my suitcase was in the front seat.
Granted, that was an occurrence we will see once, maybe twice, per year, but we always have those two car seats in the car, so we are reduced to sticking the Mrs. in the back between the car seats if we wish to have any one additional person with us.
The point of my long tale? For those others here with circumstances like mine, the space a large CUV provide makes one a viable option, even if regular is at $4 per gallon here in H-Town.
But, hey, if you don’t have two kids, skip the likes of the Flex; go ahead and get that Fit, Jetta Wagon, CR-V, Mazda5 or other wagonette that will give you the mileage the collective knee jerk of the country makes you demand.
Interesting, but I’ll hold out for the Ford Transit Connect.
I hope the powertrain smoothness is like the Edge vs. the Taurus X.
My neighbor just got the T-X and let me drive it. It was a heavy plowing front drive with a sloppy undersprung feeling. I could the engine and transmission strain and grown as I went along. He says he’s getting 16 mpg.
I drove a new Flex and it had a light, athletic feel to it with none of the “strain” of the powertrian.
I love the styling and fresh approach. Nice replacement the “OC moms” can replace their Suburbans with.
Enough with the hybrid comments already. How much more expensive do you want this thing to be? And enough with the people wanting this to be smaller with a 4 cylinder. The whole point is to have 3 rows and offer an alternative to the Expedition.
Ford dealers already get way too many calls from clueless strokey people asking about the Escape hybrid who forget about it once they hear the $30k price tag. It’d be the same story if this cost $40k or more.
How about some tax subsidies to cheapen the cost of hybrid technology so we can all afford it before people outlandishly demand it from the manufacturers at no additional charge?
The Flex looks much more like a station wagon than a minivan or SUV. It’s essentially the return of the full-size wagon.
I saw one in the base trim–with smaller wheels and without the white roof–a month or so ago. Not nearly as stylish as the one in the photos. Pointed it out to my wife. She’d pass.
Will the Volvo V100 be based on the same platform? It seems to be a very similar vehicle.
I wonder how many of these does FoMoCo need to sell in order to turn profit?
It surely costed them a pretty penny to design.
With today’s gas prices I truly doubt the Flex will sell in sufficient enough numbers to recoup the costs of development.
Apparently, FoMoCo hopes for 100,000 projected sales annually in North America.
At the $25-30K price point I’d say – “maybe”, but $40K? Who are they kidding?
With near $5/gal already (So Cal) they’ll be lucky to move 50,000 in its first full year.
Ford Flex = Ugly fat gas hog vehicle
Who in their right mind would buy one of this Ford Dinosaur for $40K! it`s just another half hearted abomination.
I wonder if the gray-suit zombies that run Ford read the news about Oil Prices! will somebody hand them a newspaper please….
*sighs*
There goes Ford…again.
Well executed, Ford. The Flex seem like a great upgrade path for the current Explorer/Expedition
owners.
I did note that the vehicle width only offers ~1 inch of clearance for a standard one car garage door. Not a big deal for the Expy owners, but the Explorer crowd is in for a surprise.
“romanjetfighter” you mean Range Rover meets Scion xB…..and walla you get this “Flex”
Some numbers for certain ignorant people posting on these boards – you know, Google is a great thing, you guys should use it more often.
Some mileage numbers
Volvo XC70 – 15/22 and uses PREMIUM gas to boot. Worse than Flex and rather pathetic.
Volvo V70 FWD – 16/24 uses premium gas, seats five, anyone care to enlighten me what’s so great about it?
Passat Wagon 4-motion – 16/24 and uses PREMIUM gas, as such is worse than Flex and rather pathetic.
Granted, Passat Wagon 4-cylinder FWD is better – 20/28 but still uses premium gas, so not that hot.
Mazda 5 which plenty of people here seem to like. Well, it has better mileage – 21/27, but interior-wise it is a six passenger vehicle while Flex is a 7-passenger vehicle and offers quite a bit more interior space. I rode in a Mazda 5 once – while a very nice car, six of us were packed like sardines. If you want to compare 7-passenger cars, compared it to Mazda CX-9, which is a very nice vehicle, but hey, 15/21, mileage is not too hot, eh?
