Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 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. like I thought ..."slim" cars seem to be a thing of the past, and without exotic materials the holy grail is either unattainable or overtly expensive...I don't see why people cannot fathom that....4000lb Flex would cost an additional $5000 ay least....then THAT would become a sore point....vehicles are a COMPROMISE.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Looks like someone "borrowed" my chop (I can tell by the roof and the grill)! Here's 2 versions of my Woodie Flex, one leaves the ridges exposed. And a green/pearl two tone: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Looks like someone "borrowed" my chop (I can tell by the roof and the grill)!Here's 2 versions of my Woodie Flex, one leaves the ridges exposed. And a green/pearl two tone: please no.........are these the St Patricks day versions.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regfootball Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 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. I'll definitely read your in depth reviews and comment on those. Sorry if my impression came off crass, its just that i think the whole Jobs review tandem and the way they do that has me scarred for life, it's so terrible to read. I was hoping and praying we would never encourage anyone else to go down that same path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Here's what I thought the Flex would be, when I heard they were canceling the Focus wagon. I imagined it being a lot smaller. A 4 cylinder Ecoboost, 4WD on a Euro Focus chassis: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Here's a more recent attempt, still some tweaking I'd like to do but ran out of time at lunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regfootball Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 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. a major deficiency in the 500/tau-x is cabin width. No such an issue in the 500 i drive every day, but compare girth between the taurus x and the lambdas and you know why width was adressed. At least I hope it went into the cabin. Plus, we need to haul sheet plywood in cars like the flex. In order for them to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regfootball Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 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? MPV was more useful inside than a CX-9 but not as large as a grand caravan. plus it was ugly. utility vehicles need size and style to compete here. S-max wouldnt sell in big numbers and fails in full size utility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 please no.........are these the St Patricks day versions.......... Just because they are green? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Just because they are green? yup...I for one can NEVER see lime green becoming "THE" color....looks too much like baby's first effort...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Just because they are green? how about a Guiness version...dark brown with a creme lid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 how about a Guiness version...dark brown with a creme lid... Isn't that what I just did??? A "Black & Tan" is Guiness & Bass :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Isn't that what I just did???A "Black & Tan" is Guiness & Bass :shades: nah...watered down....STOUT baby...STOUT! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I'll wait for whining about the Taurus X to commence sometime in the near future. About all a certain person does around here. It's not whining moron. It is a very legitimate question. You just fail to see the obvious. How anyone can justify the existence of the Flex is astrounding. About as astounding me praising a Ford vehicle, that was new in 2008, and getting shit for it...on a Ford board no less... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryll40 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's not whining moron. It is a very legitimate question. You just fail to see the obvious. How anyone can justify the existence of the Flex is astrounding. About as astounding me praising a Ford vehicle, that was new in 2008, and getting shit for it...on a Ford board no less... It's unfortunate, but regardless of how great Flex is, NOTHING in that 17/24 (ish) category is going to sell. It will be totally dead in the water on the dealer lots, like Explorers are littering them up now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's unfortunate, but regardless of how great Flex is, NOTHING in that 17/24 (ish) category is going to sell. It will be totally dead in the water on the dealer lots, like Explorers are littering them up now. WHAT? you haven't traded that Mountaineer in yet for the cheap Toyhon? Hey I hear they can get 30 MPG and still carry 7 people and luggage and tow a 5,000 lb. trailer too. TROLL ALERT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's unfortunate, but regardless of how great Flex is, NOTHING in that 17/24 (ish) category is going to sell. It will be totally dead in the water on the dealer lots, like Explorers are littering them up now. so basically Milm, this will also not effect the competitors that the Flex has targeted they, because they are manufactured by ToyHonNis have a hall pass, and the familys of 6/7 will just shoehorn themselves into the Yaris/ Fits/ Fiestas of this world...helll you actually are making perfectly good sense there...Soccer Mums unite!!!!!!!!!!! there is a 40 mpg alternative to your yukon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's not whining moron. It is a very legitimate question. You just fail to see the obvious. How anyone can justify the existence of the Flex is astrounding. About as astounding me praising a Ford vehicle, that was new in 2008, and getting shit for it...on a Ford board no less... once again P....compare first years sales...even in a weakened economy...when said and done...then offer your apologies......