Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Ford Flex Limited AWD

[OliverD]

My sister has a Flex and I love the look and it is nice to drive.  However it too expensive, too heavy and too thirsty.  The Mazda5 is nice to drive too and has none of those downsides.  It would my choice in the 4+2 seater class.

Your comparison has left me speechless. I'm not sure if you could have chosen two more different people carriers to compare.

It is an odd comparison, and being compared twice in this thread... However, it would meet you needs, since you don't have a lot of people in the car always....

The Mazda 5 doesn't come close to meeting my needs. Way too small in the front. The Mazda 5 is the only car I've driven where I was forced to put my seat all the way back, and I still wasn't completely comfortable. That's true for both generations.

[OliverD]

My sister has a Flex and I love the look and it is nice to drive.  However it too expensive, too heavy and too thirsty.  The Mazda5 is nice to drive too and has none of those downsides.  It would my choice in the 4+2 seater class.

Your comparison has left me speechless. I'm not sure if you could have chosen two more different people carriers to compare.

Why?  Both are front drive people movers that seat 4 and lots of stuff or six and not much else.  I have also driven both and thus compared them. The Flex feels bigger but has little more useful space.  It feels heavier in an old school "road hugging" way but the Mazda5 is more nimble and more fun to drive. 

Anyone looking at a $35K Flex should look at a $25K Mazda5.

Yes I know writers test cars as close as possible but in the real world people need to think at little more.

By that logic we could also compare a Toyota Camry to a Mercedes E300.

[Rupert]

   I can see comparing the Mazda 5 with this as a people mover albeit a different concept. What this more accurately compares to is a Minivan. Oh...I know softer seats than a Dodge but maybe not any softer than others. But that is as far as it goes utility wise. I look at this and see a chopped van and loosing the height reduces utility. However the concept can appeal and chopping is making a comback in a small way. It's different and looks long because it is and because of thin height.
   Anyway, the dash is very nice indeed with the large speedo...seems to resemble the recent Edge in review. It will answer some needs and maybe escape soccermom designation. Hmm...sliding doors are pretty good to use though. Benches would work great here with a knob doohicki to shift gears. Why do 'work vehicles' (if you can call them that) like vans get the nifty doohicki and not  luxury transport. Seems the wrong way round to me.
   Ah...they have the 100/120 km/ at the top of the dial here.

[Solstice2006]

My sister has a Flex and I love the look and it is nice to drive.  However it too expensive, too heavy and too thirsty.  The Mazda5 is nice to drive too and has none of those downsides.  It would my choice in the 4+2 seater class.

Your comparison has left me speechless. I'm not sure if you could have chosen two more different people carriers to compare.

Why?  Both are front drive people movers that seat 4 and lots of stuff or six and not much else.  I have also driven both and thus compared them. The Flex feels bigger but has little more useful space.  It feels heavier in an old school "road hugging" way but the Mazda5 is more nimble and more fun to drive. 

Anyone looking at a $35K Flex should look at a $25K Mazda5.

Yes I know writers test cars as close as possible but in the real world people need to think at little more.

Well of course the FLEX feels bigger, it's 20 inches longer, weights 1000lbs more.  I would say the FLEX is more designed for the long haul road trips where comfort and luxuries is more of a priority.  And the Mazda5, is more designed for around town, dropping the kids off (with the convenient sliding doors), getting groceries, and running errands.  Where fuel economy and price is more of a priority...

[Soram6275]

My sister has a Flex and I love the look and it is nice to drive.  However it too expensive, too heavy and too thirsty.  The Mazda5 is nice to drive too and has none of those downsides.  It would my choice in the 4+2 seater class.

Your comparison has left me speechless. I'm not sure if you could have chosen two more different people carriers to compare.

Why?  Both are front drive people movers that seat 4 and lots of stuff or six and not much else.  I have also driven both and thus compared them. The Flex feels bigger but has little more useful space.  It feels heavier in an old school "road hugging" way but the Mazda5 is more nimble and more fun to drive. 

Anyone looking at a $35K Flex should look at a $25K Mazda5.

Yes I know writers test cars as close as possible but in the real world people need to think at little more.

By that logic we could also compare a Toyota Camry to a Mercedes E300.

I agree with you.  The Camry and E300 are about the same size and utility so let's compare those...how ridiculous.  I love the Flex and it's turbo engine, but $60K although loaded with options really is too much, in my opinion.

[Think123]

My sister has a Flex and I love the look and it is nice to drive.  However it too expensive, too heavy and too thirsty.  The Mazda5 is nice to drive too and has none of those downsides.  It would my choice in the 4+2 seater class.

Funny, but we sold my wife's '06 Mazda 5 to get a one year old 2010 Flex with Ecoboost.  The Mazda was okay for space, not overly great on gas and flinty to drive and with the extra weight over the back end on the Mazda 3 chassis, the weight distribution was lousy in winter even with snow tires.  The Flex is a totally different vehicle.  It is currently loaded with two kids bikes, an adult mountain bike, 3 person inflatable kayak with paddles and PFD's and is ready to tow our 4000lb trailer for the May long weekend.  As my daughter would say, easy/peasy, as that is what it is designed to do.  From Calgary we've done two big trips, one to Yellowstone with 4 adults and the two kids and, more recently to Moab, Utah with just the kids and three mountain bikes on the hitch rack.  The Moab trip is roughly 4000kms, 90% at interstate speeds of 125km/hr all at altitudes from 3500 to 7000' and I got 9.5 km's/litre - roughly 27mpg and on regular octane as that is all it needs.  I can live with that.

