2009 Ford Flex Review
By Justin Berkowitz
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.
09fordflex_25_hr.jpgOnce 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.
09fordflex_31_hr.jpgThe 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 ).
09flex_skv8618_hr.jpgThe 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.
09flex_skv8463_hr.jpgStill, 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.
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/06/09_fordflex_skv4225_hr.jpg)
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/06/09fordflex_25_hr.jpg)
Thoughts, comments?
I don't understand why Ford followed this formula, the segment is so overcrowded as it is! I would love this car if it was xB sized and motivated by a four cylinder engine. Lose the third row, too. That would be fantastic, and I know it would sell better than this thing.
It's marvellous!
But you all knew I was going to say that.
Looks like a cheap knock off of a Range Rover.
Quote from: Laconian on June 24, 2008, 12:19:15 AM
I don't understand why Ford followed this formula, the segment is so overcrowded as it is! I would love this car if it was xB sized and motivated by a four cylinder engine. Lose the third row, too. That would be fantastic, and I know it would sell better than this thing.
Someone already sells a 4-cylinder xB-sized box (Scion), and that's a lower-volume (and presumably lower-profit) market segment than passenger hauler. Ford has nothing popular in a fairly strong market segment (two if you count both midsize/large crossover and minivan), so that's the market they correctly went after.
Quote from: Laconian on June 24, 2008, 12:19:15 AM
I don't understand why Ford followed this formula, the segment is so overcrowded as it is! I would love this car if it was xB sized and motivated by a four cylinder engine. Lose the third row, too. That would be fantastic, and I know it would sell better than this thing.
It would be a totally different car and in a totally different segment. :nutty:
The Flex is based on the Freestyle/Taurus X so I have no doubts its a very good car.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 24, 2008, 07:20:03 AM
It would be a totally different car and in a totally different segment. :nutty:
The Flex is based on the Freestyle/Taurus X so I have no doubts its a very good car.
Those cars have hardly been as successful as Ford hoped though, right?
I suspect that this won't do much better than the Taurus X but I could be mistaken. Reminds me of when GM put a long nose on their vans so they wouldn't look like vans. I don't know if this will flop of not. I kind of like the Taurus X but I think they should have gave it some better styling. :huh:
Quote from: ifcar on June 24, 2008, 06:01:50 AM
Someone already sells a 4-cylinder xB-sized box (Scion), and that's a lower-volume (and presumably lower-profit) market segment than passenger hauler. Ford has nothing popular in a fairly strong market segment (two if you count both midsize/large crossover and minivan), so that's the market they correctly went after.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 24, 2008, 07:20:03 AM
It would be a totally different car and in a totally different segment. :nutty:
No kidding. That's my point, I wish the effort put into this car was aimed at the xB-like segment instead of the 7 passenger CUV segment. The latter segment is overcrowded and their thirst will make them increasingly unpalatable for consumers going forward.
A shrunken Flex, like an xB without the weird Darth Vader looks, would sell like hotcakes. I guess now I'm describing the Mini Clubman. :|
Quote from: Catman on June 24, 2008, 09:56:43 AM
I suspect that this won't do much better than the Taurus X but I could be mistaken. Reminds me of when GM put a long nose on their vans so they wouldn't look like vans. I don't know if this will flop of not. I kind of like the Taurus X but I think they should have gave it some better styling. :huh:
The problem with the GM vans wasn't the nose, it was that they stuck the nose on 8-year-old products that were never outstanding. The Flex has substance.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on June 24, 2008, 09:37:36 AM
Those cars have hardly been as successful as Ford hoped though, right?
The problem with the Freestyle/Taurus X is that Ford has never publicized them. I have never seen a commercial for them, and I've never seen a print ad for them. I have people who ask me what our Freestyle is all the time. I tell it's a Freestyle and they say, "Huh. Never heard of it. It looks pretty nice, do you like it?". A friend of ours actually bought one after they rode in ours one day and they said they had never heard of it before that day. They had seen them around and always wondered what they were. Ford totally dropped the ball with the Freestyle/Taurus X.
Quote from: Laconian on June 24, 2008, 01:06:22 PM
No kidding. That's my point, I wish the effort put into this car was aimed at the xB-like segment instead of the 7 passenger CUV segment. The latter segment is overcrowded and their thirst will make them increasingly unpalatable for consumers going forward.
