Pour one out for the Flex. Production recently ended for Ford’s retro-themed three row crossover. Despite never reaching Ford’s 100k sales target, the crossover soldiered on for ten model years. A pretty remarkable run for such a niche vehicle. But for a decent chunk of its life, it was a boundary pushing, spacious, and technologically sophisticated people hauler for those in search of something a little less mainstream.
The Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT’s demise heralds the official end of the D4 platform. That architecture started out life as the Volvo P2 platform, which Ford then adapted for its own uses. The Blue Oval’s decision to utilize assets from Mazda and Volvo easily qualifies as one of the smartest auto industry moves of all time. Ford likely saved billions of dollars in development costs for the Fusion, Edge, Explorer, Flex, and all their Lincoln and Mercury equivalents. It’s one of the reasons why they avoided bankruptcy. And it also allowed the Flex to live a much longer life than it had any right to.
The team responsible for Ford’s marketing in the late 2000s and early 2010s created remarkably sassy ads and this one is no exception. It’s also completely spot on about the Flex. Ford’s largest three row crossover to date can likely thank the Freestyle/Taurus X for its existence. Ford essentially deemed it necessary to offer an urban focused three row (Freestyle, Flex) and off-road oriented sport utility vehicle (Explorer) since 2005, in addition to the Expedition. Technically speaking, the 2020 Ford Explorer and Lincoln Aviator still fulfill that mission, although the latter is obviously a lot more expensive than the Flex.
Judging by its appearance and platform, it really seems like Ford wanted the Flex to improve upon the formula established by the Freestyle/Taurus X. Perhaps designer Peter Horbury also wanted to refine the aesthetic he created with the 2006 Fusion and the other three bar grilled vehicles of this era (he also designed the 1999 Volvo S80, which coincidentally spawned the platform that Ford used for the Flex). Although unlike its predecessor, the Flex strikes a bolder design. Here’s a relevant quote from a September 2007 piece about the Flex:
“The Flex is a modern version of a station wagon. Its long, flat roof and slab-sided styling is a risky departure for Ford. But true to Horbury’s design philosophy, the vehicle uses traditional Ford styling cues such as the three-bar grille. So at least part of the Flex is easily recognizable as a Ford. Horbury also says the Range Rover and the Mini Cooper influenced the Flex’s design.
Of course we all know that Horbury likely borrowed some elements from the Scion xB too, but he’d probably never admit that. In any event, it seems like Ford theorized a bolder design would woo urban professionals to their subversive three row. Additionally, Ford’s engineers also felt their newest crossover could use more tweaking. The Flex boasted a wheelbase five inches longer than the Taurus X while being about two inches longer and an inch and a half wider. The boxy design also contributed to better visibility and additional cargo capacity. Like the D4 platform Explorer, the Flex was significantly more refined than its predecessors as well.
Ford saw fit to equip the Flex with some advanced technology. Very few mainstream automakers offered any type of adaptive cruise control ten years ago, but it was available in the Flex in 2012 for the 2013 model year. Active Park Assist remained an option after the 2010 model year too, which allowed anxious drivers to let the Flex park itself. But one option stood above the rest with its uniqueness: a compressor-driven refrigerator. Yes, both the Flex and MKT offered one between the second row seats. It also operated as a freezer and could chill items down to 23 degrees. Neat! Here’s another interesting piece of trivia for you: The Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT (along with the D3 Taurus and MKS) belong to a select group of Ford Motor Company vehicles that featured every iteration of 8 inch touchscreen infotainment offered by the Blue Oval thus far.
The Flex’s powertrains remained the same throughout its entire life. Ford offered the Duratec 3.5 liter V6 as standard equipment for 2009 and the 2010 model year saw the addition of EcoBoost 3.5 liter V6, which was the twin turbocharged engine’s first appearance in the Ford lineup. With a minimum of 262 horsepower, both powertrains were quite robust when the Flex was new and they remain competitive on the models still sitting on dealer lots. Given the criticism Ford faced with the first D3 vehicles over the 200 horsepower Duratec V6 and its supposed lack of power, the inclusion of the 365 horsepower EcoBoost V6 almost seems like Ford wanted to clap back hard at the critics. It worked. You won’t find any review that lists the EcoBoost as a detriment to the Flex lineup.