Oh, and let’s not forget the minivans, shall we?
Honda Odyssey 16/23
Honda Odyssey with VCM 17/25
Toyota Sienna FWD 17/23
Toyota Sienna AWD 16/21
So, all of you who complain about Flex’s mileage, please say either of the two things
a) Toyota and Honda minivans are crap cars that get horrible gas mileage, no one needs a minivan, anyway, everyone should just buy a Civic.
b) I am a hypocrite.
Which will it be? I am waiting. :)
To one of the posters above – so, why aren’t you calling Toyota Sienna a fat gas hog vehicle (good/ugly is personal preference so I am not commenting on that)?
Drove past the plant that makes these last night again. There was a big batch of them outside. It’s actually kind of appealing for a biggish vehicle. A ‘clean’ design compared to the piles of clutter that seem to dominate the market presently.
CUV???! Justin! It’s an honest to god station wagon in the boxy Volvo tradition. But its look is different enough not to be confused with a 240 or a 740 or a 940. And it has character.
Having said that, I don’t know about spending 38k on it, when you could get a Legacy for >10k less. But it will definitely help beautify the interstates.
OK, if you’re coming out of a Suburban, Tahoe, Expedition or something like that the Flex might be attractive. After all, to owners of such barges, the crummy mileage on the Flex would look pretty good. But 17/23 is nothing to get excited about in an age when gas prices are headed nowhere but north.
Why Ford didn’t have the foresight to put this out as a hybrid shows how they are still thinking it’s 1999. After all, this is a company that kills off a great small wagon–the Focus–right when people are looking for highly functional small cars.
Detroit continues to deserve everything that happens to it.
This is the first Ford I would consider in a long time. When my wife’s Odyssey is ready for retirement, I’ll check it out. Oh wait, that won’t be for another 10+ years, and our kids won’t want to ride with us anymore.
HYBRID?!?!
Seriously, they are on something if they don’t give this a hybrid option when it debuts.
The gas mileage is reasonable for what crossovers/smaller SUVs are doing right now, but why not attempt to have better mileage than the rest of the pack?
@karkidd:
Right now, Ford’s only hybrid powertrain is a 4-cylinder. It would not be enough power to move this huge car around.
To develop a new hybrid V6 system would have cost millions upon millions upon millions of dollars for Ford. If you wanted to pay $55,000 for this thing, I’m sure they’d hook you up.
Of course, at that point the mileage wouldn’t be spectacular anyway and we’d all be complaining that it’s not worth the extra cost to get the hybrid version.
Well maybe you know more about Ford’s technical capabilities than some of the rest of us but the fact of the matter is they need to do something.
I mean if they have to go to GM or Honda or someone else (if they don’t want to go to Toyota and look weak) then by all means get it done.
The problem I see with a company like Ford is that I don’t see them making much progress in terms of product development. Hell they’re styling and designs are even that great (some of their concepts have been amazing though) and they’re still lacking in other areas like some of their interior designs.
If they don’t have the know-how to make a hybrid for a larger vehicle then they need to find a way to license the technology or something. I’m not saying make hybrid the main model, but make it another package or something. They can’t just sit around and assume people will buy a large vehicle just cause.
Make a sedan version with the same 2nd seat room (the Flex has 5″ more second seat room than a Taurus), beef up the the underpinnings, poof, instant replacement for the Crown Vic and Friends.
Maybe they’re using some of the design/chassis they used for the Interceptor concept? Anyone?
And I wish they at least kept the style of the door handles that were on the concept since they decided that the suicide doors were too cool for Ford or something.
Well to all the people on here that can’t figue out “who would buy one of these?” – here he is. Not everybody cares about gas mileage, they want what they want – and this has all of it.
Oh I forgot to add – the model I got was the Limited with Nav, DVD entertainment, 6 seats, The Vista roof, I think the only thing mine doesn’t have id the center console cooler. I paid around $43,000 – 44,000 and am not looking back at any other car that was even in the running. By the way I have never even considered owning a Ford before this car – they really did this one right.
BTW, what about the accessories and options on this vehicle asides from the roof?
It seems more and more like a dumbed-down version of the Fairlane concept that had a fancier and more interesting interior, swinging tailgait (including a tailgait party *thing*, nicer-looking seats, etc.
