He said, She said: Flex first drive review

[autotronic]

I did these a while back...

 

The Flex - Country Squire

 

 

 

The Flexie-Truckster

 

How can I view the images? Can you E-mail them to me at richt (a) automotivetraveler.com?

 

Thanks,

 

Richard Truesdell

Editorial Director, Automotive Traveler

[suv_guy_19]

I did these a while back...

 

The Flex - Country Squire

 

 

 

 

The Flexie-Truckster

 

 

I think you did something wrong.

[sullynd]

How can I view the images? Can you E-mail them to me at richt (a) automotivetraveler.com?

 

Thanks,

 

Richard Truesdell

Editorial Director, Automotive Traveler

 

Click here to see the original post

[regfootball]

first off, the ''He said, she said" bit is cheesy and unoriginal at that (don't the Jobs do that already?....not that the Jobs bit is worth reading either)

 

second off, these spoon fed early press drives are becoming far too much the norm for what registers in the consumers opinion these days. The manuf's schedule a SHORT drive, hand out some spoon fed dialogue and cliches (like the FLex being a new interpretation of the wagons of old) so the writers don't have to reach to find one themselves, and feed them so they write nice things. Well, maybe you don't always get fed but you get my drift.

 

Yet all sorts of things get conveyed in these quick spins and the car is DOA from all the rhetroic and flavor of the moment comments.

 

Yes gas is four bucks now so we the press will attack anything that is a negatard to gas mileage. The same press that ogled over big hulking SUVs even 3 years ago.

 

4500-4600 pounds is the norm in this class. Everything from the Cerebus vans to the GM Lambdas to the latest Japanese three rows.......the Taurus X actually is one of the lightest 3 rows on the market. To me the story is not so much the weight figure but why its so much more than the Taurus X? No doubt the extended wheelbase and taller greenhouse and more spacious (not by much) cabin. But the weight of the Flex is not unique in its class.

 

Keep in mind the buff mags for the last 5-10 years are always harping about chassis solidity. And the press does everything it can to expose the safety issue and crash scores when a car underperforms there. So no wonder a vehicle that is introduced now but started development 3-5 years ago is going to be heavy! GAs was 2 bucks then!

 

Previous poster was correct......People downsizing from Expeditions will see this vehicle as a godsend and fuel saver and Ford has even said as much about their marketing this car. In that respect, this car is saving fuel for many.

 

A review like this is not even informational. What you seldom see in a review these days is how is the vehicle to live with? WHere are the days of not writing a review and making judgement on it until 10,000 miles has gone by? Can i carry plywood? What was the mpg on a 1500 mile trip? Will the plasma tv fit in the back? Did the coworkers like piling in it for trips to lunch? Could we get the hockey teams gear in it? What was the biggest ladder we culd make fit? What are its deficiencies relative to classic minivans (i.e. cheaper classic versions of 'crossovers'). How do car seats for kids fit?

 

Other poster was also right. Ford's v6's tend to be tight and break in and get great mpg. I would guess most city drivers will achieve 18-20 with FWD and 16-18 with AWD....which is close to the similar weight Edge and more than what two Pilot owners I know get with those fuel drinkers.

 

Its neat to have someone try to jazz up these reviews some but at some point there first drives need more meat and less filler.

 

Regarding the Taurus X i have actually seen some very good journalistic reviews of them, it was either David E Davis who toured with one or that Thos Bryant guy.....took one on a long trip and loved it. To me that endorsement means so much more than these first drive(l) that gets put out at new product intro. Also, recall that Taurus X made Automobiles all stars honorable mention...a very glowing endorsement.

Edited June 13, 2008 by regfootball

[autotronic]

first off, the ''He said, she said" bit is cheesy and unoriginal at that (don't the Jobs do that already?....not that the Jobs bit is worth reading either)

 

second off, these spoon fed early press drives are becoming far too much the norm for what registers in the consumers opinion these days. The manuf's schedule a SHORT drive, hand out some spoon fed dialogue and cliches (like the FLex being a new interpretation of the wagons of old) so the writers don't have to reach to find one themselves, and feed them so they write nice things. Well, maybe you don't always get fed but you get my drift.

