The Flex was supposed to be a big deal for Ford's downsizing SUV clientèle. But with production already stopped at Oaksville due to slow sales, the Flex is in deep doodoo. And now, Ford is announcing that the designer of the Flex is stepping down. Automotive News (sub req'd) couldn't get a straight answer from Ford as to why Richard Gresens has left the company, but there's basically two possibilities. One is that he's just another white collar statistic in Ford's war on salary costs, the other is that the Flex was as aerodynamic as a brick shithouse and its weak fuel economy is responsible for poor sales. Since nobody at Ford likely imagined that folks would be willing to downsize to the point where a 17/24 EPA-rated crossover is just not efficient enough, let's hope that Gresens isn't taking the fall for a whole company's worth of poor planning. Although given how auto biz politics work, we wouldn't be surprised. Meanwhile, Ford's vow to slice 15 percent of its salaried workforce is the perfect cover for corporate scapegoating.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This would have been a very decent attempt back in 1996-1998 time frame when minivan sales were starting to dwindle and buyers were looking for options outside of a minivan (no one made big wagons anymore, large CUVs were still on drawing boards, and most SUVs were the tippy BOF types regardless of tire problems). This was also the year the 2g Odyssey debuted and Chrysler’s minivan and the Ford/GM cheap copies would take note that the game has changed.
Wrong car at wrong time again. Add this to the Challenger, Camaro etc, and there is no respite from the dwindling sales and bleakness of the 2.8. Despite full page ads for the Flex in the local paper for the past few weeks, I have not seen one on the highway and anyone else I have asked has seen one either. May mean nothing, but certanly see lots and lots and lots of all kinds of Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais, Suzukis, Kia’s of every shape and size (except large trucks.) Will the Flex have $3K rebates soon?
It’s a real shame the Flex tanked. It probably got the best non-mustang domestic review on TTAC in a long time.
Don’t see how its the designers fault though; he got tasked to design a premium cross-over. He delivered. Not his fault the timing couldn’t have been worse.
I think the Flex lost a lot of the sparkle when it changed from the Fairlane concept.
“I think the Flex lost a lot of the sparkle when it changed from the Fairlane concept.”
It lost a lot of Sparkle when they changed the name from Fairlane to Flex. I menn, wtf is Flex meaning in this context? Fairlane has meaning, Flex doesn’t. I can’t for my life understand either how they could change the Five-Hundred to the very tarnished Taurus moniker. Or why it wasn’t called Galaxie from the beginning? Ford Galaxie would have been an appropriate name for that car.
Though I think it is a shame about the car itself. Flex is perhaps the best vehicle Ford has come out with since the early 90’s.
Wasn’t there a story about the new Mustang’s main designer being fired because he refused to put an extra inch of legroom in it or something? I know it was well over a year ago. I don’t have much luck with the search on this site, but I do remember that.
Why not fire J Mays and Peter Horbury while they’re at it given that Ford is about to adopt Europe’s Kinetic design language.
Are all CUV’s pretty crappy when it comes to fuel economy figures? I don’t recall being impressed by any of them.
Just a name correction,the Town is Oakville, Ontario and not as this good article states!
Peter Horbury is an excellent designer. He made Volvos attractive.
The Flex is Ford’s answer to the Mini Clubman and who says that the Estate/Station Wagon concept is dead?
Lichtronamo : Why not fire J Mays and Peter Horbury while they’re at it given that Ford is about to adopt Europe’s Kinetic design language.
Not to mention that one of them is ultimately responsible for green lighting that monstrosity. I still remember seeing J talking up the Flex before the press, about 14 months ago.
Design, especially after the ideation stage, is a team effort.
How has the Flex tanked? It hasn’t been on the market that long…is it because you haven’t seen a ton on the road like you did when the Taurus was first introduced?
You could then say the new Accord has tanked as well, as there haven’t been a ton on the road in the northwest (albeit not a traditional sedan stronghold market, but still one nonetheless).
It gets 1 MPG MORE than the Odyssey from Honda (FWD vs FWD). It’s not like it’s some out of class gas pig!
It looks waaaay cooler than any van and a lot more functional/safe than a SUV.
They stopped Flex production because sales were too low.
That pretty much meets and exceeds my definition of tanked.
