Today we said "so long" to my folks and their stunning place on the Oregon coast. It was time to point the 2009 Ford Flex inland (and further north) toward Bend, Oregon.
The Flex of course has been a great conveyance for the four of us as we cover the long distances between stops to visit family and see cool stuff.
Could we be doing this type of long distance trip in a sedan? Probably, but there would have been a lot of compromises.
As it stands, the Flex and its flexible and spacious three row seating arrangement has made it possible to bring my parents along with us to town for eats and drinks -- something no sedan would have allowed.
And there's enough space behind the third row for our luggage, a bunch of groceries or this pile of tools we needed to carry.
Our eventual escape includes a trip over scenic McKenzie Pass from Eugene to Bend, a very narrow, winding road that tops 5,000 feet as it crosses an ancient lava flow.
The sinuous road isn't wide-open enough for the 3.5-liter V6 to seem underpowered. The passengers reach their limit before this powerplant does. In fact, this "normal" Flex engine has proved itself powerful enough throughout the whole trip.
Would more power be welcome? Sure, I guess. But I put a higher priority on a manual shift mode or, at the very least, a shift gate with more than "D" and "L" to choose from.
But let's not call the upcoming new V6 EcoBoost. Using turbos to make a same-sized engine more powerful without harming (or improving) fuel economy is PowerBoost. No one is replacing a V8 with a more efficient V6 in this case, because the Flex never offered a V8 in the first place.
No, EcoBoost would be what you'd get if you put a smaller turbo-4 in the Flex that made the same power as this V6, but with better fuel economy. You know, like they did in 1983 when they put a turbo-4 in the Thunderbird. I had one of those.
Speaking of fuel economy, here's how the last two tanks have gone:
Rural local driving in southern Oregon: 218 miles, 11.2 gallons, 19.4 mpg
Gold Beach to Bend: 341 miles, 16.8 gallons, 20.3 mpg
(Both tanks included a fair amount of mountainous driving)
Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing @ 30,613 miles
hybris says:
05:35 AM, 08/17/09
Its undeniable now that the Flex is out of the LT fleet one the best long range family cars they have.
By the way any pics of the "Wall of Death" that you mentioned when trying to pick a car/truck a while back?
texases says:
06:17 AM, 08/17/09
Sounds like the perfect replacement for many (like me) that used a 3-row Suburban for this kind of trip. A 50% mileage boost (I would get 14 or so) is nice to have. I very much doubt the 'Ecoboost' claim of same mpgs and more hp. All the 4cyl turbos I've seen get about the same mpgs as an equal-hp v6. I bet the Ecoboost v6 gets poorer mpgs than your model.
dougtheeng says:
06:19 AM, 08/17/09
I'm glad the Flex has not disappointed this year. The more I hear about this vehicle, the more I love it. Ford has really knocked one out of the park.
automaton says:
07:33 AM, 08/17/09
Ok, this is the best road trip car for a family in the current LT fleet - but you don't have a minivan in the LT fleet. You mentioned in an earlier post you own an Odyssey. How does your family feel this vehicle compares to the Odyssey?
cts24 says:
10:31 AM, 08/17/09
Glad to have you here in Bend, Dan.
arumage says:
10:56 AM, 08/17/09
@texases:
Think of the full-size truck market. The V8's are making as good or better mileage than the V6's because of the weight they're pulling around. The Flex is a crossover, but it still weights 4600+ lbs in AWD form.
The turbos most of us are used to are larger, high pressure turbos without direct injection that are great for performance but not gas mileage. They don't tend to spool up until 2500-3000 rpms. Twin turbos with direct injection kills the lag and puts the power all of the rpm band.
misterfusion says:
12:13 PM, 08/17/09
THANK YOU Dan for making the point about EcoBoost. Ever since Ford announced the engine line, I assumed that they were going to do exactly what you described -- replace certain large-displacement engines with smaller, turbocharged engines.
Instead (so far, at least), they've simply made EcoBoost engines available as more powerful OPTIONS for similar-sized base engines. So, wrong on both counts then -- they're not smaller, and they're not replacements!
Your example of the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe is perfect. I would also hold up the Mustang SVT from the same era as another example of the sort of thing I'm hoping to see from the EcoBoost program.
misterfusion says:
12:16 PM, 08/17/09
^ Yeah, it was the Mustang SVO, wasn't it...
*insert obligatory complaint about the lack of an Edit button*
cwc1 says:
06:41 PM, 08/17/09
That 1983 Thunderbird Turbo seemed quite an intriguing car for its time, with good power from a relatively small four cylinder engine. But just a few years later, it seemed rather crude compared to the various V6s and V8s that followed it, which were smoother and still more powerful.
So even though today's fours are much improved, I still don't think they'd be a good fit in a heavy vehicle like this, nor in one where smooth power and torque are desirable.