 

Yet all sorts of things get conveyed in these quick spins and the car is DOA from all the rhetroic and flavor of the moment comments.

 

Yes gas is four bucks now so we the press will attack anything that is a negatard to gas mileage. The same press that ogled over big hulking SUVs even 3 years ago.

 

4500-4600 pounds is the norm in this class. Everything from the Cerebus vans to the GM Lambdas to the latest Japanese three rows.......the Taurus X actually is one of the lightest 3 rows on the market. To me the story is not so much the weight figure but why its so much more than the Taurus X? No doubt the extended wheelbase and taller greenhouse and more spacious (not by much) cabin. But the weight of the Flex is not unique in its class.

 

Keep in mind the buff mags for the last 5-10 years are always harping about chassis solidity. And the press does everything it can to expose the safety issue and crash scores when a car underperforms there. So no wonder a vehicle that is introduced now but started development 3-5 years ago is going to be heavy! GAs was 2 bucks then!

 

Previous poster was correct......People downsizing from Expeditions will see this vehicle as a godsend and fuel saver and Ford has even said as much about their marketing this car. In that respect, this car is saving fuel for many.

 

A review like this is not even informational. What you seldom see in a review these days is how is the vehicle to live with? WHere are the days of not writing a review and making judgement on it until 10,000 miles has gone by? Can i carry plywood? What was the mpg on a 1500 mile trip? Will the plasma tv fit in the back? Did the coworkers like piling in it for trips to lunch? Could we get the hockey teams gear in it? What was the biggest ladder we culd make fit? What are its deficiencies relative to classic minivans (i.e. cheaper classic versions of 'crossovers'). How do car seats for kids fit?

 

Other poster was also right. Ford's v6's tend to be tight and break in and get great mpg. I would guess most city drivers will achieve 18-20 with FWD and 16-18 with AWD....which is close to the similar weight Edge and more than what two Pilot owners I know get with those fuel drinkers.

 

Its neat to have someone try to jazz up these reviews some but at some point there first drives need more meat and less filler.

 

Regarding the Taurus X i have actually seen some very good journalistic reviews of them, it was either David E Davis who toured with one or that Thos Bryant guy.....took one on a long trip and loved it. To me that endorsement means so much more than these first drive(l) that gets put out at new product intro. Also, recall that Taurus X made Automobiles all stars honorable mention...a very glowing endorsement.

 

FYI, I wasn't spoon-fed anything. I wasn't invited to or was part of the organized Flex press program; as I live in SoCal I called up Ford PR early Tuesday morning and asked for seat time at the end of the program and they provided me a Flex before they were shipped out the following day. My colleague Brandy Schaffels was invited to the event, actually representing another web site she contributes to. (I also loved the Taurus X and said so in one of my first reviews on cardomain.com where I had the vehicle for a full week.)

 

A better example of the kind of projects that I produce would be the 3,000-mile round trip from LA to Denver and back in the new Dodge Challenger, which for the return trip, was done driving side-by-side with a 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi along the route of the movie "Vanishing Point." I wanted to get a GT500KR but just don't have the kind of pull with Ford Public Relations that I have at Chrysler, to pull it off and I still feel it was a lost opportunity. I invite you to take a look at the web version as well as the magazine versions of the Challenger stories and let me know what you think.

 

I do agree with much of what you said; I even referred to in my conventional review of the Flex on cardomain.com. I noted that it's virtually impossible to properly evaluate a vehicle with just a couple hours behind the wheel. (The vehicle had less than 2,000 miles on the odometer so your comment about breaking in a Duratec is probably valid. Certainly I will re-evaluate the fuel mileage when I get a Flex for a week long loan.) That's why when I attend press events I try to attend the last program and drive off in one of the vehicles. That gives me a week to live with it and make a better evaluation of its capabilities and abilities. With that being said I'm sorry to hear you say you found the format of the review to be cheesy...it was an attempt to get two perspectives into one review in a meaningful way.

