I am also loving my Flex. I got essentially a base Limited model, black with silver roof. Only option is captains chairs for second row. Fantastic vehicle. Great for family hauling duty.

I call BS on DougDolde’s mpg claim.

It is a modern-day Woody, a country squire station wagon, and the classic Grand Wagoneer, and more all wrapped up into one nice package.

I’ve owned two Jeep Grand Wagoneers and loved the classic looks of them. But alas, the GWs were the American version of the Yugo.

I think the Flex is one of the most well-thought-out cars of two centuries, both by function and form. Consider the following:

o Upscale interior.
o Extreme comfort.
o More than enough room.
o All seats can lay flat for 1400 lbs. capacity of interior cargo.
o 4500 lbs. towing capacity.
o Ease of getting in and out.
o Reasonable gas mileage.
o Only slightly larger than preferred exterior footprint.
o Extremely quiet and smooth ride.
o Low center of gravity and relatively light-weight actually make the Flex a pretty good handling vehicle as well.
o Slightly more than adequate hp.
o Attractive.

Areas that could use improvement include fewer blind spots, better mileage, more hp.

Unique, stylish, roomy, peppy, quite, comfortable, smooth, plush, fairly economical, not too big. What more could one want or expect from a $29k – $42k vehicle?

Awesome design and I got one before it was cool.

Ford has made a good looking vehicle, inside and out, which is always a good step, like it or not.

But you don’t like the car. ‘Nuff said. That’s good enough for most people. “Different strokes for different folks” means that there’s no need for an ecolecture, but really:

#1 SUV owners to blame for their dangerous vehicles? C’mon. Go out on a freeway and count the number of tractor-trailers, utility trucks and delivery vehicles you see. If you want to drive a Smart Fortwo or other citycar, you are assuming the risk that in most accidents, you stand a greater chance of death or injury than in a larger vehicle. Demanding that other drivers modify their behavior to eliminate the risk you have voluntarily assumed is “having your cake and eating it too”-syndrome.

#2 Algae-sourced biodiesel is already here, and biogasoline only a few years away with proper funding, funding that is wasted on frolics like electric cars and hybrids. Besides, the former just transfers energy usage, and the latter’s battery requires not so pleasant things like strip mining.

#3 Over half of Americans are obese? Why make up a number when the CDC/NHANES study is but a Google search away? (And the numbers are comparable to the rest of the Western world and are going down.) Honestly, I foresee a day when someone says that 159% of Americans are obese.

I’m not sure if you fully understand my argument as well as yours. But enough. It’s great that you like it. I don’t. So, here this is something that isn’t disputed:

#1 Why people buy SUVs is safety. Mentality goes like this: the bigger = the safer = the better. This perpetuates a lot of myths. I will be safe in an accident but they never think about the other way around: I have the potential to injure/kill someone in an accident while in a huge vehicle because I can’t stop on a dime = the extreme kinetic energy of a large mass hitting something of a smaller mass. Go ask a Hummer owner in L.A.
#2 Lots of incentives from dealers
#3 Haul stuff i.e. boats, jet skis
#4 Riding higher so as to have a commanding view when driving and not worrying about potholes.
#5 Offroading….only a few urbanites do. If you do outdoorsy stuff then this vehicle is for you.
#6 Hauling people around. This job is taken by the minivan/FS Van and does it best. Any other reason is purely a want over needs basis(i.e. it looks cool/nice). A lowered SUV with rims can look like a “CUV” however lame it sounds.

Safety features add weight to a vehicle and take up space, thus lowered mpg. Also more than half the people in America is obese and the numbers are growing. Also, U.S. geography is blessed with lots of land. A few reasons why vehicles are larger every generation.

So it all boils down to A.)Do you like it B.)Do you need it or want it. C.)Can you afford it.

Luxury cars have a status quo. It is assumed luxury car owners are mature, smart and responsible. In other words money will be made from them one way or another. Nothing is free. IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.
People need to work and feed families.

If you want mass appeal, try asking people about an electric car. Does the unaffordable Tesla Roadster and soon-to-be affordable Think City and Mini Electric come to mind? Now that’s chic. Something more economical and in the right direction. Electric People Hauler anyone?