A shrunken Flex, like an xB without the weird Darth Vader looks, would sell like hotcakes. I guess now I'm describing the Mini Clubman. :|
Why? The xB isn't exactly burning up the charts. People need family cars. The Freestyle/Taurus X and now Flex all get pretty decent mileage that is better then most or all in this segment.
I think it looks sharp.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on June 24, 2008, 09:37:36 AM
Those cars have hardly been as successful as Ford hoped though, right?
You are right they weren't sales successes, but they were actually very good. I had a Freestyle as a rental (once by accident, the second time intentionally) and I was very impressed with it. It was very practical (especially when carrying lots of people and/or stuff) and it drive surprisingly well for something of its size.
They were a bit boring to look at and the engine was a bit weak (though perfectly adequate). This Flex seems to fix both of those issues while at the same time being even more practical.
For Ford's sake I hope this truck/CUV is a success. They need it.
From an article on Jim Farley's marketing strategy for the Flex...http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/FREE/123903851/1530/FREE (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/FREE/123903851/1530/FREE)
Ford Motor Co. will market its new seven-passenger crossover without focusing on one of its biggest potential customer categories: families.
The 2009 Ford Flex will go on sale in June, said Kate Pearce, Flex marketing manager. But don't expect kids and dogs to show up in the advertising, even though the Flex is roomy enough to haul around the paraphernalia of modern-day families.
Instead, Ford will try to position the Flex as a trendsetting vehicle for people wanting a stylish ride. The automaker will reach out to urban and suburban consumers alike, even those without children, Pearce said.
"There's much more to this vehicle when you look at it rather than just narrowly defining it as a family crossover," she said. "It is the style that draws people to this vehicle. Good or bad, it evokes an emotion."
The marketing strategy is a departure from the positioning that Ford initially developed for the Flex. The agent of change? Ford's new marketing chief, Jim Farley.
Farley at work
When Farley arrived at Ford last fall, he saw the potential to pitch Flex as a cool vehicle suitable for both trendsetters and families, Pearce said.
The Flex team already had been exploring ways to hype the bold look, but Farley's guidance turned the positioning around. Ford marketers decided not to limit the Flex's potential by painting it so visibly with the family brush.
"So it's caused us to second-guess and take a second look and kind of widen it up and say, 'You know what, you don't have to have a family to love the car,' " Pearce said.
Ford expects the Flex to sell well on the West and East coasts, as well as in some major metro areas in the middle of the country. Flex pricing will start at $28,995, including shipping, and will approach the mid-$40,000 range. Ford expects natural customer traffic to come from people who have been driving mid- and full-sized SUVs.
Ford marketers don't worry that the Flex is priced too high because many consumers switching from SUVs to crossovers are actually coming down in price, Pearce said.
Minivan stigma
The Flex marketing strategy is also part of an effort to escape the perceived minivan stigma. Ford dropped sliding rear doors that initially had been planned for the Flex. Using cheaper conventional rear doors freed up money to improve the interior.
That interior, in addition to the Flex's exterior looks, will be showcased in the advertising campaign, Pearce said. Families will find the car even without overt target marketing, she said.
Themes for the commercials aren't final, but they will come back to potential consumers' desire to express a personal sense of style.
Said Pearce: "You can't not want to be noticed when you drive down the road in a two-tone vehicle with really cool grooves down the side."
I hope it works for them. The advantage they have is that, so far, nothing else in that category looks like it.
Terrible idea. People who don't care what their car looks like will write it off as a fashion statement car and never realize how practical it is.
Quote from: ifcar on June 25, 2008, 08:49:00 AM
Terrible idea. People who don't care what their car looks like will write it off as a fashion statement car and never realize how practical it is.
I agree. Besides, when the "trendsetters" go look at the car and realize it's got 3 rows of seating and it absolutely cavernous inside, they're going to say, "This is a family car".
QuoteFarley at work
When Farley arrived at Ford last fall, he saw the potential to pitch Flex as a cool vehicle suitable for both trendsetters and families, Pearce said.
The Flex team already had been exploring ways to hype the bold look, but Farley's guidance turned the positioning around. Ford marketers decided not to limit the Flex's potential by painting it so visibly with the family brush.
"So it's caused us to second-guess and take a second look and kind of widen it up and say, 'You know what, you don't have to have a family to love the car,' " Pearce said.
Actually, I agree with that statement. Although I have no use for 3 rows of seating, I really dig this car a lot; in the same way I did the Escalade. Come to think of it, this could be like the poor-man's economic-crisis-era Escalade. I think that's the marketing strategy Ford is pursuing with this car.
