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.
131 Comments on “2009 Ford Flex Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
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?