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryll40 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 so basically Milm, this will also not effect the competitors that the Flex has targeted they, because they are manufactured by ToyHonNis have a hall pass, and the familys of 6/7 will just shoehorn themselves into the Yaris/ Fits/ Fiestas of this world...helll you actually are making perfectly good sense there...Soccer Mums unite!!!!!!!!!!! there is a 40 mpg alternative to your yukon! Of course $4 (now they are saying $5 by July 4th) gas will affect all the makers. But TOYHONNIS can weather the storm with enough high quality/high perception/high mpg vehicles. If I buy another Ford now will they be there as a strong company to back it? Again, I am not rooting for, but admit to being indifferent to the demise of the Big 3. There is no way $4+ gas can stick and NOT have at least one...probably all 3...go bust. "Magic" Flex or no Magic Flex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Of course $4 (now they are saying $5 by July 4th) gas will affect all the makers. But TOYHONNIS can weather the storm with enough high quality/high perception/high mpg vehicles. If I buy another Ford now will they be there as a strong company to back it? Again, I am not rooting for, but admit to being indifferent to the demise of the Big 3. There is no way $4+ gas can stick and NOT have at least one...probably all 3...go bust. "Magic" Flex or no Magic Flex. no getting thru is there?.........mark muy words....ford is ahead of the curve....not only in comparison with its domestic bretheren but the evil empire you so blatantly worship..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Of course $4 (now they are saying $5 by July 4th) gas will affect all the makers. But TOYHONNIS can weather the storm with enough high quality/high perception/high mpg vehicles. If I buy another Ford now will they be there as a strong company to back it? Again, I am not rooting for, but admit to being indifferent to the demise of the Big 3. There is no way $4+ gas can stick and NOT have at least one...probably all 3...go bust. "Magic" Flex or no Magic Flex. $5/ a gallon... GET the toyhon.. so you can go to their site and complain to them.. better yet,, get the glock and just end it all now. If you can pay cash up front.. why do you worry about the cost of gas? oh that's right, you want to be indifferent and just want someplace where someone will listen to you. TROLL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Toyhon? Is that a new Chinese brand? once again P....compare first years sales...even in a weakened economy...when said and done...then offer your apologies......... No...you cannot compare sales numbers. As I have said before, the Flex will outsell the Taurus X...but not because it is a better vehicle...it most certainly is not. The ONLY reason it will outsell the T-X is because Ford figured out what 'advertising' means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Is that a new Chinese brand? No...you cannot compare sales numbers. As I have said before, the Flex will outsell the Taurus X...but not because it is a better vehicle...it most certainly is not. The ONLY reason it will outsell the T-X is because Ford figured out what 'advertising' means. wrong...vehicle has a buzz the X could only dream about....SANS advertising....Ford realized they have a potential "hit" on their hands....something the bland-mobile was seriously lacking, along with charisma.....( and I actually like the X....public DID NOT! ) in your mind P, Ford should never have dis-continued the Edsel.....and IT did have advertising........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 wrong...vehicle has a buzz the X could only dream about....SANS advertising....Ford realized they have a potential "hit" on their hands....something the bland-mobile was seriously lacking, along with charisma.....( and I actually like the X....public DID NOT! ) in your mind P, Ford should never have dis-continued the Edsel.....and IT did have advertising........ No, the Edsel is just about as ugly as the Flex. This 'buzz' that you are claiming the Flex has, is because Ford was promoting it before it goes on sale. Ford has spent more money on getting the Flex noticed than they spent on advertising the Freestyle/Taurus X. And you cannot say that the public didn't like the Taurus X because they were never given a chance to reject it. Hell, it hasen't even been on sale for a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 No, the Edsel is just about as ugly as the Flex. This 'buzz' that you are claiming the Flex has, is because Ford was promoting it before it goes on sale. Ford has spent more money on getting the Flex noticed than they spent on advertising the Freestyle/Taurus X. And you cannot say that the public didn't like the Taurus X because they were never given a chance to reject it. Hell, it hasen't even been on sale for a year. maybe Ford realizes thay have a better product, the X just didn't work p, either as the X or Freestyle...which by the way totals 3 years....3 years in which it FAILED to catch on, and beleive me advertising was the LEAST of its problems.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.