I do like the idea of a shorter 5-seater version of this, about similar in size to the Honda Element. I would take such a vehicle over the Ford Edge on space alone.
http://suvs.about.com/b/2008/06/16/2009-ford-flex-driving-impressions.htm
Quote... has Ford built the right SUV at the wrong time? Flex's only powertrain choice is a 3.5 liter V6 (262 hp/248 lb-ft of torque) hooked up to a six-speed transmission. When you factor in the 4468 lb curb weight (FWD)/4640 lb curb weight (AWD), fuel economy is 16 mpg city/22 mpg highway (AWD)/17 mpg city/24 mpg highway (FWD), according to EPA estimates. Even though Flex seats six or seven passengers, depending on configuration, those are tough numbers to sell right now.
Its gas mileage is as good as anything else in the class (identical to the new Pilot). I can't see the midsize car-based SUV market shrinking too dramatically.
Of course, if the Flex's interior is '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', then I really worry about what the other Ford models must be like.
Quote from: ifcar on June 25, 2008, 11:38:59 AM
Its gas mileage is as good as anything else in the class (identical to the new Pilot). I can't see the midsize car-based SUV market shrinking too dramatically.
I can't think of many car-based SUVs that are selling near what they used to when gas was cheaper. GM's Lambdas are down, so are the Pilot and Highlander. The Ford Edge seems to be doing ok though. All of these are offered with heavy incentives too, except the 09 Pilot.
Down is still fairly high. The Highlander, for example, is down 12%, but they still sold 10,000 units last month. It's not as if the market for midsize crossovers is collapsing.
The Flex is NOT an SUV. It is NOT a CUV. IT IS A STATION WAGON.
I do quite like the Flex.
Quote from: CJ on June 25, 2008, 04:39:57 PM
It is NOT a CUV. IT IS A STATION WAGON.
What's the difference?
Quote from: CJ on June 25, 2008, 04:39:57 PM
The Flex is NOT an SUV. It is NOT a CUV. IT IS A STATION WAGON.
I do quite like the Flex.
Ford calls it a Crossover on its website.
Having driven the Flex, I found myself liking it a lot. It is more comfortable than the Edge, larger than the Taurus X, and has a smoother ride.
It is a station wagon and many of us in the dealerships recognize it as such. I'd guess that calling it a station wagon would threaten the appeal to younger buyers. Cross-over is the "cool" moniker for something that ain't quite a SUV. Calling it a station wagon would put it on a level with the Taurus wagon and that wasn't a popular choice with young families.
Quote from: JWC on July 12, 2008, 10:12:30 PM
Having driven the Flex, I found myself liking it a lot. It is more comfortable than the Edge, larger than the Taurus X, and has a smoother ride.
It is a station wagon and many of us in the dealerships recognize it as such. I'd guess that calling it a station wagon would threaten the appeal to younger buyers. Cross-over is the "cool" moniker for something that ain't quite a SUV. Calling it a station wagon would put it on a level with the Taurus wagon and that wasn't a popular choice with young families.
At some point though you have to call a spade a spade. It's a station wagon that's too tall by half.
Besides, if you look at hotrodding- which has been embracing the station wagon for years, its clear that not everybody equates the term station wagon with the Family Truckster.
Just saw one tonight.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 12, 2008, 10:14:59 PM
At some point though you have to call a spade a spade. It's a station wagon that's too tall by half.
Besides, if you look at hotrodding- which has been embracing the station wagon for years, its clear that not everybody equates the term station wagon with the Family Truckster.
Yeah, but if you look at the majority of people building hot rod wagons, it is a boomer reliving his childhood.
As I said, we call it a station wagon, Ford calls it a cross-over and gave it a VIN usually equated to trucks.
Quote from: JWC on July 12, 2008, 10:21:45 PM
Yeah, but if you look at the majority of people building hot rod wagons, it is a boomer reliving his childhood.
As I said, we call it a station wagon, Ford calls it a cross-over and gave it a VIN usually equated to trucks.
Because this thing will help Ford with their CAFE truck averages a lot.
We'll give this vehicle a serious look in the year that we decide to trade our minivan, which is only five years old and going strong. That is, of course, if we still think maintaining a seven-passenger capacity has significant relevance to us at that time. But the market may have other vehicles we'd want more by that distant future date. The three vehicles we would consider today are the Flex, the Mini, and an '05 Mustang--the Flex would replace the Windstar, the Mini would replace the Focus, and the Mustang would be an additional vehicle.