And what was detrimental to the Flex? You’re looking at it. Not the front end, really. More like the entire design itself. It seems buyers prefer three row crossovers that look at least somewhat capable of going off-road. Just think about the other crossover failures of the decade: Subaru Tribeca, Toyota Venza, Honda Crosstour. None of those were very attractive and they all would look out of place off pavement. By contrast, the Flex was at least attractive to some people. A lot of shoppers still recoiled at its design, but I really never heard it being called ugly, even by future Explorer owners. The Flex is the automotive equivalent of an unmarried bachelor who owns a cat. It makes sense and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, but on some fundamental level it’s a bit weird.
The only Flex I sold was a CPO model. A couple probably in their early fifties traveled all the way from Nantucket island to Newburgh, New York to buy it. They had relatives in the area so the 6+ hour drive to get to the dealership wasn’t as insane as it sounds. I think they belonged to the exact demographic Ford envisioned for the Flex: They were quite successful (he worked for Nantucket’s government in some capacity and had been doing it for some time) and had a lot of money but didn’t want anything too flashy. They traded in a GMC Acadia that was already falling apart despite being about four years old. His wife bears the distinction of being the only woman I’ve met who actually liked the Flex for its looks.
Ford probably would have preferred if the couple purchased the Flex new, but pre-owned is really the only place where the Flex really succeeds. Additionally, its platform probably contributed to it staying around for so long, because why else keep something like this alive unless it was relatively cheap to make? The relatively small investment necessary to create the D3/D4 platforms, combined with the success of the Explorer, likely explains why the oddball three row survived for ten years. Perhaps a higher up had a special affinity for it or something.
The question is, how weird was the Flex? Quite weird, but not the strangest vehicle of Mulally-era Ford. As William explained earlier, that distinction clearly belongs to the MKT. If that thing sported remotely decent styling it would have been a smash hit for Lincoln. Because anyone who experienced a Flex or MKT (especially with the EcoBoost) until about 2015 likely found them to be refined and decently appointed vehicles.
In any event, I’d even rate the C-Max as more mainstream than the Flex. There was never any doubt as to who would purchase a C-Max, and before the substantial drop in gas prices around 2015, it made sense in Ford’s lineup. By contrast, the Flex existed alongside the Explorer. The D4 Explorer debuted with larger dimensions than most of its competitors in the non-luxury three row segment. There wasn’t any real need for a slightly larger stablemate. And after Ford added the Platinum trim to the Explorer, the Flex could no longer be considered the upscale alternative.
That doesn’t mean the Flex wasn’t significant. It offered a distinctive aesthetic that is in too short supply today. The Mazda CX-9 might have supplanted it as the go-to three row for those looking for a sophisticated and urbane non-luxury crossover, but the Mazda blends in a bit more than the Ford (it’s also just as niche as the Flex too, at least in sales). Unconventional platform-mates of mainstream vehicles rarely exist for as long as the Flex did, and for that it deserves some recognition. I suspect these will be quite popular at car shows about fifteen years from now.
Related Reading:
CC Outtake: 2016 Ford Flex and Explorer – Same Goods, Different Packaging by William Stopford
Future Classic: Ford Flex – Wood Paneling Costs Extra by Gerardo Solis
To me the Flex could have been even better with minivan doors in the rear, but I know this was all about minivan denial for Ford because so many American’s wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan.
And to beat a dead horse the FWD Flex with 6 speed has roughly the same EPA (and according to Fuelly) same real world fuel economy as my old 2010 Highlander with V6, 5 speed auto, and permanently engaged 4wd/AWD.
To me that was no good.
But dang I did love the outside – the modern incarnation of the Country Squire.
A little aside, the easiest place to find these in the SW US was at Ford dealers in Utah, the state being known for large families.
Agree!
Upon viewing a Flex my immediate thought was that it was a modern, updated version of my Mother’s mid 1960’s Ford station wagon.
