I've spent a good deal of time in the Ford Flex, just not our particular long termer. Last summer, I journeyed up to Big Bear Lake, California, in a Cinnamon-colored short termer and was left thoroughly impressed by its road trip manners. One month later I was in Toronto on vacation and picked up a Light Ice Blue SEL from the same factory in Oakville, Ontario, its Ford family-hauling predecessors were built since 1994. Both the Windstar and Freestar (and Mercury Monterey!) minivans were mediocre-to-horrible for most of their existence, and the fact that these diseased members of an endangered species have been replaced at the Oakville plant and in the Ford lineup by a hopefully game-changing vehicle like the Flex certainly seemed symbolic.
While the Flex doesn't have the same max utility of a minivan, that summer Toronto trip certainly showed it had the type of appeal the Windstar could only dream about.
Photos and more after the jump.
2009 Ford Flex at Ford Canada Headquarters and the adjacent factory that builds the Flex, Edge, Lincoln MKX and MKT.
"Hey James, that's a cool car," said my 13-year-old cousin Cooper after a long look over the Flex. A three-row, six-passenger family mobile shouldn't in theory draw this sort of reaction from a generation devoted to its text messaging, skater boy fashion sense and that quasi-punk band I'd rather not know the name of. But here was such a vehicle appealing to such a kid. At the Toronto airport, a similarly aged boy passed in front of me at a crosswalk and gave me a thumbs up, clearly mouthing "nice car, man." The 22-year-old brother of a friend also thought the Flex was "pretty sweet."
At the same time, my mother loved the Flex. "I wish I would've had one of these when you were a kid." (Although anything would've been better than an '83 Cutlass Cierra). The space, the high-quality interior, the electronic goodies and the styling all had their appeal. A whole host of other adults thought the Flex would make a great family vehicle (mind you, several others thought it was butt-ugly).
The fact that a family hauler can appeal to moms and 14-year-old boys alike is a triumph. How many times does that really happen ... in any realm? If mom and dad can have their three-rows of seats and room for hockey equipment, while skater son can look cool pulling up to the school parking lot, everyone wins. I've been seeing more Flexes on the road recently and once the economy improves, I foresee the Flex being a runaway best-seller. Well done Ford.
James Riswick, Automotive Editor @ 20,104 miles
The Flex at Ford Canada HQ (left), and at Canada's smallest jail in Coboconk, Ontario
carguy622 says:
10:49 AM, 03/17/09
The first generation Windstar was a actually a very competitive vehicle, but just like the Taurus, Ford introduced replacements that were inferior.
willin58 says:
11:15 AM, 03/17/09
Where was the original Aerostar built?
petrolhead85 says:
11:53 AM, 03/17/09
Yup, I would have preferred one of these when I was growing up (in the colour scheme of the Ford Canada tester) instead of the stripper '95 Caravan my parents had.
But I still think it's too expensive to be a best seller, especially for us canucks. I spent last Sunday cruising the local car dealers' lots and both the Ford dealers had a handful of Flexes. The cheapest one (SEL FWD) was almost $42,000! And the rest of them were between $45k and $52k.
willin58: according to wikipedia, Aerostars were built in St. Louis
dino6 says:
11:56 AM, 03/17/09
I agree, the first generation mini-vans of Ford were as good as their contemporary competition. Then they suffered the same disease Ford has inflicted on almost all their models since the Model T - lack of investment in keeping the vehicle up to date, and using it as a cash cow.
It almost seems as if it is in Ford's DNA to fail to understand that to make money long-term you have to keep putting money in the product no matter how successful it is. This failing goes back to Henry Ford. I think the Flex is Ford's next hit, hopefully it won't get old like all their other hits.
mohaji says:
11:57 AM, 03/17/09
Is that Salma Hayek(spelling?) with wings in the first picture? the boob sure looks like hers...
And I agree with Canuck guy up there.
it's damn too expensive up here.
firstwagon says:
04:33 PM, 03/17/09
"the first generation mini-vans of Ford were as good as their contemporary competition"
The Windstar wasn't a bad van in terms of design. It just had some serious durability problems. Everyone I knew who had one either had an engine failure or a transmission failure or both.
jm1212 says:
05:09 PM, 03/17/09
dino6 has a valid point. for the longest time, Ford has just rolled out "freshenings" on all of its vehicles rather than redesigning them like any other sensible automaker. the ill effects are seen in the Escape, Focus, Explorer, Mustang, Expedition, and pretty much all of Fords vehicles, save the Flex. little face lifts here and there dont do anything for the vehicle's competitvness. if anything, Ford's vehicles drop further and further down in their classes with each "freshening". case and point: Escape. Focus.
even the 2010 Taurus is not a redesign. its a freshening of the 08 Taurus, which in itself was a freshening of the Five Hundred.
allthingshonda says:
05:31 PM, 03/17/09
I think that the price of the Flex is going to cause its demise. This is one of the best vehicles to come out of Ford in a long time but it is way to expensive to appeal to its target market. People looking at CUVs in that price range generally do not have Ford on their shopping list, maybe Lincoln but not Ford.
gdmstrb says:
01:49 AM, 03/18/09
@jm1212:
Do you know the difference between a 'freshening' and a redesign'? Just because a vehicle rides atop the same platform or a slightly modified platform of the outgoing model does not mean that the vehicle was simply refreshed.