Yes, it is a Kleenex box on wheels but my wife digs it and when Car and Driver had it to 60 in under 6 seconds, I became a devotee of 'it's hip to be square'.

I don't know where to start.  The Mazda5 is easily the best handling van/cuv, I would argue even better than the CX-5 because it's lower.  It doesn't get the best fuel efficiency because of the dated powertrain.  With this lousy weather, I had no problems with the Mazda5.  I know I am not in Calgary, but I have never heard of the complaint of the Mazda5 chassis being too heavy because it uses the Mazda3 platform. 

And I have a hard time believing your getting 9.5L/100km  on a Ford Flex Egoboost.  Fuelly gives it an average of 12.5L to 13.5L, which sounds about right.  Yes I know you said highway, but I don't buy it.  Hope that isn't the onboard computer telling you that.  And especially if your towing at the Maximum towing capacity of 4000lbs, it would be double that!

I didn't say 9.5L/100km, it got 9.5km/L - I get (your) fuel economy driving around town as long as I don't get into turbo boost range too often which is hard not to do as it is fun.  When pulling the trailer I get roughly 20mpg albeit while doing 100km/hr.  As for the Mazda 5, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the car as it was the last stick I've owned but it is not even close to the same as the Flex. The 5 can seat 6 with no room for luggage while the our Flex seats 7 with enough room for 3 full size suit cases and while loaded down the handling does not change much while the Mazda was pushed to its limits and felt rear biased which is disconcerting in a FWD car.  The Flex is AWD as well and, with the class III hitch, it comes with trailer anti-sway control much like a half ton truck.  My buddy has a hitch on his 5 and pulls a little 8' foot pop up trailer which weighs maybe 1200 lbs dry.  He can bring only the basics due to room and weight concerns while I'm in a 14', high sided pop up trailer that expands to 26'.  Not to get into trailers on a car forum, but it helps explain the big difference between the two cars.

[mrthompson]

9.5 km/L = 10.5 L/100km.....still impressive for a large, boxy vehicle.

[JRM]

9.5 km/L = 10.5 L/100km.....still impressive for a large, boxy vehicle.

Not bad at all considering my wife's 1.8 litre Vibe consistently uses over 11 L/100 km combined in the winter with snow tires on, and it is well maintained. 

[Solstice2006]

Didn't realize I miss read the fuel economy figures, never seen 9.5km/L.  I try to stick our system...(L/100km)  Anyway, your still comparing a compact van to large crossover, more money, bigger vehicle, heavier vehicle, bigger engine, means more space, more gas, it's that simple....not something the Mazda5 is trying to be.  Would have been easier to say, the Mazda5 is too small for what you use it for.  I would never say the FLEX is better, because it's like comparing Apples to Oranges...

[blotter]

Not bad at all considering my wife's 1.8 litre Vibe consistently uses over 11 L/100 km combined in the winter with snow tires on, and it is well maintained. 

but that's winter with snow tires!

since this early spring i'm averaging 8L with the same Matrix (1.8L engine)
but my best has been 7.4L/100km

[mixmanmash]

9.5 km/L = 10.5 L/100km.....still impressive for a large, boxy vehicle.

Not bad at all considering my wife's 1.8 litre Vibe consistently uses over 11 L/100 km combined in the winter with snow tires on, and it is well maintained.

That's terrible.  My Protege with it's 2.0L averages 8-9 L/100km combined in winter with winter tires.

Currently, with summer tires and pure city driving, I've gotten 9.4 L/100km.  Not bad for having 325000kms on it.

For the record, TC states I should get 9.6 in the city and 7.2 on the hwy.  I have achieved 7.2-7.5 on summer highway trips if I keep the speed at 110km/h and there is no wind.

Funny thing is modern mid size cars are rated to be better than this.  How technology has come along is amazing!  Oh well, can't complain as the FSDE engine in my Protege was first introduced in the early 90s and was slowly tweaked over the years.

[Agiledood]

I could see people cross shopping the 5 and the Flex.   When we bought our CX-9 we shopped everything with more than 5 seats that was "around 35K", except the bigger minivans because we didn't like them.    Got some interesting comments from salespeople when we said we were looking at the Flex, CX-9, Rondo, Mazda5, Outlander, Veracruz, GM triplets and Highlander!  "You know those are different vehicles right?"  Duh, really?  We like what we like.  The Flex was out because it was like driving a school bus in comparison to the CX-9, although the Flex was my emotional choice!

When we traded in the CX-9 we ended up getting the 5 because we still needed 6 seats and the sliding doors are better when your kids have no spacial awareness.

As for the snow, I don't feel really confident driving the 5 in the snow with snow tires.  For the GTA it's fine but if I was living somewhere with more brutal winters I'd want something better in the snow.

Still love the Flex though, maybe one day...

[johngenx]

I think the Flex is one of Ford's most underrated products.  The box is king for interior space, hands down.  One bonus is that they depreciate pretty hard, making them pretty good used buys.