Comments on: Review: 2009 Ford Flex

By: beatusmongous

beatusmongous — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:02 +0000

My wife will most likely take a good look at this for her next vehicle. I don’t like it, but it’s hers, not mine. And this suits her well, actually.

By: tripleonefive

tripleonefive — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:18:08 +0000

The Taurus X is going to be discontinued The Freestyle was such a better name than Taurus X
FoMoCo has to realize that changing a name wont sell a car engineering and reliability will and those are two things that Ford doesnt have and no commercial, no biased marketing research or anything will change that

By: Bubs Solo

Bubs Solo — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:20:48 +0000

Blakkarr how is three years from concept to production to long????

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:28:06 +0000

Blakkarr, how is it obsolete before it hits the market, it is coming out just a little later then the 8 seaters from GM and before other companies bring theirs here. RTT10, this is one of the nicest Ford interiors and the car is pretty nice to look at.

By: RTT10

RTT10 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:32:33 +0000

the interior looks so cheap well so does the whole car

By: sharpie

sharpie — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:16 +0000

Like the box actually, but the fold-down rear seats that is NOT flat with the floor? Not so much. Time to rip apart a Honda Fit or Chrysler Town & Country to learn!

By: Blakkarr

Blakkarr — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:42:00 +0000

FORD took too long the roll this one out. It was obsolete before it hit the market.

End of story.

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:41:07 +0000

Yes nitehawk they do, but most people expect the Taurus X to be phased out.

By: nitehawk

nitehawk — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:32:31 +0000

Isnt this redundant with the Taurus X. Aren’t they basically competing against each other???

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:26:00 +0000

Rafa LL, the Scion xB and Mini Cooper are similar in shape and no one gets sick of them.

By: Rafa LL

Rafa LL — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:37:22 +0000

Looks modern, w/ the worst meaning of the word, cheap and not in a very well oriented segment. Looks like an stretched Range Rover also. It will look old very soon.

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:46:52 +0000

Fleming in Tennessee, I agree, give the Taurus X to Mercury, it really is not a bad vehicle. They should give it the same powertrain that the Meta One concept had.

By: Fleming in Tennessee

Fleming in Tennessee — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:41:22 +0000

I’ll bet this will sell 100K + in its first 12 months. Ford should give the Taurus X to Mercury with a new grille, new taillights and new dash. (read Ford may drop the Taurus X when Flex hits the showroom). Taurus X is a great vehicle and its built on the Taurus/Sable chassis so it wouldn’t be too costly to keep as a Merc. Might pick up sales when folks shop the upcoming Lincoln MKT and find they can’t afford it, they just might step into the Mercury X (+/-) right next to it! Remember when folks said the HHR wouldn’t sell, that the FLEX wouldn’t sell, that the ‘08 Focus wouldn’t sell, along with several others.

By: teamfordpartsdotcom

teamfordpartsdotcom — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:04:03 +0000

I have seen this vehicle in person and it looks a lot better up close. As for the styling, ya, love it or leave. Me, I like it. There is a ton of room in there, it’s very comfortable. You can fold down the 3rd row, 2nd row, and the passenger seat for long items. The leather is very nice and comfortable seats. The SONY stereo is one of the best OE radio I have ever heard.

When this gets and Eco-boost TT, then it will be the baddest Crossover on the market for it’s price.

Not that any of you has probably notice, but there are a lot of xB and Mini’s on the road. So it will appeal to some people, maybe just not you.

Also, I have always wondered what most you guys drive that is so cool and great that everyone must have one, but yet when everyone has one you slam it for being generic.

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:02:20 +0000

I actually like the look of the MKT better.

By: americancarssuck

americancarssuck — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:59:58 +0000

TOASTER

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:30:14 +0000

The version with the 3.5 liter V6 will probably be more entertaining.

By: brassmonkey

brassmonkey — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:48:06 +0000

It would look better if it was a foot shorter. Hopefully (for Ford’s sake) they fixed the problem that plagued the Freestyle (which later became the Taurus X) with the gas tanks falling off the car! Look up that recall! It might sell, but probably not. It’s a FORD.

By: NoNameDenton1

NoNameDenton1 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:45:36 +0000

Saw a commercial for it, still think the name is stupid. I like the mini-fridge inside.