+2! All it needs is Di-Noc, which wood not look bad on this car! ;o)
I’ve actually considered adding Di-Noc woodgrain to mine. At one time there were kits to do this, and there may still be.
http://www.ptwoody.com/fordflex_01.html
https://www.autotrimdesign.net/Wood_Panel_Graphic_Kit_for_Ford_Flex.asp
There you go.
BTW I have been informed by the Missus that if I bring home a “woody” wagon I will be sleeping in said wagon.
I’ll make due with my European wagon masquerading as an American.
Thanks, Dan, and I’m pleased to say that “considering” was as far as I got.
I supposed the kitsch value would be fun at first, but living with it everyday might be another matter.
Again, I am the outlier who liked the looks of these. I see them around in small numbers, and they always seemed to be well-trimmed versions.
I had understood that these sold to an unusually high income demographic, one that didn’t always find appeal in American vehicles. It is hard to believe how long it has been around.
It also sold well in California, which isn’t true of many other Fords other than the Mustang. That’s probably a factor in its longevity.
Defying the old “… so goes the nation.” trope.
I’ve heard this before and it makes sense, for the Flex to be as relatively rare as they are in my parts they had to be selling well somewhere to survive this long.
Outlier? There seem to be a lot of us here.
I’m kind of bummed about these things being discontinued. On the one hand, it’s amazing that a little weird vehicle like this could continue being made for so long, but on the other hand, I’m not sure how much cash they were losing for Ford to make them cut the ties.
I think the thing that made these a flop in the general marketplace, but will make it a cult classic for years, is the retro looks. These came out right around the time that retro in the car world had hit its sell-by date, people were not interested in wearing nostalgia goggles anymore and wanted something that didn’t seem anachronistic and dated the minute it hit the showroom. Now personally, I think the Flex looks miles ahead of the vast majority of crossovers on the showroom today, but I also know my weird opinions don’t speak for the car-buying (or car-leasing) public at large. Of course, it could have some weird faults in dynamics that could make it seem less desirable, but I’ll stick with my design theory for now.
The Ford Flex was an awesome vehicle. We had the model with 4 bucket seats and loved the roominess. Then when we had our grandkids provided alot of extra space with the third row. I could haul just about anything in that car. It provided a smooth comfortable ride in the city or traveling on the freeways. It will be missed.
Yeah, it may be different from anything else on the road, but the few of us who own them tend to be fiercely loyal to them. Kind of like the Honda Element, another body vehicle that didn’t set any sales records when new, but has now developed something of a cult following.
My sister had an Element for years, and loved the Flex but it was a bit too big and expensive for her. So there are at least two women who like them. Personally, I think it was the best balance of styling and packaging in Ford’s lineup. But I wouldn’t have thought the target market was an urban demographic – definitely suburban.
Yes, and I probably should have made it clearer that both the Flex and Element have their own cult followings, and it’s not a single cult. In fact, I’m not so sure that the Venn diagram of these cults would have a very large intersection.
You’re correct in that the following tends to be largely suburban (as I am). Anecdotally, it also seems to be more male than is usual for crossovers. I have ended up in one because I found it to be roomier than an Explorer, and a low mileage, year old one was much less than a comparable Explorer with the same original MSRP. So in this case, depreciation can be your friend.
If my wife drove a Flex instead of a Solara this could be a shot of my garage.
Flex was on our short list when seeking a replacement for our ’05 Town & Country. Poor fuel economy and poor interior space utilization ended up striking it, even though I still to this day find the styling quite appealing. We ended up with a ’12 VW Routan (our fifth Chrysler-platform minivan in a row), which was supplanted earlier this year by a 2018 Buick Regal TourX.
Yep. Last time we shopped minivans we looked at a Flex. I liked them. They drive nice and have a very spacious 2nd row. Space utilization is great for a CUV, but not so good compared to a minivan. For us, the nails in the coffin were the high price and low fuel economy.