Ingvar is right; instead of Flex they should used Fairlane. Also, “Galaxie” and/or “Five Hundred” made more sense than Taurus inasmuch as the car was supposed to be positioned above the old Taurus. It’d been logical to give the Taurus name to the Fusion. Maybe it would have been better to give the 500 to Mercury–with a name like Monterey or Montclair–and left the Crown Vic as the top Ford model. Freestyle should have been called some name from Ford’s great days in the wagon business.
But in addition to nomenclature problems, the Flex ran into a hurricane due to two other huge issues: meltdown of demand for large vehicles, and a fairly high sticker price. The local dealer has had the same Flex on the front row for three weeks. It’s loaded; MSRP is about forty grand. That’s rarified atmosphere for a Ford. Their reach exceeded their grasp.
How has the Flex tanked? It hasn’t been on the market that long…
I agree. I suppose it’s possible that advance dealer orders were VERY low, and the retail channel is stuffed, but I’ve been to 2 small dealers and they have one each. The sales guy at one dealer claimed they had sold 2-3 sight unseen. I suppose it’s possible that the market for this vehicle type is absolutely dead regardless of how good a specific product is.
As to firing the designer, it makes NO sense unless he wouldn’t allow anybody above to even see it before it hit the dealers. A little on the unlikely side. If he is in fact not with Ford anymore, surely there must be another explanation.
Exactly how much better mileage could he get out of that giant box on wheels. Making it more slippery isn’t going ot help its weight. It’s still going to have low city numbers and only bump the highway by 1 or 2 mpg.
Maybe he just saw a chance to jump ship and find greener pastures. I have a feeling Ford and the rest of the domestics are going ot see a lot of this, exits long before any chance of a pink slip, at least from the people with talent.
There’s a loaded Flex on the Ford lot around here for $44+. That’s quite optimistic.
DT
They may have stopped it for a short-time, that is better than flooding the dealers when they still have other vehicles to move off lots.
Either way, it’s not permanent. I think you can only determine a vehicle’s place in the market or rate it’s performance after it has been on the market for at least a year…or even through a body style, such as sales per year and whether they’ve increased or decreased.
We could definitely say the Mazda5 tanked, compared to other minivans and it’s sibling, the Mazda3.
[$$$Link]“Ford’s New Flex Crossover Will Test Current Market For Big People Movers: With Big SUVs Out of Favor Can This Automotive Platypus Catch On?” By Joseph B. White inthe Wall Street Journal on July 28, 2008 at Page D6[$$$Link]:
… Endowed with one of the silliest names in the U.S. auto market, the Flex is an automotive platypus. At 201.8 inches long, it’s shorter than a Chevrolet Tahoe sport-utility vehicle by less than the width of two fingers. It seats seven people, like a minivan, but its boxy profile and vertical, chrome-decked front end look nothing like a minivan. I can think of only one vehicle on the market that looks anything like the Flex — the Scion xB. Except that the Flex, with a curb weight of 4,468 pounds, is almost twice the tiny xB’s size. …
Ford has decided to finesse the struggle of explaining how the Flex fits into the context of the industry’s 21st century market segment schemes by focusing on this message: The Flex is a seven-passenger vehicle that delivers 24 miles per gallon, and is thus America’s highest mileage seven passenger “crossover.” …
Someone driving a conventional Tahoe or Ford Expedition SUV could dump it for a Flex and, in theory, cut his gas consumption by 20% to 26%, assuming the same amount of driving.
The Flex doesn’t have as much cargo capacity as an Odyssey van, and can’t tow a big boat like a Tahoe. Still, I spent a busy weekend test driving a Flex, and never felt as if I needed it to be any bigger. …
The Flex began life as a 2005 concept vehicle called the Fairlane — a name out of Ford’s “Happy Days” past — that was designed to be an alternative to minivans. In the words of Ford’s design chief J Mays, Ford wanted a vehicle that provided family transportation but “didn’t smell like diapers.” …
And consumers probably care less about the supposed stigma of driving a mommy-van than they do about the relatively poor fuel economy of the entire class of seven- and eight-passenger vehicles, no matter what they are called. …
How smart would the Flex look if it weighed several hundred pounds less, and had an engine designed to hit a higher fuel-efficiency target, rather than a big horsepower number? Very smart indeed. …
I received an eight-page full-color brochure for the Flex printed on heavy 17″ by 22″ paper. Lots of black ink and personalized (with my name and local dealer). That’s a non-standard size for a variable print digital press (expensive) and mailing it must have cost a relative fortune, too.