But by the time these two current vehicles are due for a trade, the universal Focus will be available, and there might even be a "Latter Day xB" Scion we'd like even more than the Flex. No rush--seven-passenger vehicles aren't items you rush out and buy just because you can. Ya gotta consider how frequently a genuine need for a seven-passenger capacity comes up (or the need for the cargo volume you have in a seven-passenger vehicle with two rows of seats removed), and how inconvenienced you might be if you didn't have it. We've had a van or a minivan since we bought the Dodge B-150 Prospector in the Fall of 1982, and we have not regretted having such cargo/passenger capacity conveniently in the garage on at least a thousand occasions. We might could downsize to an xB-cargo-capacity vehicle, but downsizing to a PT Cruiser right now would be a sea change. Still, if the spatial needs just aren't there and the fuel prices make even V6s the height of frivolous folly, a PT Cruiser could wind up in the garage...
I saw one of these out of the interstate yesterday afternoon (going the opposite way). Can't say I was all that impressed with the styling based on the glimpse I saw.
I've seen one in front of each Ford dealer I've driven past. It looks best in black. I saw one on the road this morning on my way to work. It was silver grey.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 21, 2008, 09:45:49 AM
I've seen one in front of each Ford dealer I've driven past. It looks best in black. I saw one on the road this morning on my way to work. It was silver grey.
I agree. I would consider a black one if I was looking for this type of car. It looks like a great car. My only complaint is the dash is a bit bland compared to the rest of it.
I saw a dark red one at the local Ford dealer, in a row of Explorers and Expeditions. Actually looked small in that company.
I like the way they look in real life vs pictures.
I like it, but my wife says it's ugly. So we won't be getting it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on July 22, 2008, 10:09:34 AM
I like it, but my wife says it's ugly. So we won't be getting it.
That's unfortunate. I always thought of it as a non-emasculated Freestyle ...
Actually, that seems about right ;)
Ford's PR department says, ?The distinctive design of the new 2009 Ford Flex provokes and polarizes opinions. With its signature side grooves, all-black greenhouse and distinct roof, it is like no other vehicle on the road.?
Phooey. The Flex is nothing more than a big ol' square station wagon. When will I be able to order it with wood paneling?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/1983_Ford_Country_Squire.jpg.JPG/800px-1983_Ford_Country_Squire.jpg.JPG)
(http://z.about.com/d/minivans/1/7/X/5/-/-/07ny_ford_flex.jpg)
Wood paneling would be hot...........didn't A&C do a chop of that?
CMan: Nope. What you have here is a Maxi Cooper--actually, since it has four doors, it's a Maxi Cooper Clubman... :lol:
Still, for vehicles this size and passenger capacity, it's the vehicle I prefer in this price range, although I'd like it more if they'd introduce a de-contented version that lists for less.
My wife says it's too boxy. I don't think this vehicle is going to do well. Just a gut feeling.
Quote from: Catman on July 23, 2008, 06:16:05 PM
My wife says it's too boxy. I don't think this vehicle is going to do well. Just a gut feeling.
Catman: It
ain't as boxy as a minivan. Nevertheless, that does
not mean it will do well. It has great features and all, but it comes at a tall price. Price is
BIG in the minivan marketplace, else there'd only be the pricey Sienna...
It's certainly boxier than a minivan.
Quote from: Catman on July 23, 2008, 06:16:05 PM
My wife says it's too boxy. I don't think this vehicle is going to do well. Just a gut feeling.
+1
My first thought when I saw it that someone sneaked into Ford's design studio and took all their french curves. The darn thing is just too boxy.
Is this FWD or RWD?
it be FWD. or AWD.
I like how boxy it is. I'd take this any day over the established mommy-mobiles.
Quote from: Vinsanity on July 24, 2008, 12:08:17 PM
it be FWD. or AWD.
I like how boxy it is. I'd take this any day over the established mommy-mobiles.
I like it. Distinctive in a crowd of humdrum family haulers.
I've seen a few on the streets now, and the impression I always get isn't that it's boxy, it's that it's boring. The shape is hardly grounbreaking as a slightly shrunken Suburban, and there are no standout details. It doesn't give the impression of a new design, more like one that's 3 or 4 years old.
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 02:13:39 PM
It doesn't give the impression of a new design, more like one that's 3 or 4 years old.