The accessories that I like are the navigation (which is touchscreen and nice and big – like the one I had in my 05 tsx) the leg room, and the rear backup camera. As for being a dumbed down version of the Fairlane – I wouldn’t know – I never saw the Fairlane. I guess I shop differently than most people – me and my wife didn’t even need another car; we just like to look every once and a while and see if there is something out there that says “take me home – I’m better than you current car”. We drove this and said yup – we’re taking it home. We don’t care about gas mileage, we just want what we want. By the way this gets the best gas milage of all our cars anyway.
Just went and looked at some pictures of the Failane concept car – all I can say is It’s a good thing they changed the dash. I don’t like spaceship looking vehicles (which is why I passed on the Honda – ugly spacship dash and the nav was not touchscreen). The only real cool thing I saw was the suicide doors – but I’m not crying over them. Plus I think you should really go down and see and sit in a Flex before you say the Fairlane interior looks nicer. Those seats in the Fairlane looked like some uncomfortable airline seats. The Flex is one of those things you get or don’t I guess.
Please, Ford, build a stick shift option. Many short comings can be accepted if it is fun to drive and can haul your family. If you have to haul at least 5 (2 adults and 3 kids) there are not many fuel efficient options. Just call it an expense and hopefully they make a stick shift.
I viewed a Flex on a dealer’s lot today. It’s not tall, I think my old Ford 2000 Windstar is taller. It looks looong, as in a personal limo. I bought my first non-Ford a year ago – an Acadia – and was wishing then this was available. I’m very happy with the Acadia which is taller & larger and I’m getting 24mpg highway & 18 in town and I’m wondering why the Flex has the same & not better fuel rating.
I’ll be getting this vehicle as soon as I find a demo model or something so I won’t take the hickey on the depreciation of a new car.
For a family of 4, who has a small ski boat to tow, there aren’t a whole lot of options other than a handful of crossovers and the larger body on frame SUV’s. This vehicle offers better mileage than the Explorer/Expedition type vehicles but still has the room to haul our family and gear. I’m looking forward to either this, or a CX-9 (my boat and trailer weighs around 2500lbs). Keep in mind, minivans don’t offer much better (if any) mpg either so between the CUVs and minivans, give me the better looking/driving CUVs any day.
Just bought our first Flex and it won’t be our last. This vehicle is awesome. I just hate the ribs on the side… everything else is first class and it beats our Freestars to bits. I can hardly wait to take delivery. Take a look around and read all of the reviews; this is one great vehicle for Ford and even if gas goes to $5 a gallon it’s still going to give me better performance than my Freestar. And equal performance to most other equivilant crossovers on the market. I can’t think of anything they left off this beast except heating the BACK of my seat (like our Freestars). Remote start in the winter and Bob’s your uncle! Come out to a nice warm toasty car, ready to drive. Only thing to add are a set of Hokka’s on rims for rough weather driving in the snow.
Well if the build quality and functionality are good hopefully Ford can do the same with all of their models.
And they could just make the door grooves optional.
Hmmm…Ford has been around for more than 100 years and the best they can come up with is a brick on wheels? This vehicle has been an extreme eye-sore to me when I first saw it at the L.A. Auto Show(eeewww). The “CUV/XUV” nomenclature for any vehicle is total utter idiocy. There is no such vehicle other than the established norm. It is what it is…..a full-size station wagon (Country Squire does come to mind).
This is a classic example of where Ford USDM does not need to go. They need to go forward, not backwards. Modern, not retro. And please, ditch the chrome.
@H90LK
Tell that to the Mini, XB, Pt, HHR, and all of the other retro cars that seem to be so popular these days. If you haven’t noticed, retro is chic nowadays. This is the perfect vehicle for someone who wants that boxy/retro styling but needs the size to be a family hauler and get decent mileage to boot.
Ford knows it’s either love it or hate it styling. I am a member of the former. What I am tired of, is all these vehicles on the road nowadays that look the same as everything else. If this had looked like a typical CUV, people would be bashing the crap out of it and accusing Ford of continuing the same bland styling that has plagued them forever.