Then I received an email invite to a survey about the brochure. There must have been 30 questions (I bailed out early because of tediousness) about how the brochure looked, did it explain the Flex well, etc.
Ford has made a valiant effort but they don’t know the demographics of their mailing list well.
I don’t watch TV so I don’t know if they’re running commercials for it, too.
I’m 30, single, no kids, one income. If they hybridize it and rename it the Reflux, I’d consider it as it would be my generation’s if-this-rig’s-a’rockin’… van. Make it the Mini Cooper of vans and offer customization up the wazoo: plush carpeting, seats that fold into a bed (ahem!), curtains for or panels in place of windows, LED lamps in the ceiling and all with a hybrid pack so that I can use my computer or watch TV at the campground. They already have the rear refrigerated compartment.
That would get me to step foot onto the dealer’s lot!
I actually see quite a few Mazda5s now than ever before. Normally, I’d attribute that to the fact I own one and am sensative, except I’ve been watching the roads for well over a year for them since I first shopped them.
The Mazda5 was an idea that was waiting for the gas crunch to take off.
The Flex, on the other hand, was killed by the crunch…and a shame, too. I love the styling, and it completely appeals to me as a car to haul my family around in. Hopefully, in 5 years, I’ll be able to find smoking deals on used Flexes.
It’s not a bad car at all, but it did launch into a really hostile market: a big, heavy vehicle with a premium price tag at a time when gas prices are high and cash flow is low.
It could get better mileage, but it would have to be slower to do so. Me, I could live with slow: if it managed 0-60 in ten or eleven seconds (ie, Yaris time) instead of seven or eight, that would be entirely acceptable. Yes, it would be slow, but it’s a family car; six-second 0-60s are good for nothing more than spilled Cheerios.
Whether it has done so on purpose or not, Ford has sent a strong messge to its designers: “Take a chance on daring design and you will be fired.”
I hope you like Vanilla, Ford loyalists.
I can’t help but wonder if a Fusion wagon wouldn’t have been a better investment. With the Freestyle/Taurus X in their line up, I don’t see where this fits in.
I’m sure the Taurus X won’t see past 2010, or whenever the new Taurus comes out. I agree, a Fusion wagon would have been nice…and so would another Mazda6 wagon.
Well, we don’t know he got canned. Maybe he quit to move to greener pastures when they killed the Flex.
@TEXN3: US Mazda5 sales are up 44% over last year to almost 12k units in 6 months. Keep in mind it’s a global product at over 100K cars annually, and built on a flexible production line. If demand for the Mazda5 is low, production can be diverted to another country or another product, although MazdaUSA now can’t get enough Mazda5’s (or 3’s). Ford’s situation with the Flex is quite a bit different, not a global product and built in a factory whose products are in low demand and not able to build other cars. Result: layoffs.
How could the Fairlane concept been executed better for mid-2008? Short of being shrunk to a Scion xB-sized vehicle with 3 rows instead of 2 and fitted with an inline 4, I can’t think of anything else, not that any other carmaker would have downsized a minivan-class replacement in 2005. Details: the concept was 6″ narrower & 9-10″ lower than the production Flex, and I’m with the crowd that the proportions and look are completely off. The underlying platform was switched from CD3 to D3 as the latter was felt to have better space & comfort, especially in the back. The Fairlane concept’s 3rd row was about the size of the Pacifica’s, which stunted the sales of the latter (although the CD3-based Mazda CX-9’s not doing too badly). The concept’s suicide doors were supposed to become sliding doors, but Ford reportedly ran low on funds.
The Edsel for the next half-century?
Robert Scwartz: Thank you, I kept thinking what does that vehicle remind me of, a Platypus! That’s it, the Ford Platypus, great name for it, kind of has that eco thing going for it.
Time for more cheerleader photos….please.
The Flex is one of the worst vehicles to come out of the big 3 in a LONG time. No surprise that it’s a Ford.
My question is if Scion will hire him back…and if Ford let him keep his favorite “designing” instrument…a T-Square?
I actually think the Flex is quite a decent machine. I think it would be better if Ford made it available with sliding-rear doors to truly compete in the minivan segment.