While I don’t disagree with you as to Ford’s perception, this is a step in the right direction IMO. The only way to improve that perception is to release a vehicle that does appeal to the general car buying public. Take a look around you and you will see that the majority of the people on the road (at least where I live in fly over country), are driving around SUVs, CUVs, and mini-vans (which aren’t so “mini” anymore). So Ford goes and releases a product that can effectively compete with each style I just listed and compete well. It has the size of a larger SUV, the gas mileage of a CUV and Mini-van, and can haul a family and their gear. It also has what I consider to be very good looks, along with an impressive list of creature comforts at a price competitive with cars of similar build. It’s looks are distinguishing as well as it’s interior which many are calling Ford’s best ever (as did the reviewer). Sure the economy of it isn’t that great, but as I’ve said before, it’s no worse than the other vehicles in the same size class and in fact, better than the traditional bof SUVs.

The fact of the matter is, while I am all for improving our energy usage and decreasing our consumption of fossil fuels, we do need something to sustain us until a viable alternative that doesn’t cost a fortune comes along. Until that happens, those of us with families, will be driving around vehicles that are larger than Priuses.

BTW, I would like to know why all these luxury cars whose fuel economy is not that great either, get free passes when it comes to being scrutinized for poor fuel mileage. But, you raise the car up a few inches and call it a CUV, everybody bandwagons against them. That just seems hypocritical IMO. (BTW, this last paragraph was not for you H90LK. I’m just ranting a little).

First of all, I think you are slightly confused here. The xB and Mini are exceptions. The mini has been around for a long time and has stayed true to itself. It hasn’t changed much and doesn’t make anything else except the Cooper and that is why the appeal is still there. It’s also small, fun to drive and fuel-efficient. The xB is targeted as an affordable vehicle that can be customizable with the most available space that gets decent gas mileage and outstanding reliability (Best bang for the buck). It was never intended to be “pretty.”
This is why these cars exist.

The PT and HHR are specifically designed that way. They are intended for a niche group that is sort of a fad. They get decent mileage….well, not the PT Cruiser at least. These work.

As for the Flex, the whole point is it’s a large 2009 model vehicle for the mass that is suppose to be revolutionary. It doesn’t offer anything what regular SUVs and Minivans can already do. Aren’t 95% of all SUVs out right now a “box”? So why the redundancy and calling it a CUV? What is “chic” about it? In this age of high gas prices, again, why make another gas-guzzler? Also, the Mini stole the look back in 1959. So the 2009 Flex is 50(49 actually) years behind and too late. Ford had the Edge and Fusion. They were actually good designs sans the chrome and interior. So why revert backwards for a new vehicle? If they wanted to resurrect the Woody and Squire, just say so. Remember, Ford still does not have a good image at all(lousy interior/exterior design, poor fit and finish, reliability, lack of direction, etc. still lingers with the brand) They don’t exert a forward-thinking mentality but rather a “stuck in retro limbo.”

Tell that to the Mini, XB, Pt, HHR, and all of the other retro cars that seem to be so popular these days. If you haven’t noticed, retro is chic nowadays. This is the perfect vehicle for someone who wants that boxy/retro styling but needs the size to be a family hauler and get decent mileage to boot.

Ford knows it’s either love it or hate it styling. I am a member of the former. What I am tired of, is all these vehicles on the road nowadays that look the same as everything else. If this had looked like a typical CUV, people would be bashing the crap out of it and accusing Ford of continuing the same bland styling that has plagued them forever.

This is a classic example of where Ford USDM does not need to go. They need to go forward, not backwards. Modern, not retro. And please, ditch the chrome.

And they could just make the door grooves optional.

For a family of 4, who has a small ski boat to tow, there aren’t a whole lot of options other than a handful of crossovers and the larger body on frame SUV’s. This vehicle offers better mileage than the Explorer/Expedition type vehicles but still has the room to haul our family and gear. I’m looking forward to either this, or a CX-9 (my boat and trailer weighs around 2500lbs). Keep in mind, minivans don’t offer much better (if any) mpg either so between the CUVs and minivans, give me the better looking/driving CUVs any day.

It seems more and more like a dumbed-down version of the Fairlane concept that had a fancier and more interesting interior, swinging tailgait (including a tailgait party *thing*, nicer-looking seats, etc.

And I wish they at least kept the style of the door handles that were on the concept since they decided that the suicide doors were too cool for Ford or something.