 

When you are in this field you do the best you can, with what you are given, when you can. Automotive Traveler and the 20 or so magazines that I regularly contribute to don't command the kind of influence that some of the major magazines like Motor Trend or web sites like edmunds.com do. Yet I will stack up my review of the Flex with Brandy against any of the other Flex first drives currently posted on the web.

 

Hopefully this gives you a better idea of how some of us in the fourth estate try to bring you a different and meaningful perspective to the vehicles we review.

Edited June 13, 2008 by autotronic

[Edstock]

[autotronic]

 

Ed,

 

That looks HOT. Any way if I sent you a high res shot of the Flex, that you could do a Flex Squire version for me? If so, write me direct at richt (a) automotivetraveler.com.

 

In my haste to post my previous response, I meant to say thank you to those earlier in the thread who had kind words to say about the Flex review and what we are doing with Automotive Traveler. I just took a look at our site activity today and it was one of our best strongest days ever and I attribute that to all the interest, some of it coming from this web site, on the Ford Flex review. Brandy and I both want to say thanks for your support.

 

And since I've been asked, here's a photo of my Colony Park.

 

 

Have a great night,

[P71_CrownVic]

(I also loved the Taurus X and said so in one of my first reviews on cardomain.com where I had the vehicle for a full week.)

 

So, autotronic,...and ONLY autotronic:

 

Do you think that the Flex is a completely useless vehicle considering Ford already has a very capable, well reviewed, brand new seven seat station wagon already...the Taurus X?

 

OR...

 

Would you agree that Ford's money would have been better spent if they actually advertised the Taurus X and put the rest of the Flex money into something else?

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

If only the Flex came out two weeks ago...

 

This as a limited edition? Would have been ALL sold.

[P71_CrownVic]

I'm still waiting for the Funkmaster Flex edition Flex fuel Flex.

 

[suv_guy_19]

I'm still waiting for the Funkmaster Flex edition Flex fuel Flex.

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for you to make an intelligent post.

[P71_CrownVic]

I'm still waiting for you to make an intelligent post.

 

Just because you don't understand the post, does not mean it is un-intelligent.

 

Maybe if you read it slower...and use your finger, you will get more out of it.

 

[suv_guy_19]

Just because you don't understand the post, does not mean it is un-intelligent.

 

Maybe if you read it slower...and use your finger, you will get more out of it.

 

 

Nope, didn't help, your still an idiot.

[rmc523]

Hi, my name is Rich Truesdell and I am the "He Drove" in the above quoted Automotive Traveler review.

 

I found your observations very interesting. Of 1,350 words used for the dialog, less than 140 of them, about 10%, talk about weight and mileage issues. With the current fuel situation, with gas clearly on its way to $5.00/gallon, I think this struck the proper balance.

 

And while 17.1 miles per gallon is competitive in the segment, quite frankly it is not much of an improvement over a V6 Explorer. And you are giving up the Explorer's trailer towing abilities in exchange for the Flex's more car-like driving characteristics.

 

I really liked the Flex, appreciate the versatility, admire Ford for attempting a breakout vehicle, gave it four stars out of five, and really hope that it will be successful in what is shaping up to be a very challenging marketplace.

 

"She Drove, He Drove" is a new concept for us at Automotive Traveler. By having two reviewers look at a vehicle from different vantage points, we're hoping to bring a unique perspective to the category of automotive reviews. I hope that you'll return to the review and leave your comments there; you might find that others agree with the point you raised.

 

Richard Truesdell

Editorial Director, Automotive Traveler

 

Welcome to BOF! I thought it was a good review, and an interesting approach to boot. I think it's nice to see reviewers trying other techniques when it comes to presenting their findings. I hope to read more good reviews in the future!

[P71_CrownVic]

Nope, didn't help, your still an idiot.

 

[autotronic]

So, autotronic,...and ONLY autotronic:

 

Do you think that the Flex is a completely useless vehicle considering Ford already has a very capable, well reviewed, brand new seven seat station wagon already...the Taurus X?

 

OR...

 

Would you agree that Ford's money would have been better spent if they actually advertised the Taurus X and put the rest of the Flex money into something else?

 

This is an interesting question. I am assuming that before you posed it, that you read my cardomain.com review on the Taurus X that was generally positive with respect to the vehicle. I called it a guilty pleasure.