What’s really hurting the Flex’s sales is the fact that the Freestyle/Taurus X sitting right beside it on dealer lots is SO heavily discounted right now.
Meanwhile, Ford’s vow to slice 15 percent of its salaried workforce is the perfect cover for corporate scapegoating.
Or, corporate accoutability, though I’m not making any judgements on this particular incident.
The Flex is a dud without the designer being released. It is unfair to blame him for poor sales and bad executive planning.
The design is just a Super Sized Xb (first gen) with a mini top and some grooves from the Chrysler Sebring.
The design of the car isn’t offensive like the original B9 Tribeca.
BTW, that designer was also canned. Now, why is the designer of the current Chrysler Sebring still employed?
I thought the designer of the Mustang was transferred to Ford Brazil operations or was he just the engineer?
Starting to remind me of the Edsel. Good vehicle without a market. And to think that Ford could have come out with an XB styled/sized vehicle with some major improvements. Is detroit completely clueless as to what customers want and can afford?
(I edited out the first three or so paragraphs from this comment because of SherbornSean’s commentary; I don’t know much about Ford’s Mustang plans and don’t feel like having a long-ass rant with dubious points.)
I understand that the Flex is a good CUV. Hell, I’d buy it if I were looking for a wagon or CUV. But I want a fuel-efficient Mustang or decent Ranger, or barring that, a good fuel-efficient car, not a minivan or an SUV. I get they’ll come for 2010, but seriously, I have to wait two years from Ford for them to bring out cars they should have had here years ago? Ford has five SUVs/CUVs by my count. They could at least have as many basic cars.
One would think a century-old car company would be smart enough to have a full lineup of good cars for all buyers. One would think.
I hope the best for Ford’s model lineup. If the four-liter Mustang gets 21 mpg overall with an automatic transmission, I’m fine with its low output. If they fix the Ranger (even a little) I’d consider it even though its basic underpinnings date from the 1980s. But these changes need to happen sooner rather than later.
As for the Flex designer being fired: I think he should have been put on the Focus project. The Flex projects a youthful style that (to my eyes) would look better on a $13K econobox than a $30,000 wagon/CUV.
sad to hear. If I had to guess, I would have thought the Flex would be a winner for Ford. But I passed a dealership on Rt. 46 with a bunch of them on the lot and I haven’t seen one on the road yet. I imagine poor timing and lackluster marketing are to blame, as the vehicle itself seems quite competent
Luigiian,
As Iaccoca told the story, he designed the Mustang, and Henry the Deuce made him add an extra inch or two to the wheelbase. Iaccoca WAS canned, but much later and because he became a threat to Henry’s leadership.
As far as a Fusion wagon goes, why would Ford do that? The 6 wagon has been a sales failure in the US, and frankly, Ford can get an extra $5K selling an Edge.
I propose a new rule: you’re not allowed to whine that automakers should sell more wagons in the US unless you own a Magnum, Legacy, Avant, etc.
I think the Flex looks quite a bit nicer than the xB, the proportions fit much better. Also, overall visual impression of the Flex depends a lot more on color than it does for certain other vehicles. A Limited model with a pearl white or metallic silver roof, a black or cinnamon body, and the limited silver backend is a lot better looking than the SE with no chrome and smallish aluminum wheels.
Driving-wise, the Flex handles beautifully, better than the Edge or the Tarus X, has an interior 10x nicer, has lots of great options and tech features, swallows tons of cargo with the fold flat seats, and gets good fuel economy for the class. Sure sales are slow as sales of all vehicles besides compacts are slow right now.
The Flex is one of the best vehicles to come out of any manufacturer in a while, and while it came out with bad timing due to the current market, it will be a success once things recover.
Richard Gresens was probably a very valued member of Ford’s design team. He was likely regarded with respect and considered a true asset for the future.
Ford has hacked its salaried workforce to the bone over the years. There are no easy targets to fire anymore, people that go now are people Ford wishes they could keep, but can’t.
I think the Flex is an ugly beast and I continue to wonder why Ford just doesn’t fix up their Taurus X bridesmaid.
I still think it is the best kept secret on the road and it epitomizes what the Ford brand should represent.
First of all, I have a hard time imagining that they would fire the designer of the Flex. There could have been some other issue.
