I do have issue with you presuming what people SHOULD drive (”others want to save the earth by driving a slightly more efficient vehicle that is 2000lbs and 300 sq-ft bigger than they need”). Maybe its the Libertarian in me—but I don’t like to be told what to do.

That said, When I was a kid—-people would just pile into a 4 door sedan without any concern for how many seatbelts were available. Not saying that was right—-but it was just common practice. Today—you just can’t pile 6 into an accord or malibu. Nor can you pile a bunch of people in the back of a wagon (used to get 4 kids back there !).

Net—anyone who carries more than 3 kids around on a consistent basis needs a third row vehicle like the Flex….there are alot of these people….even though at times you will only see Mom driving one solo.

“Do you think anyone spending $30K + on a vehicle is really concerned about $220.00 ?”

Yes. As was mentioned in another thread, people will spend $1500 more than they should on useless options nav systems and still bitch about gas going up several cents. The thing is, many people can’t do math. The others want to save the earth by driving a slightly more efficient vehicle that is 2000lbs and 300 sq-ft bigger than they need.

The Taurus X has been a disaster because it it was never marketed. A Gold boullion could have been in every one of these cars and nobody would have known it because Ford failed to market the vehicle. Shame on Ford because the Taurus X is a pretty good vehicle.

On the other hand—-the Flex will have A TON of marketing support behind it—-Farley’s rep is on the line with this launch. Said another way—if the Flex fails—it won’t be because of lack of marketing $’s.

Last—for all of you that talk about gas mileage—have you really done the math as to what difference it makes on an annual basis ? NOTE: if Ford increased the Flex’s MPG by 2 (no small feat from an engineering perspective)—it would only amount to about $220.00 in annual savings (assuming 12K driven per year). Do you think anyone spending $30K + on a vehicle is really concerned about $220.00 ?

The CX-7 is an Edge sibling, they are both jacked up Mazda 6’s.

As to the Flex, this is what Ford should have come out with instead of the Freestyle/Taurus X. What the f even happened when they came out with the Freestyle and didn’t market it at all? What a giant waste that project was. The only possible reason to continue producing that vehicle after the Flex comes out would be to throw money away. However, if Ford gives the Flex the marketing support it needs, it should do well. Unfortunately, it will never replace the revenue once gained from SUV sales.

The other potential issue is build quality. Now this may have been a pre-production glitch, or the result of over enthusiastic fiddling by hordes of eager members of the public, but the third row mechanism on the NY autoshow car was already well and truly broken when I got to it about 4 days into the show.

It seems in reviews and in person the Flex is a bigger vehicle than the T-X. More luxurious, and more $$. Personally I like the T-X, but the market has spoken and heavily disagrees with me.

I know it’s asking a lot, but 18-22 mpg ain’t gonna cut it these days.

Well, maybe if they started import the Euro version they might.

I thank you.

The Edge shares a platform with the CX-9.

The CX-7 is nothing but a jacked up Mazda6/Fusion.

I’d like to know the actual sales numbers on the CX-9 and CX-7, Mazda is offering cheap financing at least.

I am impressed with the looks and the news of decent interior might be the nail in the coffin of my wallet …

The Flex could be the first vehicle to sell to rental companies without a discount. Think about it: three or four business travelers have to make a 100 mile drive. Will they choose an Impala? Fusion? G6? Caravan? 300? Vibe? Or go for the Flex and enjoy its spaciousness, comfortable seating, visibility, great interior and silent cruising? The question answers itself.

I still think a deluxe Town Car version in elegant black and chrome would be great for livery service.

I don’t recall any official word from Ford…but they probably are going to kill the Taurus X after the Flexible hits.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that Ford designing a brand new station wagon when they already have a very competent one on the market is a very stupid thing to do.

I saw about a thousand of these in the Ford Oakville Plant lot awaiting loading onto a train (to a dealer next to you…!).

Just what North America needs, another lifesyle vehical. At least it’s not a pickup.

Hideous all the same.

I was burned becasue of lack of resale value of the last 4 Ford products I bought. Good cars, just could never sell them becasue they have poor resale value.

By the way…does anybody else feel good about Ford like I do?
It seems to me they have a really good focus on the next 2 or 3 years.

Yes, I think it is very very nice looking.
My wife, however, thinks its nothing more than a square SUV box.
I don’t let her pick out the cars!

I DO like the Taurus X…but P71_CrownVic- is right, it sort of is souless. Perhaps because of its direct tie in with the Taurus car.
It seems to get really nice reviews.

But the real problem for me will always be mileage. 24 is still not long term livable with me.
I just need to see what the EcoBoost will add later, I believe in 2010.

While that is true…how many ads have you seen for the Taurus X?

Lack of advertising is the Taurus X’s only problem. The auto magazines as well as TTAC have all had very positive reviews of the Taurus X. It is a very solid automobile with a great safety rating.

To me, the better solution would have been to just spend some money…a dollar or two…on advertising the Taurus X. Then, there would be even less of a need for the Flexible.