 

With the possible exception of a well-executed minivan, there is no vehicle type that to me is more practical than a station wagon. Every time I go to Europe I try to drive one that isn't available on our side of the pond. BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi especially, offer some truly spectacular station wagons blessed with supercar levels of performance, and to drive a car with three colleagues and all their gear at 150 miles per hour on the Autobahn is a truly unique driving experience. In some practical ways it's more remarkable than driving the Nurburgring.

 

And to prove we can build such station wagons, Chrysler offers a station wagon version of the 300C SRT8 in export markets -- basically a Dodge Magnum with a 300C front clip -- capable of cruising all day at 170 miles per hour. Another great experience is to blow by some German uber car, be it a BMW, Audi, or Mercedes-Benz limited to 155 miles per hour in some bad ass American station wagon. I know as I've done it...makes you proud to be an American. :D

 

Back to your question. The 500 and Freestar were handicapped from the start by bland styling, unfocused positioning in the marketplace as well as the introduction of the V8-powered Chrysler LX cars in the same time frame.

 

Do you realize that at one time that the Taurus was the best-selling vehicle in America? That Ford squandered that mantle of leadership, by not investing back into the franchise, is one of the truly sad stories about the current state of the American automobile industry. Ford is not alone in shouldering this blame but as their truck and SUV lineups were strengthened, Toyota and Honda continually updated and refined the Camry and the Accord, while the Taurus stood still. By the time the 500/Freestyle were introduced, Ford was selling the Taurus only to fleets.

 

I tend to look at things in a historical perspective. While my team at Automotive Traveler often calls me "Retro Rich" I keep coming back to the fact that at one time Ford was dominant in the station wagon category, offering class-leading station wagons in every market segment they competed in; Falcon, Fairlane, and the full-size category where the Country Squire was a perennial best seller.

 

Because cars aren't designed, built and sold in a vacuum, two forces contributed to the decline in the station wagon category, two oil embargoes in the seventies and the introduction for the 1984 model year of the ground-breaking Chrysler minivans. You probably know that Ford could have introduced their own minivan years earlier when Lee Iacocca and Hal Sperlich were still in Dearborn. Later, Chrysler redefined what a family "vehicle" could be, taking the best elements of a station wagon, combining them with the utility of an Econoline van, building it on a space-efficient FWD car-based platform, and threw in the great idea of the sliding rear passenger-side door. Over the years, the minivan, which became Chrysler's franchise, was continually improved, the package refined, and until the Japanese got serious about the category, dominated the minivan marketplace, which they do to this very day.

 

The Flex is now a victim of horrific timing, coming into the market when the preoccupation on everyone's mind is with fuel economy. To get the package Ford wanted, weight was going to be an issue and as others have pointed out, it's a matter of physics, simply too much mass. At 4,500 pounds, it's overweight. It is about 400 pounds heavier than a comparably equipped Taurus X. All other things being equal, like aerodynamics, the Taurus X will return more miles per gallon.

 

The Ford designers and engineers needed to set a weight target of 4,000 pounds, not a pound more. Then a wider variety of power train options would have come into play, possibly even the Escape Hybrid package. (The Escape Hybrid weighs in at 3,800 pounds and returns 29/27 mpg.) I'm not sure how Ford could have reached the 4,000-pound target for the Flex but they should have started with the Taurus X package and worked back from there. (This meant shaving 100 pounds to the Taurus X package, not adding 400.) But don't forget that the package was signed off when gas was $2.70/gallon so there was little incentive to do so.

 

The biggest negative that I have with the Flex is that it too wide; it's so wide that it barely fits into a standard-sized parking space. (In my cardomain.com review I mentioned the reaction I got from the Toyota owner in the Borders parking lot). And it drives "big" as well. It feels to me, subjectively, less agile on the road than the Taurus X.