I think there are a few issues with the Flex. For one, I’ve never seen a commercial for it. I’ve seen that stupid “MPG” Toyota commercial a billion and a half times today. “Here we go, here we go, yeah!” Where is the marketing support? The only reason the other 7 seat CUV based on the D3 platform Ford has isn’t selling is because nobody knows it exists. They should have just dumped 1/3 the money they put into producing the Flex into marketing the Taurus X and giving it a not comically bad name. It would have achieved more volume than the Flex and Taurus X combined.
For another, the design is too over the top for a vehicle aimed at minivan expats, IMHO.
And of course the fuel economy. How could a 4600lb box have good fuel economy? So for an AWD version you’re saving a few mpg over an SUV but you can’t tow with it and it has none of the absolutely essential off road capability or drive right over the car in front of you road clearance.
The Flex is one hip looking car. The 3 bar grille is well integrated and despite being boxy, it is anything but boring; with a lot of nice details like the ribbing on the doors, etc. The interior is also very nice. I don’t think anyone can accuse Ford of cutting corners in that respect, or say that it is not a good car overall. They may have missed the mark, however, with the purchase price and the girth of this car. It is a superbly executed design that is being sunk by the fact that gas is very expensive. The car reminds me of the old woody wagons from the 50s that the surfers would use. I like it and would buy one if I had the money.
Way to early to decide the fate of the Flex. Can’t imagine volume of any of this type of vehicle will be high until people stop panicking and replacing their Suburbans with Yaris. When they realize that they can’t fit their 4 kids into said Yaris (plus it might be illegal)they might come around to the Flex.
Or they might buy the Traverse.
And of course the fuel economy. How could a 4600lb box have good fuel economy? So for an AWD version you’re saving a few mpg over an SUV but you can’t tow with it and it has none of the absolutely essential off road capability or drive right over the car in front of you road clearance.
Most of the SUVs sold in the past have never been taken off road, nor used to tow. FWD combined with traction control/stability control is more than enough to handle almost any road condition as long as you don’t make a habit of driving through deep mud or unplowed streets during the middle of a blizzard. The FWD model is going to sell in greater numbers than the AWD, and the fuel economy of that one is pretty decent compared with the competition (that being minivans and other full size CUVs).
As far as towing goes, the Flex can handle 4500 lbs, which is enough for a U-Haul, a medium size boat, a trailer with a couple jet-skis/snowmobiles/ATVs, or just about any other load most people would be likely to hitch up. Is it going to tow a horse trailer? No way, but then again, people needing to tow the big stuff will buy a full size true SUV or a truck.
How smart would the Flex look if it weighed several hundred pounds less, and had an engine designed to hit a higher fuel-efficiency target, rather than a big horsepower number? Very smart indeed. …
Oh, like the Freestyle, since that was such a big hit??
It’s way too early to be second-guessing the Flex or declaring it dead. Every review I’ve read has been very positive. This is not a DOA product like Chrysler has been putting out the past few years, this actually has a chance to gain sales through word of mouth.
Gas prices have hurt all SUV/crossover sales, but this thing is ultimately going to live or die by its polarizing styling.
@ NulloModo:
“it has none of the absolutely essential off road capability”
sorry forgot to add /sarcasm.
I propose a new rule: you’re not allowed to whine that automakers should sell more wagons in the US unless you own a Magnum, Legacy, Avant, etc.
Magnum – questionable build quality, and poorly designed access to the storage area. An impractical wagon, hence it’s demise.
Legacy – I do not fit.
Avant – Outrageous pricing, too many firsthand reports of spotty Audi quality and service lately.
There, now I can go back to whining :)
I’m puzzled why Ford has three products competing for almost exactly the same market: Taurus-X, Edge and Flex. That doesn’t even count the Mercury, Mazda, Lincoln and Volvo entrants.
A great wagon/crossover based on the Fusion platform would be a much better fit for today’s market. The Flex is too big, too expensive and has a horrible name.
I like the idea of wagons as practical transportation without all the bloat of an SUV, but time and again they have failed in the US. The demise of the Dodge Magnum, Mazda6 wagon, and Focus wagon are just the latest examples. They are at best a niche market. Not to mention, the current crop of wagon/hatches get pretty disappointing gas mileage (GTI, Mazda3, 2.4 liter Matrix/Vibe, any turbo Subaru) as they seem to be relegated to the performance-oriented crowd.