I’m surprised that you found the fuel economy to be poor. I own an AWD Flex and have driven a 2015 Grand Caravan as a company car since it was new, and I don’t find the difference in fuel economy to be all that significant. The Flex is maybe one to three mpg lower, but I attribute some of that to being AWD.
You can’t beat the Grand Caravan for space utilization; however, the Flex beats out most crossovers in that regard. For me, the seating position and ride of the Flex are superior, but that would definitely vary from person to person.
The EPA combined estimate for the Flex (2018) is 18mpg (16 city, 22 highway). Fuelly reports a real-world average maybe 1-2mpg higher than that.
We were regularly getting close to 30mpg highway with the ’05 T&C and could exceed 30 with the ’12 Routan. Hand calculated average for the Routan was about 25mpg.
I’m still surprised, based on my experience and the numbers on fueleconomy.gov.
As the ads state, “Your mileage may vary.” As may mine… 😀
we have had 2 flexes, and many middle age (late soccer mom demographic) like them, but the styling is polarizing. i just finished a multi state marathon family drive with our ’18 flex and a ’18 highlander; ironically both the same color and similar trim level. The flex has significantly more space – longer wheelbase – but I agree with the comments that the fuel economy hasn’t been that impressive. All highway with moderate load and I couldnt break 21 for my trip average. Suburban driving average is 17. A suburban/expedition probably wouldn’t be much worse, with even more room and towing capacity.
But we love the wagons; next year the lease is up – big decision to make with no obvious replacement choices.
We looked at these, since my FIL is a Ford sales guy. But even used they were substantially more expensive than a Grand Caravan, with less room inside. So cheapitude won out.
We did like the looks, but we were thinking of putting a vintage Frigidaire handle on it.
I didn’t realise they were still making those. I think they’re one of the better-looking Fords in recent memory.
+1. The only visual barb is the chintzy-looking “FLEX” lettering spread out across the front. Is there any other recent car/truck/thingy that spreads its model name (not brand) across the front in big chromey letters? One retro cue I could live without.
T E L L U R I D E
P A L I S A D E – the Telluride’s sister CUV.
(Oops nope that is on the tailgate – but still kinda old school.)
Every current Land Rover, with each spelling out its respective sub-brand in lettering on the hood: RANGE ROVER, DISCOVER, or DEFENDER.
I quite liked the lettering across the hood. Practically all big cars did that in the sixties. Like this ’65 Galaxie 500 that the front of the Flex emulates.
Flex is one of the very, very few modern cars that doesn’t have its brand logo front and center on the grille or hood. It’s so boringly uniform you’d think it was a federal regulation.
As with the MKT, though not to the same extent, the Flex’s styling is largely the culprit in its lack of success, largely relegating it to niche vehicle. I also recall these could get quite pricey when loaded up with options, as most every one I’ve seen has been.
I’m surprised Ford kept the Flex in production for so long, but I’m guessing a loaded-up Flex, even when steeply discounted, commanded a higher profit margin than a similarly-optioned Taurus.
Flex was a tough sell when the conventional looking and more efficient Explorer sitting next to it could be had for thousands less. Even if they liked the looks, most people probably didn’t get past the window sticker.
They didn’t discount them very often and pretty much never, in CA who’s strong sales were the entire reason it lived as long as it did.
Yes, for some reason these sold well in California, of all places.
Not surprisingly, if we were some 15 years younger, I could well see a Flex in our driveway as the family chariot. Instead there’s an xB.
Yes, I like boxy vehicles.
I always liked the Flex but didn’t need one. Last year we bought a pair of recumbent “tadpole” tricycles and needed a station wagon that would tow flat behind our motorhome and carry the trikes. It came down to the Flex and Explorer and I favored the Flex but the trikes fit better in the Explorer, which has a wider, though shorter cargo area. So we bought an Explorer and it’s a very nice car but lacks the coolness factor of the Flex which is so utterly uncool that’s it’s actually really cool.
We have had a 2010 model since 2013 and if our kids weren’t growing up and moving on, we would be buying another Flex. 3 kids + dog, it did a fantastic job as a people hauler, grocery getter and highway cruiser. Also far and away the most stable, sure footed vehicle in the ice and snow that we have, including two 4X4 trucks.