Well, I guess we have the existance of the Scion xB to thank for that.
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 02:13:39 PM
I've seen a few on the streets now, and the impression I always get isn't that it's boxy, it's that it's boring. The shape is hardly grounbreaking as a slightly shrunken Suburban, and there are no standout details. It doesn't give the impression of a new design, more like one that's 3 or 4 years old.
I like it, and think it cleanly and nicely detailed. By design, none of them are "standout" details, rather they harmonize with the rest of the vehicle.
It's certainly one of the ten nicest looking mainstream cars produced today.
Quote from: Vinsanity on July 24, 2008, 02:20:41 PM
Well, I guess we have the existance of the Scion xB to thank for that.
............who has to thank Nissan for it's Cube.
Quote from: Vinsanity on July 24, 2008, 02:20:41 PM
Well, I guess we have the existance of the Scion xB to thank for that.
I don't think it looks anything like the xB, which had an interesting look because of its stumpy proportions. The Flex is a low-roofed take on a ten-year-old Chevrolet Suburban, and it's attractive enough, but I don't think it's as radically styled as Ford seems to.
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:22:47 PM
I don't think it looks anything like the xB, which had an interesting look because of its stumpy proportions. The Flex is a low-roofed take on a ten-year-old Chevrolet Suburban, and it's attractive enough, but I don't think it's as radically styled as Ford seems to.
But it has such cutting edge styling features like the ribbed door panels and a white roof....
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:22:47 PM
I don't think it looks anything like the xB, which had an interesting look because of its stumpy proportions. The Flex is a low-roofed take on a ten-year-old Chevrolet Suburban, and it's attractive enough, but I don't think it's as radically styled as Ford seems to.
It looks less like an old Suburban than it does an xB. In any case, "radical" has generally not meant "attractive," and many times simply means "ages quickly."
Granted, the Flex is not the most original, but you can't deny that the side strakes, contrasting roof, and all the silver "blingage" make it an attention-grabber. It's a good thing, because this time Ford actually has a decent product to back it up.
That's only on the Limited model. Most Flexes are not two-tone.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 24, 2008, 06:41:20 PM
It looks less like an old Suburban than it does an xB. In any case, "radical" has generally not meant "attractive," and many times simply means "ages quickly."
(http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1229/v134/imageonthefly.autodatadirect.com/images/?IMG=U3CTGED1.jpg&WIDTH=425)
(http://image.trucktrend.com/f/vehicle-reviews/2009-ford-flex-limited-our-initial-riding-impressions/9777567+cr1+re0+ar1/ford-flex-side-view.jpg)
(http://www.evolvingtype.com/teddy/archives/images/L_2004_Scion_xb.jpg)
I see two long boxy wagons and one short boxy wagon. The Flex is pre-aged.
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:55:04 PM
I see two long boxy wagons and one short boxy wagon. The Flex is pre-aged.
You certainly have a gift for missing the forest because there are too many trees in the way.
Which is why I'd like for them to come out with a shorter 5-passenger version shortly. The Edge looks cool and all, but for me, an SUV/crossover thing without any more room than a sedan is pointless. And it would at least have the potential for better mpg.
Quote from: ifcar on July 24, 2008, 06:55:04 PM
(http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1229/v134/imageonthefly.autodatadirect.com/images/?IMG=U3CTGED1.jpg&WIDTH=425)
(http://image.trucktrend.com/f/vehicle-reviews/2009-ford-flex-limited-our-initial-riding-impressions/9777567+cr1+re0+ar1/ford-flex-side-view.jpg)
(http://www.evolvingtype.com/teddy/archives/images/L_2004_Scion_xb.jpg)
I see two long boxy wagons and one short boxy wagon. The Flex is pre-aged.
It doesn't look old at all. Granted, the Two-box shape isn't new, but the Flex isn't "Dated".
There's a difference between not looking like a new-for-2009 heavy-style car and looking dated. A very significant difference.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 24, 2008, 06:59:41 PM
You certainly have a gift for missing the forest because there are too many trees in the way.
Good point.
Hell, Dudes, somebody post a side view of a Mini Cooper Clubman and then you can't miss the 1.8-to-1 or 2.2-to-1 "scaled up Clubman" that we know as the Flex. 'Beats a minivan by a long way and a Suburban, too, although not by as much...
I still think they shoulda named it the Maxi Cooper...
The Flex isn't near as good as a minivan. Nothing is.