By: Spingood Tanoya

Spingood Tanoya — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:29:21 +0000

So it still takes a 4500 pound vehicle to haul one third-grader to soccer practice? And what’s with the upholstery in the photos? Already looks like crap (stretched, indented) and the photo car can’t be more than a few weeks old.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:07:49 +0000

Too much product (same class, same manufacturer), too little demand. Wrong product at the wrong time.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:00:39 +0000

LOL Bubs Solo! At least the Maple Laughs sucked just as bad.

By: Bubs Solo

Bubs Solo — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:48:56 +0000

or the Vancouver Canucks for that matter

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:24:39 +0000

Ford should hire Larry the Cable Guy as their spokesperson as this is likely to run out of steam about as fast as his last movie.

By: Bubs Solo

Bubs Solo — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:16:51 +0000

Sigma hit the nail on the head… This shoe box is going to capture the suv driver that neads the size and towing capabilities of the suv but wants better fuel economy. The EPA rating for this ford have been released. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:47:13 +0000

Wow…9 paragraphs on the styling alone. A little much, maybe?

You use the term “slab-sided” at least 3 times in those 9 paragraphs, and “get out of its own way” describing the acceleration and power at least twice. Filling space a little?

By: mayer_ray_nagin

mayer_ray_nagin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:19:07 +0000

That’s because one big box deserves another.

By: shaver

shaver — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:13:37 +0000

I thought it was goofy but my wife liked it. So it will probably sell well.

By: global_lightning

global_lightning — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:16:34 +0000

I’d drop the 20″ blingmaster wheels for something more sensible. Also, is the built-in refrigerator optional? For the weight and power draw, it’s an extravagance unless you use it daily.

By: SigmaHyperion

SigmaHyperion — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:56:43 +0000

Fancy shapes look nice but it leads to poor cargo space utilization. A lot of crossovers and sport wagons have this problem — a lot of cubic feet, but the dimensions of the rear area are such an an odd oblong shape or the rear swoops down so low the actual rear trunk/hatch is so small, that you can only effectively use maybe half the actual cubic feet because it’s all you can fit through the door. Just because someone has 85 cubic feet of AIR in the rear doesn’t mean it’s got 85 cubic feet of usable cargo space. There’s a reason why a Suburban doesn’t look like a Murano.

This is a car for people who currently drive SUVs. It’s not looking to convert people from Accords. It’s not looking to attract people who own Odysseys. It’s looking for people who drive boxy SUVs now, so they won’t be put off by the boxy crossover. It has MORE usable storage space than a Ford Explorer but gets 25% BETTER mileage. It gets just 2mpg less than your average midsize sedan but seats 7 and has exponentially more cargo-carrying ability.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:36:31 +0000

I have to say this is one Ford that I find incredibly unattractive. They really need to go back to the drawing board and start with a clean slate.

By: mayer_ray_nagin

mayer_ray_nagin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:27:34 +0000

It aint pretty, but it also aint bad. And it’s at least different that the normal looking garbage out there from Toyota/Honda/GM. The GM lambda’s, however, get 10% better mileage for the same money, and with the Traverse coming out probably even less money, plus the Traverse has a more cool look to it.

Still, this will do okay. Doubt it will sell 100k units/yr – I’d bet 75k/yr after the initial “gottahave-its” get theirs.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:20:59 +0000

I love that synthetic oak on the side panels and steering wheel. If anyone thinks it is not oak – prove it to me! I am an oak man, myself. But why seats don’t fold flat into floor? I personally think it looks OK, butI like old xB.
The article mention every possible competitor of that thing except the leader in minivan sales. How the hell it will compete with Odyssey? Or may be Mark Elias right and I am wrong here – it will not, I just did not get subliminal context. My bad .
it has aerodynamics of a barn and weight of one full of heifers, so if Ford will prove mileage estimate to EPA it will be an achievement.

By: VictorRaikkonen

VictorRaikkonen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:28:47 +0000

Also, the damn thing is ugly as sin.

By: VictorRaikkonen

VictorRaikkonen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:25:58 +0000

As I was reading this I thought, “So ford decided to build a Scion XB, big whop.” Then I scroll down to the comment section and see that F451 said basically the same thing… glad I am not alone. [8.25 pm not am]