@derek533
First of all, I think you are slightly confused here. The xB and Mini are exceptions. The mini has been around for a long time and has stayed true to itself. It hasn’t changed much and doesn’t make anything else except the Cooper and that is why the appeal is still there. It’s also small, fun to drive and fuel-efficient. The xB is targeted as an affordable vehicle that can be customizable with the most available space that gets decent gas mileage and outstanding reliability (Best bang for the buck). It was never intended to be “pretty.”
This is why these cars exist.
The PT and HHR are specifically designed that way. They are intended for a niche group that is sort of a fad. They get decent mileage….well, not the PT Cruiser at least. These work.
As for the Flex, the whole point is it’s a large 2009 model vehicle for the mass that is suppose to be revolutionary. It doesn’t offer anything what regular SUVs and Minivans can already do. Aren’t 95% of all SUVs out right now a “box”? So why the redundancy and calling it a CUV? What is “chic” about it? In this age of high gas prices, again, why make another gas-guzzler? Also, the Mini stole the look back in 1959. So the 2009 Flex is 50(49 actually) years behind and too late. Ford had the Edge and Fusion. They were actually good designs sans the chrome and interior. So why revert backwards for a new vehicle? If they wanted to resurrect the Woody and Squire, just say so. Remember, Ford still does not have a good image at all(lousy interior/exterior design, poor fit and finish, reliability, lack of direction, etc. still lingers with the brand) They don’t exert a forward-thinking mentality but rather a “stuck in retro limbo.”
@H90LK
While I don’t disagree with you as to Ford’s perception, this is a step in the right direction IMO. The only way to improve that perception is to release a vehicle that does appeal to the general car buying public. Take a look around you and you will see that the majority of the people on the road (at least where I live in fly over country), are driving around SUVs, CUVs, and mini-vans (which aren’t so “mini” anymore). So Ford goes and releases a product that can effectively compete with each style I just listed and compete well. It has the size of a larger SUV, the gas mileage of a CUV and Mini-van, and can haul a family and their gear. It also has what I consider to be very good looks, along with an impressive list of creature comforts at a price competitive with cars of similar build. It’s looks are distinguishing as well as it’s interior which many are calling Ford’s best ever (as did the reviewer). Sure the economy of it isn’t that great, but as I’ve said before, it’s no worse than the other vehicles in the same size class and in fact, better than the traditional bof SUVs.
The fact of the matter is, while I am all for improving our energy usage and decreasing our consumption of fossil fuels, we do need something to sustain us until a viable alternative that doesn’t cost a fortune comes along. Until that happens, those of us with families, will be driving around vehicles that are larger than Priuses.
BTW, I would like to know why all these luxury cars whose fuel economy is not that great either, get free passes when it comes to being scrutinized for poor fuel mileage. But, you raise the car up a few inches and call it a CUV, everybody bandwagons against them. That just seems hypocritical IMO. (BTW, this last paragraph was not for you H90LK. I’m just ranting a little).
@derek533
I’m not sure if you fully understand my argument as well as yours. But enough. It’s great that you like it. I don’t. So, here this is something that isn’t disputed:
#1 Why people buy SUVs is safety. Mentality goes like this: the bigger = the safer = the better. This perpetuates a lot of myths. I will be safe in an accident but they never think about the other way around: I have the potential to injure/kill someone in an accident while in a huge vehicle because I can’t stop on a dime = the extreme kinetic energy of a large mass hitting something of a smaller mass. Go ask a Hummer owner in L.A.
#2 Lots of incentives from dealers
#3 Haul stuff i.e. boats, jet skis
#4 Riding higher so as to have a commanding view when driving and not worrying about potholes.
#5 Offroading….only a few urbanites do. If you do outdoorsy stuff then this vehicle is for you.
#6 Hauling people around. This job is taken by the minivan/FS Van and does it best. Any other reason is purely a want over needs basis(i.e. it looks cool/nice). A lowered SUV with rims can look like a “CUV” however lame it sounds.
Safety features add weight to a vehicle and take up space, thus lowered mpg. Also more than half the people in America is obese and the numbers are growing. Also, U.S. geography is blessed with lots of land. A few reasons why vehicles are larger every generation.