Quote from: CJ on July 25, 2008, 03:40:02 PM
The Flex isn't near as good as a minivan. Nothing is.
You are a sick, twisted individual, you know that?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 25, 2008, 03:48:22 PM
You are a sick, twisted individual, you know that?
Yes.
Quote from: ifcar on June 24, 2008, 06:01:50 AM
Someone already sells a 4-cylinder xB-sized box (Scion), and that's a lower-volume (and presumably lower-profit) market segment than passenger hauler. Ford has nothing popular in a fairly strong market segment (two if you count both midsize/large crossover and minivan), so that's the market they correctly went after.
i agree! the ford taurus x will probably be discontinued in late 2008 or in '09. the std. taurus sedan and mercury sable are poor sellers - despite many excellent attributes. the "x" is an even greater sales disappointment for fmc. the flex is truly unique and easily recognizable. these traits, along with contemporary looks and many creature comforts should lend to a successful run. i do beg fmc - no mercury and lincoln versions, please!
Quote from: Catman on July 23, 2008, 06:16:05 PM
My wife says it's too boxy. I don't think this vehicle is going to do well. Just a gut feeling.
greg, is this your way of saying that your wife is
never wrong :lol: ?!
Quote from: Atomic on July 25, 2008, 05:57:21 PM
greg, is this your way of saying that your wife is never wrong :lol: ?!
She is ALWAYS wrong. The key is, on occasion, letting her believe she is right. ;)
Quote from: CJ on July 25, 2008, 03:40:02 PM
The Flex isn't near as good as a minivan. Nothing is.
(http://www.themadhat.com/images/fail_20at_20failing.jpg)
always wanted to use that one. Thanks for letting me finally have the opportunity.
I kind of dig it. If I needed the space, and lived near a beach, I'd buy one.
He has a point.
Crossovers are just mommy-mobile minivans for 30-somethings who still think they're "hip".
We went by the Ford dealer yesterday just so I could see if it looked better in the flesh. My wife's first reaction: "It's just a big box".
Now, having actually seen one, I don't hink it's ugly so much as it's just plain, boring and inoffensive. Maybe that's good. Toyota sold a shit load of Camry's by being plain, boring and inoffensive.
my only complaints: could get better mpg, do with more h.p., and cost less fully loaded in limited trim. many crossovers are priced too excessively, such as a top of the line nissan murano, the flex, the infiniti rdx, etc. sure, one can buy a base vehicle, but i hate to skimp on options when buying a vehicle costing over $30,000.00.
my loaded 2008 maxima se (with EVERY option) was a steal, due to last year for that particular model. believe me, once you have a navigation system, it is nearly impossible to live without it. first, i thought it would be a toy, but it has helped save time and gas (never getting lost, or stopping to study a map), and proved to be safe - allowing me to focus totally on the road, opposed to looking frantically for the right exit, wondering what lane to be in...
the unfortunate thing about most new vehicles is the stacking of packages. lord! one has to check nearly every option box (if not all) in order to get many popular items on the suv/crossover vehicles mentioned above (and perhaps the vast majority of others). hell! even on the awesome new 2009 maxi!
honda does make it simply, as they use to tout!
Quote from: Atomic on July 30, 2008, 06:51:34 PM
my only complaints: could get better mpg, do with more h.p., and cost less fully loaded in limited trim.
You don't ask for much, do you?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 30, 2008, 10:59:08 PM
You don't ask for much, do you?
not too much to ask for a $45,000.00 limited edition ;) !
I just read Crap and Drivel's road test of the Flex and am even less impressed than I was. Not only is it a big box, it's a big heavy box that gets 16 MPG (CD observed mileage). :rolleyes:
Note to Ford: Make a Fusion Wagon.
Quote from: Byteme on August 01, 2008, 01:57:26 PM
I just read Crap and Drivel's road test of the Flex and am even less impressed than I was. Not only is it a big box, it's a big heavy box that gets 16 MPG (CD observed mileage). :rolleyes:
Note to Ford: Make a Fusion Wagon.
C/D's observed mileage is always low. It's a bunch of lead-foot drivers who each want to see how fast their test car will go. For comparison, they also got 16 mpg from a RAV4.
Quote from: ifcar on August 01, 2008, 02:13:56 PM
C/D's observed mileage is always low. It's a bunch of lead-foot drivers who each want to see how fast their test car will go. For comparison, they also got 16 mpg from a RAV4.
IIRC they also got about 10 MPG out of an SRT-4.