CD Article: 2009 Ford Flex

[CD_Editor]

First Drive:


The Flex has evolved from a puzzling concept into an interesting, appealing, clever and fresh take on the crossover class, says Senior Editor, Paul Williams.  "It's kind of an SUV from the outside... with the space and functionality of a minivan inside."

 More:
Read the article | View the photos | All The First Drives

[Loudpedal]

Everytime I see a pic of this...thing...I shake my head and wonder what Ford was thinking when they designed it.   It's like the worst of all worlds. 

Anyways, while the dash looks nice, I hope it quickly goes the way of the Freestar.   

[si]

"Pricing ranges from $34,999 for the FWD SEL to $42,999 for the AWD Limited. "


You could buy two of these instead: (and not look like such an oddball)

[rrocket]

I bet they sell ass-loads of those Flexs.

[Mitlov]

Everytime I see a pic of this...thing...I shake my head and wonder what Ford was thinking when they designed it.   It's like the worst of all worlds. 

Anyways, while the dash looks nice, I hope it quickly goes the way of the Freestar.   

Meh.  It's like a giant Clubman.  Not my cup of tea, but far from the ugliest vehicle on the road.  Looks are subjective, but I think this looks far better than, say, the Prius or the 2006+ Civic.  In this genre, I think that the GM triplets look better, but I'd place this at about the same level as the new Pilot, and only a bit behind the new Highlander.  I actually like it better than any traditional minivan.

EDIT:  And have others have said, the interior looks just superb...truly classy.  Almost Lincoln-esque.

EDIT 2:  I'd also like to point out that the odd looks aren't a case of form over function.  A box on wheels is an incredibly functional design for people-movers, big or small.  It makes sense for the Scion xB, it makes sense for the Nissan Cube, and it makes sense here.  Swoopy looks nice, but isn't particularly efficient.  I'll bet you could fit a lot more stuff in the Flex than you could fit in, say, a CX-9, even though I think the CX-9 looks better.

"Pricing ranges from $34,999 for the FWD SEL to $42,999 for the AWD Limited. "


You could buy two of these instead: (and not look like such an oddball)

In my opinion, a loaded Flex is twice the vehicle of a stripped Journey.

[rrocket]

I actually like it better than any traditional minivan.

My thoughts exactly..which is why I think Ford will sell many.  I'm sure some guys are reluctant to drive a minivan, and this might fit the bill....

[Mitlov]

I actually like it better than any traditional minivan.

My thoughts exactly..which is why I think Ford will sell many.  I'm sure some guys are reluctant to drive a minivan, and this might fit the bill....

Not that it has anything to do with the Flex, but as a tangent, in my experience, women are even more hostile to traditional minivans than men are.  Either way, I agree that this vehicle is going to be a massive hit.  It's the first "not-a-minivan" crossover I've seen that doesn't appear to give up ANY utility to a traditional minivan (though the GM triplets come darned close).

[Mitlov]

Side-by-side comparison, for the heck of it.  All numbers are from the US EPA.

Flex FWD: 17 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Odyssey: 16 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Odyssey with VCM: 17 mpg city, 25 mpg highway.
Sienna FWD: 17 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Quest: 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Entourage: 16 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Acadia FWD: 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Caravan 3.3L: 17 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.

It looks like the Flex and Acadia don't give up any fuel economy compared to traditional minivans.  Hell, only one minivan on the market can beat the Flex FWD, and does so by a small margin.

[UmroAyyar]

The concept is very interesting, particularly the trend GM and Ford are following after their not so good minivan adventures.

Mitlov's stats on fuel economy are v.v. close no clear winner even that big Acadia's fuel economy is similar.

This could be an alternate mini-van crossover, interior space seems to be aplenty.

[mmret]

Side-by-side comparison, for the heck of it.  All numbers are from the US EPA.

Flex FWD: 17 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Odyssey: 16 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Odyssey with VCM: 17 mpg city, 25 mpg highway.
Sienna FWD: 17 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Quest: 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Entourage: 16 mpg city, 23 mpg highway.
Acadia FWD: 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Caravan 3.3L: 17 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.

It looks like the Flex and Acadia don't give up any fuel economy compared to traditional minivans.  Hell, only one minivan on the market can beat the Flex FWD, and does so by a small margin.

The Flex will lose in the real world because of that huge upright front piece. The others are somewhat more aerodynamic (looking).

Also keep in mind that at these levels, a 1MPG difference corresponds to a much larger percentage delta than it does at 30MPG.

