Is it the Perfect Time for the Ford Flex?
A story on CNN.com today brought up the age-old conundrum for some shoppers: Despite really needing a minivan because it has more space than an SUV with better fuel-efficiency, they fall back on the “I don’t want to drive a minivan” excuse for paying higher prices at the pump. They just can’t give up the utility of the old body-on-frame SUVs for hauling family and cargo, and we guess it’s just that uncool to drive a minivan.
Maybe that means Ford is in the right place at the right time with its all-new Flex crossover going on sale later this summer. Compared to the current truck-based Ford Explorer, the Flex makes a lot of sense. It will save owners roughly $600 a year in gas with fuel economy of 17/24 mpg city/highway, versus the 14/20 of a V-6 Explorer.
The Flex has almost identical cargo capacity to the Explorer as well. Ford has said the next Explorer will be a crossover like the Flex, but with such similar usable space, we’re wondering if there really will be a next Explorer.
Before you think we’re totally sold on the Flex, it is virtually identical in terms of mileage to GM’s trio of crossovers — the SUV-looking Saturn Outlook, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave — but with slightly less cargo room. It’s interesting to note that only the Enclave has maintained sales momentum. The Outlook has performed pretty poorly since it launched. The Chevy Tahoe SUV — which saw sales decline 40% last month — still outsold the most popular of the trio, the GMC Acadia. That’s not good news for Ford.
And what of the minivans? How does the Flex stand up to the standard-bearer of that segment, the Honda Odyssey? It actually gets slightly better mileage than the base V-6 in the Odyssey, but Honda’s displacement on demand V-6 option just barely tops Ford’s number. The Odyssey has significantly more cargo room than the Flex, however. We’d think the all-wheel-drive offering in the Flex would be its biggest selling point to minivan drivers. The Toyota Sienna is the only minivan that offers AWD.
We’re left with a mixed bag. Anti-minivan SUV loyalists facing sky-high gas prices might see the Flex as the perfect fix for their situation. Starting at $28,295, the Flex comes in just below the GM crossovers and is a few grand more than the base Odyssey and Explorer. But in tough times, will families go with an all-new vehicle no matter the gas savings, or will they save their pennies until another alternative comes along?
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
Nothing new. The Flex is no better than any other crossover. Why doesn't the Flex get more wagon-like fuel economy. The only reason I was somewhat interested in the Flex, was because I was expecting it to get better gas mileage than the more SUV-like crossovers, but I guess that's not happening. I feel Ford has just lost a major opportunity here because of the Flex's pathetic gas mileage. It would be lucky just to sell as good as the Acadia, but will likely sell worse.
Nothing new. The Flex is no better than any other crossover. Why doesn't the Flex get more wagon-like fuel economy. The only reason I was somewhat interested in the Flex, was because I was expecting it to get better gas mileage than the more SUV-like crossovers, but I guess that's not happening. I feel Ford has just lost a major opportunity here because of the Flex's pathetic gas mileage. It would be lucky just to sell as good as the Acadia, but will likely sell worse.
Cj,
The Flex doesn't get "more wagon-like fuel economy" because it's not a wagon, it's an 8-passenger crossover vehicle. And its "pathetic gas mileage" is as good as any equivalent vehicle out there. Maybe you should reread Dave's post.
2 months ago you could get Prius $1000 under invoice. Right now you have to go over invoice. Civic is the best selling car in America, Corolla #2...
I think, we have an IDEA what Flex sales will look like.
I read Dave's post. The only reason I was expecting better gas mileage was because from the looks of it (couldn't find any information) it has wagon-like ground clearance vs SUV-like ground clearance. I was expecting gas mileage more in line with the Taurus. It has the same engine and is the same length (I couldn't find information on the weight). If it is the weight of an Acadia, the gas mileage isn't bad, but it looks like it should be lighter (again I couldn't find concrete information). That's why I was expecting better mpg, but I can't find any information to confirm my beliefs, so I guess the gas mileage isn't "that bad."
Tony,
I am sure there are tons of people who would love to me able to drive a small car everyday. Fact is, there are people who need bigger cars. I have a friend who has a toddler and an infant, and could not fit their stuff in her Grand am- she had to buy an B-9 Tribeca to be able access them and ride in some comfort. I don't see what people have against crossovers when they are used responsibly.
Broq
Specs:
EXTERIOR
Wheelbase 117.9
Overall length 201.8
Overall width w/ mirrors 88.8
Overall height at curb 68.0
Track width, front/rear 65.4/65.4
Base curb weight
FWD 4468 lb.
AWD 4640 lb.
