2009 Ford Flex Versus EcoBoost V6

I like the Flex. If I had a wife and kids I'ld strongly consider one, especially the EcoBoost model.

Man that thing is seriously heavy but quick.

Aren't you guys shooting for 100k with the Genesis?? If you are, you should do the same for the Flex. Most folks who buy cars like this buy them for keeps, and I think it would be great to see the Flex hold up up to 6-figure mileage.

^^^
I think that is Car and Driver that is keeping their long term genesis until 100k

Very impressive vehicle. I'd think that as the braking isn't exactly poor and the EcoBoost isn't being advertised as a truly performance vehicle (ala the SHO) the extra kick in performance will be more than enough for most consumers. I'm assuming it's just the turbo manifolds and turbos themselves that make up for the additional ~150 pounds?

Man that thing is seriously heavy but quick.

Get one and while we are at it we'll see if the infamous sunroof gap/Wii bar docking station is still there.

Donna where has Lord Stig been?

Yeah, I was surprised by the weight and the acceleration, too.

I assume the Stig has been sleeping in the sunroof gap. Fom what I hear it's very spacious.

Very surprised with the power improvements. And supposedly it gets equal or better fuel economy? Impressive.

I thought I read somewhere that both of the Flex (Flexes?, Flexi?) have the same mpg rating. Any evidence to support this?

we really need 5,000 lbs to go from 0to60 in ~6 seconds.

Its a suv/mini van. Not a sports car. I geuss car companies haven't learned anything from past gas prices. Nor have consumers.

IMHO, this is just plan stupid.

opfreakx,

Yup, they have. It's called the Grand C-Max. It'll be available in a little over a year. There's still a market for vehicles like the Flex so why ignore it, but don't act like they're not offering fuel efficient alternatives any more.

I'm not argueing against the Flex.

I'm argueing against a 5000lb chunk of steel on stlits going from 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.

Really? why? Whats the point? just to say you can?

Yes if people buy it they should make it.

But at the end of the day, stupid is stupid. And IMHO, this is stupid.

1. What is the loss in fuel economy due to the more powerful engine?
2. Have the slapped on better holding tires to compensate for the added weight? (because the lateral G was better and grippier tires equal faster wear)

Can hardly believe that that thing can move sixteen nautical tons of pig iron to 60 mph in the mid sixes

opfreakx if this thing gets comparable fuel economy you have no reason to give a flying fox

@yellowmiata @adantium
There is no fuel economy penalty, but you have to remember to compare AWD to AWD. (Our Flex is FWD)

Flex Ecoboost, AWD: 16 city/22 highway/18 combined
Flex Standard, AWD: 16 city/22 highway/18 combined
Flex Standard, FWD: 17 city/24 highway/20 combined

For actual "evidence", go here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

The weight different you see in the blog post above is largely due to the absence of AWD hardware on our standard Flex. EcoBoost is not available with FWD.

Holy crap - that school bus gets to 60 in 6.4 seconds? I wonder how long it will take for Ford to install this mill in a non-XL sized vehilce? (No, the Taurus doesn't count).

actualsize

EPA testing and turbos hardly go hand in hand.

This thing would hardly boost under the EPA test.

Use the power as advertisted and I'm willing to bet those numbers go waayyyy down.

Turbo's made for power + go fast always = gas guzzling. Its just the nature of the beast.

power = fuel + air

turbo = more are + more fuel.

@opfreakx: Of course your mileage will drop if you floor it and access the extra power the turbos provide, but it's not making that power and drinking that fuel unless and until you ask for it.

And I disagree with the "go fast always" assumption. 90% of the time you'll drive these two Flex the same speed. 1/4-mile runs are not part of a REAL driving pattern. I think the EPA combined ratings do apply to the real-world reality of minivan/wagon ownership.

opfreakx,

Floor any engine and fuel economy suffers. I believe Top Gear managed to get a Prius to get 14.3 MPG. I don't believe most people driving a Flex are going to be racing people from stop light to stop light.

Exactly, and that's why I think the EPA ratings have some real-world merit in this case.

opfreakx: "This thing would hardly boost under the EPA test."

I'm not sure that's the case. This is not just a turbo. You're getting those torque numbers at 1500 rpm. You're not doing that without boost.

@slickersdrip- Ecoboost model is AWD, IL model is FWD. Thats were the weight is.

i'm not even talking about flooring it.

Unless ford now has magic engines. Where power output is greater then power input.

A high performace engine, with a turbo, will have a much harder time hitting its EPA numbers that a N/A engine.

Even if the EPA numbers come out the same, I doubt that the boosted one would do as well in real life. CandD just had an article to that effect, where they showed that small turbo engines drink gas as fast or faster than the larger non-turbo engines with similar power. No free lunch.

and fuel economy aside.

Really, whats the point in haveing a 6 second 5000lb bus?

And again, I'm not saying they shouldn't make it if theres a market for it.

I'm just wondering WHY? How does this fit the flex's goal: Differnetly styled mini-van/anti suv? Whos anti suv image is around to make people think it gets better gas milage.

Do people really need, wait, not need, do people ever use the power? you have 2-3 kids in back, are you really going to race the civic si next to you just to beat it? how about the wrx?

I see vechicals as ethier tools/toys/both.

a big fat boat some moron will plow into a tree because its fast and awd.

@opfreakx

Remember that what killed the minivan was lack of overall performance that a lot of suburban dwellers want while still being able to be at least somewhat practical.

This is what gave rise to the SUV then you factor in gas prices and now you have a high powered minivan body on a truck chassis that gets decent mileage-to-power ratios.

Its better to have power and not use it then to wish you had power and not have it.

Is it still drinking regular fuel with the turbo? Wouldn't be worth the hit if you had to pour in premium.

@AMTalker:

The Flex uses regular fuel to make it's 355hp. The Taurus SHO uses premium to make 365hp, but you can put regular in it too and make a little less hp.

aside: have you tried typing in www.insideline.com lately?

^^^ Ugh. Thats terrrible looking. Please IL, don't change. Unless it involves an edit button.

arumage --
Can you get 365 HP in the Flex if you use premium fuel?

@hybris

Performance killed the mini van?

doubt it. IMHO what killed the mini-van, was styling. SUV's were 'cool' mini-vans 'not cool'.

It was all style over substance. I doubt the average house wife cares if her suv/cuv/mini van/flex goes from 0-60 in 6 secs, or 10. Esspically on those sub roads with 30mph speed limits and sleeping cops, because you might run over prince or pincess.

Opfreakx: "Really, whats the point in haveing a 6 second 5000lb bus?"

Because you can?

OK seriously, this thing is trying to replace the SUV. SUVs get used for towing. Take a look at the torque curve on the Ecoboost. That looks like a motor that's well suited for towing.

more as to why is dump.

v6 camaro would get beat by this bus (edmunds "Without wheelspin, we hit 60 mph in 6.7 seconds (6.4 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)"

Ford: Build me a diesel Flex! That is all.

^ If they do that I want a diesel F150.

actualsize "aside: have you tried typing in www.insideline.com lately? "

Yah, its very different. A bit more refinement and I'll like it. I like how the stats for a car appear in the right column when looking at a full test - good for comparing vehicles' performance. The tables and divisions between the posts on a blog don't have a crisp look but its a step in the right direction.