I’ll miss the Flex when it goes and I’m sad to hear it’s being discontinued. It’s one of the rare vehicles where my 6’5″ frame fits in the back seat with ease. My parents bought one for the same reason for my similarly tall Dad.
Like Paul’s comment above, I like boxy useful vehicles and this has been very useful. An AWD SUV that seats 6 (in our case, Middle row buckets) and my wife can still lift her standup paddleboard on to the roof racks with ease. Only downside – a fondness for fuel injectors which I’m now really good at changing, and the fuel economy. RIP Flex.
I always thought the Flex was an interesting reuse of an existing platform. It’s a 5/4-scale version of a station wagon. I think a lot of buyers must have been the folks who lamented the death of the traditional wagon.
Probably it’s one of the best station wagons on the market.
I’ve always liked the Flex but it was saddled with the 3.5 V6 with the internal water pump, basically a ticking time bomb. Either you replace it early at about $1200 or risk the pump failing and mixing coolant with your engine oil. A relative lost a MKX with the same engine for this reason and they totaled the car!
Being a Volvo fan (an 850 wagon with 220K miles and a V70 wagon with 50K miles), the Flex really looked like it should have been a Volvo. Just imagine that diagonal bar grill – it really works! The Flex has enough Volvo DNA in it as it is.
I give Ford credit for trying but that engine is a non-starter for me.
I have two versions of this engine: The 3.5 (transverse) in my Flex, and the 3.7 (longitudinal) in my Mustang. Not an ideal design, but there are some things to consider before dismissing this engine completely.
From everything I’ve read and heard, the water pump and timing chain were beefed up significantly around 2012 or 2013, and failures are not nearly as common as they once were.
And if it’s in a longitudinal/RWD application, the repair cost is nowhere near as high as $1,200, although it’s still more than an externally mounted water pump (and beyond the skills of most DIYers). I actually had the water pump failure in my early production 2012 Mustang, at 24,000 miles and 40 months from the original in-service date, so I was out of warranty. As I recall, the cost of the repair at the dealer was in the $300 to $400 range, but a call to Ford Customer Care sesulted in me being refunded all but $50 of that amount, due to the low mileage of the vehicle and the fact that it was barely out of warranty.
The Flex is still under warranty, and if I plan on keeping it for several years I may purchase an extended warranty, just to be on the safe side (something I’ve never done, by the way). There are several dealers that sell the Ford plans online, and with the discount they offer, they’re not a bad deal.
Actually, I was mistaken on the warranty timing on my Mustang. The water pump would’ve been covered by the powertrain warranty. It occurred at 24,000 miles, and 62 or 63 months past the original in-service date.
Yes, I don’t drive it very much.
Ford wagons …
Thank you johnnyangel for the side by side photographs.
A long-lost relative?
Perfect epitaph for this car!
I like the Flex (unlike cats), but it just missed the mark a little to much. During the Flex’s long lifetime, I bought two minivans, and both times I eyed the Flex. However, its relatively high price and lack of interior flexibility (sorry…) kept it out of serious consideration for me.
At least the Flex was different, and always identifiable in a sea of lookalike cars. I’ll miss it.
Spent two weeks driving a Flex around. British Columbia a few years back. Handsome beast, enjoyed by all the family. Never sold in Europe, and too big for our roads, but it’s one rental I’d have liked to have held on to.
When the Flex first came to market, I didn’t care for the appearance at all. But in 2011, the senior community where my parents live bought one to transport residents on their errands, and that’s when my perspective on the Flex changed. It’s roomy, and I think the car is appreciably more accessible for elderly, somewhat frail seniors than just about any other vehicle on the market. There’s plenty of room in the back for walker and wheelchair storage, and visibility is excellent. The Flex seems to be holding up well, and I never hear of it being out of service for unscheduled repairs. I can’t imagine what they could replace it with that would serve in this duty as well as the Flex.
I’m still not real keen on the looks of the Flex, but there’s no denying the car’s functionality has a beauty all of its own.