You don't have a clue whatsoever what you are talking about.
arumage says:
06:06 AM, 03/18/09
@allthingshonda
The Flex isn't any more expensive than it's competition.
Max Prices with all options
Ford Flex $47,310
Chevy Traverse $48,600
Toyota Highlander $42,330
Honda Pilot $41,572
To be fair, the Flex includes options not available on the Highlander and Pilot, like:
Refridgerator, Vista roof, 20" wheels, Sync, and Dual headrest DVD (others have single screen).
Those options add up to over $2k alone, and to be fair, the Highlander and Pilot aren't really in the same size class as the Flex and Traverse with their kids only third rows and lower end materials.
Besides, you can get into a Flex or Traverse at around the same price point. You don't have to go for all the options.
jriz says:
10:02 AM, 03/18/09
^^ Much agreed.
firstwagon says:
10:15 AM, 03/18/09
arumage
Trouble is all those crossovers are over priced. I looked up the base price of the Flex and it's $4000 higher then the base price of an Odyssey or Sienna and $10,000 more then a Grand Caravan (Canadian prices, your price may vary).
Some people may like their "style" more then minivans but they serve the same purpose as family transportation and most family don't have unlimited funds (or credit these days).
That's likely why I see the new Caravans everywhere but I've only seen a couple Flexs.
arumage says:
10:53 AM, 03/18/09
It comes in all the standard gizmos. Everyone's trying to outdue each other in what comes standard. Besides the Flex is only $2k more than an Odyssey in the US, and if you read the long term blogs on the Caravan, you realize why it's that much cheaper.
Minivans are more versatile. You won't get me to disagree there, but there are lots of people willing to pay for style. I would have gotten a van if my wife would have let me (My first vehicle was a 1988 Ford Aerostar, but now we have a Freestyle).
jriz says:
10:53 AM, 03/18/09
However, the Flex is $10,000 better than the Caravan.
firstwagon says:
11:36 AM, 03/18/09
jriz
Sales will tell. As I mentioned, I have only seen a couple Flexs (Flexis?) but the new Grand Caravans are everywhere.
IMHO a little better trim doesn't make up for the high price and smaller interior if you're looking for a family 7 seater.
arumage says:
01:59 PM, 03/18/09
Grand Caravans have really always been the popular choice for cheap, utilitarian transportation. Why? I'm not sure, given their poor record for reliablity. Most people in my area have sworn off these vans after countless times in the shop.
Given that the price difference didn't kill the budget, I'd still go for the Flex though. Better trim, more standard features, more reliable, and infinitely better looking. All this being said, I'd still rather have a nice wagon for my personal needs. Sadly, automakers think all Americans don't like wagons.
greenpony says:
07:51 PM, 03/18/09
Some like to complain that Ford does not redesign (not just restyle) their vehicles very often, and that's true for the most part. The Mustang has on average been redesigned every 10 years. The Escort/Focus, every 7. But the F-150 has about a 5.5 year life cycle, and the Taurus/Five-Hundred has about a 4.5 year life cycle.
But compared to Japanese companies, this is a long product life cycle. The Accord, Civic, Corolla, 3/Protege, and Lancer all come in with 4-5 year redesigns, on average.
If you compare with other American and European vehicles, though, Ford is really no different. The Corvette comes in at 10, and Camaro at 9. The C-class/190, Ram/D-series, and 5-series average 8 years, and the Cavalier/Cobalt and 3-series average 7. You can pull all the same info off of wikipedia.
So the question becomes: is it necessary to fully redesign your vehicle every 4-5 years? I suppose it depends on your product. In competitive classes like the compact and midsize segments, redesigning more frequently will probably pay more dividends, since your car will always be relatively "new". In less competitive classes, like sports cars and luxury vehicles, where the number of models is limited and higher prices ensure lower sales volumes, automakers can afford to put off redesigns.
That said, maybe Ford's next marketing campaign should include the first image above. The partial nudity will undoubtedly get the attention of more 14-year-old boys.