 

You asked the question could the development money on the Flex have been spent differently? Certainly. Do I like the overall Flex package? Yes. But if I were the project manager, I would have made weight saving the number one priority from the very start, even before the price of fuel skyrocketed. I don't believe that was the case here. Weight, to me, is the enemy. Ford, who was never competitive in the minivan segment, set out to offer an alternative, which they did. Will the Flex be more successful than past minivan efforts or the Taurus X? I'm not sure. If the price of fuel stabilizes under $5.00/gallon, it has a chance as many people have noted, there are people who need a vehicle that can carry six comfortably. Unfortunately traditional minivans, whether they come from Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, or Kia, are better suited to the task and are marginally more economical. But with them comes the "stigma" of being a minivan so combined with Explorer and Expedition owners stepping down from truck-based SUVs, this is the market that Ford is obviously targeting.

 

In purely pragmatic economic, bottom-line terms, current owners of SUVs are best just keeping them. Between the depreciation on their current vehicles if traded in (many would be under water on their current loans) and the price of financing the replacement vehicle, be it a Flex or just about anything else, the real costs would exceed that of fueling the current SUV unless the price of fuel exceeds $6.00/gallon (still far short, about 25% less than what Europeans are paying for fuel). Am I making sense?

 

The American automobile industry is undergoing a seismic shift in consumer preferences, much as it did in the aftermath of the first OPEC oil embargo, and then, like now, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are far better positioned to address the needs of the market than Ford, GM, or Chrysler. All are huge organizations and none of them turn on a time. Vehicle programs like the Flex take three to four years to go from green-lighting a program to when Job 1 appears in showrooms. The market realities of 2005 are far different than 2008 and it will take years for Detroit to catch up, if they can. Thankfully, and this is a stroke of good luck, Ford is already two years into the development of the Fiesta and as Mark Fields noted recently, they would love to have it in showrooms now rather than 2010.

 

So the Flex vs. Taurus X question must be viewed within the larger context of the overall marketplace as it exists here and now. Soon, the current Taurus X package will likely be as big a vehicle that the market can sustain. Unless there is some breakthrough in the area of alternative fuels, the days of the full-sized SUV, be it an Expedition or a Tahoe, are clearly numbered. GM may have a little more breathing room with their two-mode technology in their large SUVs but that's clearly a stopgap measure even if it gets, as claimed, the city mileage of a Toyota Camry.

 

If one really needs a state-of-the-art people mover with the Flex's passenger capacity, one already existed in the Ford product portfolio; it's called the S-MAX. Don't you think that Ford wished that they had the foresight to have designed it from the start so that it would have met ours as well as European standards? (It should be noted that in its heaviest AWD version, the S-MAX weighs in at 3,950 pounds.) Is it as stylish as the Flex? That's a matter of opinion.

 

 

The Flex is very "American" while the S-MAX is much more "European" so it's all a matter of taste but I would think that it could have been re-skinned with a Flex-like exterior and adapted to US standards for far less than Ford spent to bring the Flex to market. So in a way I think I am answering the second part of your question "Would you agree that Ford's money would have been better spent if they actually advertised the Taurus X and put the rest of the Flex money into something else?"

 

I'm sure that my comments will spark some debate and as I suspect there's someone in Dearborn monitoring all things on BON, that the comments here will provide valuable feedback.

 

I think that I'm going to rework these words over the weekend and post them on Automotive Traveler on Monday, so I will be monitoring the reaction here as well.

 

Everyone, have a great weekend.

[NickF1011]

. (The Escape Hybrid weighs in at 3,800 pounds and returns 29/27 mpg.)

 

Only real omission I saw in your response. That's the rating for the AWD model. The stingier FWD Escape hybrid is rated 34/30, a pretty significant bump.

[Michael Reynolds]

I'll wait for whining about the Taurus X to commence sometime in the near future. About all a certain person does around here.

 

The issue with the S-Max is that it is too small. If Ford were to roll out an S-Max like vehicle stateside, it would need to slot beneath the Flex. Remember how well the Mazda MPV sold?

[igor]

If one really needs a state-of-the-art people mover with the Flex's passenger capacity, one already existed in the Ford product portfolio; it's called the S-MAX. Don't you think that Ford wished that they had the foresight to have designed it from the start so that it would have met ours as well as European standards? (It should be noted that in its heaviest AWD version, the S-MAX weighs in at 3,950 pounds.) Is it as stylish as the Flex? That's a matter of opinion.