Aw, Dave you beat me to the punch!
It's about 300 lbs lighter than an Acadia and 800 lbs heavier than a Taurus (WOW). Putting that into perspective the gas mileage isn't that bad. 1 mpg better in the city than the Acadia seems a bit low but not bad. I would have thought it should have done better on highway, but the numbers make more sense now. Thanks Dave.
Does anyone know the ground clearance? Keith where did you find the info from (since you said Dave "beat you to the punch" I'm guessing you know).
Dave probably has better sources than I do. I only have access to what Ford officially releases and ground clearance is not something that is listed. I would say the ground clearance should be similar to the Taurus X which is...oops, not listed either!
Flex appears to have gained 500lbs over its slightly smaller predecessor, the Taurus X.
I agree with the naysayers: costly, big, and heavy is not in.
Taurus X
FWD 4,033
AWD 4,203
FUEL ECONOMY (city/hwy)
AWD 15/22
FWD 16/24
so the Flex gains 1 mpg even though it's heavier.
I was wondering. What do you guys think about the Flexes styling (or lack thereof, LOL)?
I don't think it's bad, and it still looks distinctively "FORD." Yeah, it's boxy, but I like the design elements (yeah, including the white roof). It looks like a modern yet retro old school wagon. Would I buy one?
This is a big MAYBE. I know Ford has great "initial quality," but what about after 3,5,10 years etc.? So I don't know if I'd buy one over an Odyssey, but I think I would buy one over an Acadia.
I know all lot of people say the Flexes styling is "polarizing," but I never thought so. Bland, yeah, ugly, not really. So what do you guys think?
I love the Ford Flex. It would be perfect for me, 2 almost teenagers, 1 very large dog, and of course hubby... I can't wait till it's officially here in July.
Mini vans are awful.
this thing is going to get worse economy then the Taurus X, not only because of its weight but because of its shape.
the Flex is like a mini-Tahoe, or essentially a brick on wheels.
Dave T., this is what I don't get. Flex isn't even available, yet it has EPA ratings already! The new EPA ratings are based on the avg of what have been reported by most owners, right? If that's the case, how can that be? The way I see it, may be 100 Flexes have been given to tester, and that's what they have reported. However, if the result is based on 100 (or even 1000), the data pool is so small that there will definitely big fluctuation there. Moreover, these testers - they usually know how to drive the vehicles to achieve best mpg - not the way that you and I or any regular driver usually drive like. Finally, the best mpg reported - that's based on the 2WD model; 4WD model will suffer more...wonder how that number will be when compare to, say 4WD minivans?
There are a number of vehicles (not even out) that have EPA ratings. I think the EPA still does there own testing, but now they allow owners to post their own results at their website. One example is the Acura RL which debuted at the Chicago auto show:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
(I don't even know if that link work's)
But anyone who knows more about the EPA's practices, please explain.
^The link doesn't work
AV, boxy doesn't necessarily always mean less aerodynamic (ergo less fuel efficient). The new 2009 Honda Pilot is boxier than the last gen Pilot, but at the same time more aerodynamic (I know weird, huh). I don't know and can't confirm any information about the Flex (I'm having a hard time of finding anything), but maybe it's the same sorta thing as the Pilot.
Ford Flex: (1) taxi-cab fleets will go for it. (2) Might possibly become a fade for young California surfers as they convert it into a modern day "woody". (3) doubt this beast will make mainstream USA surburbia.
The EPA has new, very accurate testing procedures that we've written about many times. User experience is a new feature they've added to their site. EPA numbers are official, and they come from testing of vehicles done by the govt.
I see it owned by funeral houses, sorry
Come on, slowlorus, it doesn't look "that" much like a hearse.
To me it appears Ford is throwing one last guzzler out there before transitioning to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. Alot of time, money and development went into the Flex. The economy is changing so fast that this may be one of the last opportunities to put a vehicle like this on the market. That would explain the timing IMO.
I do like the Flex's styling, it's passenger capacity and it's different than everything else on the road look.
I have wittered on about htis before, but i STILL don't get why this is a crossover. I mean, what's it crossing over with??
It has NO SUV styling cues, which is usually the sign of a crossover - an SUV look on a monocoque chassis. The closest I can think is this is half wagon and half minivan, but does that really classify it as a Crossover in todays market, being as that segment is otherwise really just modern SUVs?
The Flex is very wagon-looking if you ask me. It's much lower and shorter than other crossovers and SUVs and even minivans, so I don't know exactly where it "fits" category-wise. I think it's a wagon, but since wagon don't sell, Ford is badging it as a crossover.