I forgot how many years ago it was but some corporate moron at Ford decided that all Mercury names would start with an “M” and all Ford car names would start with an “F”. Trucks would all star with an “E”.
Something about brand identity according to a walking waste of space and air in dearborn- A woman whose head was stuck permanently up the dark and smelly place justified this by making the comment “What kind of person buys a car named Camry?”
Regarding the Flex- Pure corporate arrogance ignoring all feedback about the Fairlane name. That and its pure early-mid 80s’ GM box ugly. Shades of the Chevy Celebrity wagon.
Not the first time thats happened, is it? When Ford ruined the Taurus by making it look like a rolling mutant fish, removing content and raising the price- Dealers complained to the insular citadel of ignorance in Dearborn that people were walking in, seeing the window sticker and leaving knowing that they could get an Accord or Camry for the same money or less with much more content and what was Ford’s answer? “No, they’re not.”
The “500” was a tired design before it even hit the road. Take a look at the Audi 100 from 1983. Look familiar?
Design by committee. Guaranteed to produce a hot steamy diaper load every time.
guyincognito:
First of all, I have a hard time imagining that they would fire the designer of the Flex. There could have been some other issue.
I think there are a few issues with the Flex. For one, I’ve never seen a commercial for it. I’ve seen that stupid “MPG” Toyota commercial a billion and a half times today. “Here we go, here we go, yeah!” Where is the marketing support? The only reason the other 7 seat CUV based on the D3 platform Ford has isn’t selling is because nobody knows it exists. They should have just dumped 1/3 the money they put into producing the Flex into marketing the Taurus X and giving it a not comically bad name. It would have achieved more volume than the Flex and Taurus X combined.
For another, the design is too over the top for a vehicle aimed at minivan expats, IMHO.
And of course the fuel economy. How could a 4600lb box have good fuel economy? So for an AWD version you’re saving a few mpg over an SUV but you can’t tow with it and it has none of the absolutely essential off road capability or drive right over the car in front of you road clearance.
You sir, are a very smart person. I have the EXACT same thoughts on the Flex and T-X. The baboons at FMC would much rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing a stretched Scion, than spend ONE RED CENT on advertising the Taurus X. Not that they really gave the Taurus X a chance…it came out as a 2008 model and less than a year they have a (much worse) replacement for it. There is NOTHING that the stupid Flex does that the Taurus X can’t. In fact, the T-X has more total cargo room than the Flex…according to http://www.ford.com. The Flex is another answer to a question nobody asked. Much like the Edge. Why does Ford need a 5-seat SUV…when they already have one called Escape?
I hope beyond hope that Ford loses TONS of money on the Flex experiment. Maybe then, the baboons will realize that there are better ways of doing business.
I test drove Ford Flex 2 weeks ago.
For what it is, it is actually a very nice car.
Design is polarizing, yes, but I like it, partially because of that.
The interior is very well designed and had good quality materials, definitely better than Honda Odyssey or Honda Pilot.
Fuel economy is on par with other vehicles of this size.
I might still buy it but I am not sure if we need _two_ 7 seaters (we already have a Mazda CX-9).
The problem with the Flex is that it competes with minivans and does so reasonably well, but these days even your usual minivan shoppers do some hard thinking as to whether they REALLY need a minivan for two adults and two kids.
Plus, of course, with all the negative news, many people stop looking at domestics altogether.
It seems that Ford merely followed the “design rules” that sold vehicles during the cheap gas days: Design a vehicle, then keep making the thing larger and add more bling until it reaches a “price point” where it can realize a profit.
The market would react favorably to a 1/2 scale Flex, but FoMoCo would lose money on every one, because there’s the xB.
Hell, you could have designed the Flex using Legos. Wouldn’t it have been a “Better Idea” if Ford had just offered the S-Max?
Before you blog on a site called “thetruthaboutcars” you should get your facts straight. The “brick shithouse” Flex design is actually a good thing for mileage purposes.
Compared to the competition, Ford Flex moves through the air with surprising ease. The Flex’s aerodynamics equates to one mile per gallon improvement in fuel economy.
At 55 mph, the Flex needs only 8.90 horsepower while the nearest competitors in the full-size crossover segment – the GMC Acadia and Toyota Highlander – require more than 9.30 horsepower. Moreover, the Flex’s coefficient of drag is significantly better than all of its Asian competitors. Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient of drag while the competitors are at 0.375.