EDIT: now, just so you don't all think I'm a Ford hater, at least you're getting a gigantic behemoth of a living room with this thing. So if you need to move three generations of the family and all their luggage every weekend this is a pretty good way to do it.

[banfield]

I hope the visibility is as good as the "squared up" design suggests.

If the Flex had sliding rear doors, a telescopic steering wheel (for the reason mentioned in the article) and 50% better fuel economy (a tall order, I realize), it would be a top pick for me.

It's a shame this vehicle and the new Dodge Journey do not have sliding doors.  Mazda still sees the good sense of this approach and uses it in their Mazda5 small wagon/crossover. I drove one of these as a rental and loved it except for the extreme rake of the windshield. This is a foolish current design trend, in my opinion, since the result is "pushed forward" A-pillars that impede sideways visibility (particularly since today's A-pillars are very thick, no doubt for safety reasons).

Nothing beat the visibility of the 1950s "wraparound" windshields.

"Progress" is debatable and often dubious.

[stodge]

This is built on an extended Taurus platform??? 

Good god that thing should have some 12" guns on the front, a smoke stack in the middle and some torpedo tubes sticking out the side!

[Thinking Out Loud]

I was reading in another article about the possibility of cannibalization within the brand - the Freestyle/Taurus X overlap and appear to share much of the same underbody structure, the X already being a handsome and generally successful vehicle, especially since the engine upgrade.

The same, yet different.  Lease and Finance incentives could prove a deciding factor....

I'm a fan of the Ford new-styling evolution - certainly won't be confused with anything else on the road, attractive or no.

[Gwendly]

This is built on an extended Taurus platform??? 

Good god that thing should have some 12" guns on the front, a smoke stack in the middle and some torpedo tubes sticking out the side!

that's the sports package

[Diesel Advocate]

I saw a couple of these driving between Oakville and Mississauga and my first thought was how huge it was on the road and how fugly it was. Looking at the pictures today and while I am still not sold on the styling or the price (to close to the Taurus X), inside is amazingly spacious and definately on par with the new Mini-Vans from Kia/Hyundai, Honda, Toyota even with the 3rd row seats up. I will definately take a look at the Flex up close and personal.

Am I correct in assuming that the middle row fold flat into the floor as well as the 34rd row or is it just the 3rd row?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I would assume so. They do on the Taurus.

[articsteve]

I hope for the sake of the Oakville plant it sells.  Generally, I like the appearance.  Off hand, just from pics, the front grill and the fog lights are too pronounced.  Price of gas is gonna be the major negative.

It would make a good camper. 

[Mitlov]

This is built on an extended Taurus platform??? 

Good god that thing should have some 12" guns on the front, a smoke stack in the middle and some torpedo tubes sticking out the side!

It's about a half-inch shorter than an Odyssey.  Perfectly reasonable size for a minivan-esque vehicle.

[Mitlov]

The Flex will lose in the real world because of that huge upright front piece. The others are somewhat more aerodynamic (looking).

Also keep in mind that at these levels, a 1MPG difference corresponds to a much larger percentage delta than it does at 30MPG.

EDIT: now, just so you don't all think I'm a Ford hater, at least you're getting a gigantic behemoth of a living room with this thing. So if you need to move three generations of the family and all their luggage every weekend this is a pretty good way to do it.

The Flex is more aerodynamic than it looks from a 1/4 view (where the windshield appears vertical):





The windshields are basically the same rake.  The Odyssey has a more slanted grill, but on the other hand, it also has roof rails adding drag.

Anyway, I hadn't heard the argument that the EPA's testing fails to take aerodynamics into account before, or underestimates the effect of aerodynamics.  Have there been any studies to that effect? 

It should also be noted that  there are certainly a lot of variables between these vehicles besides aerodynamics.  It's certainly possible that a vehicle with a slight aerodynamic disadvantage could still be slightly more fuel efficient than some other vehicle, because not all other variables are equal.

[Mitlov]

Price of gas is gonna be the major negative.

I disagree entirely.  Price of gas will HELP the Flex's sales.  People are bailing out of Tahoes and Yukons and Sequoias as "family haulers," and looking for crossovers and minivans to fit the bill.  This segment is exploding right now--I see Acadias and Outlooks everywhere. 

And the Flex's good fuel economy within that class should help it even further.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford running ads touting the Flex as "more fuel efficient than a Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest, or GMC Acadia."