So it all boils down to A.)Do you like it B.)Do you need it or want it. C.)Can you afford it.
Luxury cars have a status quo. It is assumed luxury car owners are mature, smart and responsible. In other words money will be made from them one way or another. Nothing is free. IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.
People need to work and feed families.
If you want mass appeal, try asking people about an electric car. Does the unaffordable Tesla Roadster and soon-to-be affordable Think City and Mini Electric come to mind? Now that’s chic. Something more economical and in the right direction. Electric People Hauler anyone?
H90LK
Ford has made a good looking vehicle, inside and out, which is always a good step, like it or not.
But you don’t like the car. ‘Nuff said. That’s good enough for most people. “Different strokes for different folks” means that there’s no need for an ecolecture, but really:
#1 SUV owners to blame for their dangerous vehicles? C’mon. Go out on a freeway and count the number of tractor-trailers, utility trucks and delivery vehicles you see. If you want to drive a Smart Fortwo or other citycar, you are assuming the risk that in most accidents, you stand a greater chance of death or injury than in a larger vehicle. Demanding that other drivers modify their behavior to eliminate the risk you have voluntarily assumed is “having your cake and eating it too”-syndrome.
#2 Algae-sourced biodiesel is already here, and biogasoline only a few years away with proper funding, funding that is wasted on frolics like electric cars and hybrids. Besides, the former just transfers energy usage, and the latter’s battery requires not so pleasant things like strip mining.
#3 Over half of Americans are obese? Why make up a number when the CDC/NHANES study is but a Google search away? (And the numbers are comparable to the rest of the Western world and are going down.) Honestly, I foresee a day when someone says that 159% of Americans are obese.
It is a nice car but the mileage is poor. If it was a Hybrid or ran on Natural Gas it would be more appealing to U.S. consumers.
I sold my 450 hp BMW M5 and replaced it with a FORD Flex (looks just like the one in the picture at the top of this thread) and never looked back. Well, maybe once. The moment I sat down in the driver’s seat I knew this was the vehicle for the family.
It is a modern-day Woody, a country squire station wagon, and the classic Grand Wagoneer, and more all wrapped up into one nice package.
I’ve owned two Jeep Grand Wagoneers and loved the classic looks of them. But alas, the GWs were the American version of the Yugo.
I think the Flex is one of the most well-thought-out cars of two centuries, both by function and form. Consider the following:
o Upscale interior.
o Extreme comfort.
o More than enough room.
o All seats can lay flat for 1400 lbs. capacity of interior cargo.
o 4500 lbs. towing capacity.
o Ease of getting in and out.
o Reasonable gas mileage.
o Only slightly larger than preferred exterior footprint.
o Extremely quiet and smooth ride.
o Low center of gravity and relatively light-weight actually make the Flex a pretty good handling vehicle as well.
o Slightly more than adequate hp.
o Attractive.
Areas that could use improvement include fewer blind spots, better mileage, more hp.
Unique, stylish, roomy, peppy, quite, comfortable, smooth, plush, fairly economical, not too big. What more could one want or expect from a $29k – $42k vehicle?
Awesome design and I got one before it was cool.
The mileage isn’t great, but it’s not horrible either. Compared to a Yukon, Explorer, Trailblazer, Durango or Land Cruiser it’s good. Then again, nobody is buying those anymore. . .
I am LOVING my Flex!!! Had it almost a week and I can’t stop smiling, the smooth ride, the fantastic standard interior options, love the look – I do understand the complaint about adjustable pedals – I had them in the freestyle and having short legs I really appreciated not having to sit so close to the wheel. But overall I love the Flex!!
I like the style but I wouldn’t trade my V8 AWD 4Runner for it, which returns a solid 20.2 mpg average
Re: DougDolde
I am also loving my Flex. I got essentially a base Limited model, black with silver roof. Only option is captains chairs for second row. Fantastic vehicle. Great for family hauling duty.
I call BS on DougDolde’s mpg claim.
Never, ever thought I’d buy a Ford, just not something that ever occurred to me. Now that Ford took no bailout money because they preferred to work things out with sound management principles rather than tax-payer money…I’m buying Ford. Flex is my choice to replace an aging minivan. It only makes sense to buy into companies that are soundly run.