 

 

The Flex is very "American" while the S-MAX is much more "European" so it's all a matter of taste but I would think that it could have been re-skinned with a Flex-like exterior and adapted to US standards for far less than Ford spent to bring the Flex to market. So in a way I think I am answering the second part of your question "Would you agree that Ford's money would have been better spent if they actually advertised the Taurus X and put the rest of the Flex money into something else?"

 

I'm sure that my comments will spark some debate and as I suspect there's someone in Dearborn monitoring all things on BON, that the comments here will provide valuable feedback.

 

I think that I'm going to rework these words over the weekend and post them on Automotive Traveler on Monday, so I will be monitoring the reaction here as well.

 

Everyone, have a great weekend.

 

Minivan with useless 3rd row and no sliding doors?

 

I rather take a car that looks like an SUV over this useless tall wagon..

 

/typical US response

 

I like S-Max, but it is combination of the worst of all worlds - it does not have the utility to let people forget it looks like a bread box, and it does not have the "attractive SUV looks" to let people forget about its lacking utility .... it would become a tiny niche player like the Mazda5.

 

Igor

[autotronic]

Only real omission I saw in your response. That's the rating for the AWD model. The stingier FWD Escape hybrid is rated 34/30, a pretty significant bump.

 

Nick, the FWD version weighs substantially less. My discussion was based on the proposition of getting the larger Flex put on a diet down to 4,000 pound, 100 pounds less than the Taurus X. Just shows to illustrate how important weight is in relationship to fuel economy. A 4,000-pound, hybrid-powered Flex is a very compelling proposition, just as is a diesel-powered S-MAX.

[Michael Reynolds]

Minivan with useless 3rd row and no sliding doors?

 

I rather take a car that looks like an SUV over this useless tall wagon..

 

/typical US response

 

I like S-Max, but it is combination of the worst of all worlds - it does not have the utility to let people forget it looks like a bread box, and it does not have the "attractive SUV looks" to let people forget about its lacking utility .... it would become a tiny niche player like the Mazda5.

 

Igor

 

I recall reading a review on the TTAC on the S-Max, and their comments regarding the third row agreed exactly with what you have mentioned.

[NickF1011]

Nick, the FWD version weighs substantially less. My discussion was based on the proposition of getting the larger Flex put on a diet down to 4,000 pound, 100 pounds less than the Taurus X. Just shows to illustrate how important weight is in relationship to fuel economy. A 4,000-pound, hybrid-powered Flex is a very compelling proposition, just as is a diesel-powered S-MAX.

 

I would contend that the drop in fuel economy between the AWD and FWD Escapes is far more closely related to the changes in drivetrain configuration than it is to the additional weight penalty.

[Michael Reynolds]

I would contend that the drop in fuel economy between the AWD and FWD Escapes is far more closely related to the changes in drivetrain configuration than it is to the additional weight penalty.

 

A typical AWD system on vehicles such as the Escape, typically adds 150-200 pounds. So yes, you have a point.

[Deanh]

Nick, the FWD version weighs substantially less. My discussion was based on the proposition of getting the larger Flex put on a diet down to 4,000 pound, 100 pounds less than the Taurus X. Just shows to illustrate how important weight is in relationship to fuel economy. A 4,000-pound, hybrid-powered Flex is a very compelling proposition, just as is a diesel-powered S-MAX.

just for etification, how much do the Flex's competitors weight...ie Arcadia, Sienna, Odessey etc, weight is a burden of ever esculating safety constraints and, to me at least excess content....

[NickF1011]

just for etification, how much do the Flex's competitors weight...ie Arcadia, Sienna, Odessey etc, weight is a burden of ever esculating safety constraints and, to me at least excess content....

 

Acadia: 4936 lbs

 

Odyssey: 4385 - 4691 lbs

 

Sienna: 4177 - 4405 lbs

 

Just a few....not sure if they are exactly accurate...just pulled them off Google results pages, but I'm sure they're at least in the ballpark. In other words, they ain't any lighter than the Flex for sure.