@ psim,
And how are said competitors selling? .355 is not a drag coefficient to brag about.
Ford’s press release touted “breakthrough aerodynamics” for the Flex for that Cd of 0.355. Here’s a real breakthrough in a big vehicle: the 1933 Dymaxion by Buckminister Fuller, with a reported Prius-busting Cd of 0.25.
Less dramatic but similarly sized & priced (but shovel-nosed = less frontal area) is the 2008 Honda Odyssey VCM, Cd of 0.30 and EPA rating of 17/25. Apples to oranges? the Flex is just another big people carrier which replaced another one, the Freestar/Windstar.
Really hard to understand the length of this monstrosity. If there is such a thing as too much 2nd row leg room, this car(bus?) has it.
At least Ford will sell a few, more than can be said for the Pontiac G8. That car has to be the poster child for bad timing. I know GM didn’t spend near as much as Ford did but if there any on the water right now the boats should be turned around. If Australia is GM’s answer to the future, they have none.
IMHO regarding the Flex
1. Styling – Frugly! My 18 year old son pointed out to me that the white roof option really makes it look like the world’s largest golf cart.
2. Weight – makes an Edge look svelte.
3. Mileage – You can’t tell me the drivetrain from an Escape Hybrid would not fit – should have been standard as this thing is easily as weird looking as a Prius. Would have changed instanlty from something you are ashamed to drive into a tree-huggers dream – the anti-Hummer.
2. Name – Almost anything but Flex (OK, Edge is almost as bad)- My vote would have been Country Squire. Why hide the fact that it is a station wagon? Maybe that’s the next retro-trend. Used to be Ford occasianly was out front.
Maybe as a Mercury exclusive the price would have seemed more appropriate and they might have actually sold more. Don’t laugh, a Crossover saved Buick.
My 18 year old son pointed out to me that the white roof option really makes it look like the world’s largest golf cart.
The Ford Fairway?
Please get your facts right. The Oakville plant is not down. It has full production scheduled through the end of the year.
PSIM:
Before you blog on a site called “thetruthaboutcars” you should get your facts straight. The “brick shithouse” Flex design is actually a good thing for mileage purposes.
Compared to the competition, Ford Flex moves through the air with surprising ease. The Flex’s aerodynamics equates to one mile per gallon improvement in fuel economy.
At 55 mph, the Flex needs only 8.90 horsepower while the nearest competitors in the full-size crossover segment – the GMC Acadia and Toyota Highlander – require more than 9.30 horsepower. Moreover, the Flex’s coefficient of drag is significantly better than all of its Asian competitors. Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient of drag while the competitors are at 0.375.
You actually believe what you read in a Ford press release? And how often do people drive at 55MPH?
And do you know what the Cd of the Chevy Traverse is? Nope, you’re wrong. It is .33…which is a MUCH better number than .355.
Some of you folks seem to be a little naive about the facts.
1) Richard was not fired because the Flex was a failure.
The head count reduction numbers had to be achieved. He was let go because he had the lowest seniority of all of the Ford design chiefs…Not the lowest performance.
The complexities of a large corporation are staggering including the legal aspects. Separations (firings) must be done the most legal way possible or you open a company up to lawsuits.
Richard was a Design Chief…Not senior management. The styling direction is dictated by senior management. The Design Chiefs execute the direction.
2) They did not stop production of the Flex. It is made in Ontario with the Edge. They simply canceled the 3rd shift.
…a Crossover saved Buick.
Really? When was that?
The Flex is another answer to a question nobody asked. Much like the Edge. Why does Ford need a 5-seat SUV…when they already have one called Escape?
I agree with you that the Flex is the answer to an unasked question, but not the Edge. Yes, they are both 5 seaters, but the Escape is technically a mini-ute, and the Edge is a true crossover and argueably they appeal to two different customers. Unlike the Flex, the Edge (including its varients) is apparantly selling in decent numbers so it must have at least some appeal.
SherbornSean: I propose a new rule: you’re not allowed to whine that automakers should sell more wagons in the US unless you own a Magnum, Legacy, Avant, etc.
How about if I wanted a wagon but settled for a CUV in ’99 and only buy cars once every decade or so???
My replacement vehicle will have a tailgate too – either a hatchback or a wagon… Way too versatile compared to a small sedan.