We had a 2009 bought new in the deepest part of the depr(rec)ession. Discount from Ford AND the dealer ment around $8,000-$9,000 off MSRP. Even with a modest downpayment the 8.6% apr was an eye opening monthly payment. It replaced a 2000 Jeep Cherokee which was getting small for a family of 4 with two.growing boys and a fondness for trailer camping. Our next vehicle needed to best the Jeep in terms of space and fuel economy while at least matching it in terms of 4wd/awd and towing capacity. The Flex was much more comfortable for the family, could hold more inside, got better mileage city and hwy, was awd (although nothing I would take off road!) and was rated to tow 5,000 lbs IIRC. 2011 onward was not body on frame and the tow rating went down substantially.
Three footnotes to add. Even later in life it was still one of the best hwy cruisers I’ve ever had just eating up mile after mile. Second, I absolutely hated the fact that the 2009 did not have tilt steering even in SES trim. (I often thought about catching that bean counter in a dark alley…..). Finally, the AC died in mid-summer 2018 and my wife dutifully drove it another 8 months while looking for a different vehicle. By the time we “traded” it in on a used Outback 6mt the rockers had completely rusted out on both sides to boot. That design flaw I saw coming when we brought it home. RIP one-owner-Flex.
“2011 onward was not body on frame and the tow rating went down substantially.”
I’d be interested to know where you got your information about the Flex.
No Flex was ever body-on-frame; all were unibody construction, using the Ford D4 platform.
And according to Ford’s website, the maximum towing capacity for a Flex has been 4,500 pounds from the 2009 to 2019 model years, when equipped with the Class III Trailer Towing Package (53G). Otherwise, it’s 2,000 pounds.
My 79 year old mom loved these and wanted me to get one, but they were too expensive. Even used, they cost more than a new Town and Country, back in 2015.
I’d like a used MKT.
Ford should have offered it as a Country Squire with wood grain vinyl wrap and of course a Funkmaster Flex edition. I had semi seriously looked at them a few years ago but they were more money than I wanted to spend and actually more car since a Mazda5 was a much better fit since I had neither a large family nor a trailer.
I have been periodically reminded since probably 2012 that the Flex had still been in production and I’m always surprised by it, these have had a ridiculously good run considering I can count maybe 7 that I can remember seeing since they debuted.
I had been part of a few Ford/Mustang clubs and forums and many diehard bleed Ford bluers were quite smitten with the Flex, and held the ecoboost as a dream family car, and this is what kind of drove me away from the brand loyalty mindset if I’m honest. The one I found myself inside was typical in quality, not bad but plasticy, very generic looking in the same way the 02 Thunderbird dash was(for exteriors that make such a statement they felt like sitting in a normal dull sedan). Power was fine, but not what I expected from 365 horsepower. Cult following is dead on accurate though, as criticism will usually get you sacrificed on the stone to appease the Ford gods. As you can guess, yeah, they never appealed to me. Right out the gate I don’t like 2 box designs, in box form or egg form, the ridges in the sheetmetal were a gimmicky relic of the mid-aughts that wore out their welcome on late Daimler Chrysler products, and the name Flex was a relic from the dumb “F for Ford” model naming scheme
Weird? I don’t think so. While I am no fan of crossovers in any stripe I think this one looks nice to my eye. Reminds me of a chopped E150 window van in a way and I did like the E100 come to think of it.
The reaosn the flex never passed 50k/year is simple…most people would rather have vanilla than a chocolate hot fudge bannana split.
I’m sure it’s a fine vehicle but it reminds me of the early 50’s Nash Rambler.
Or a watering trough with a roof.
Maybe it’s the ribbed slab sides and uninspired round front on the thing.
It just looks so plain.
But hey, to each his own.
My son’s wife has one and loves it. Two kids and a (big)dog. Don’t remember the year, but it’s got the turbo 6. Never heard anything bad about it.
The flex has a love it or hate it look.. Personally I like it. I drove a 4wd excursion for 13 years before it rusted beyond. I went for the flex because it was almost as roomy, I didn’t have to climb up to get in, and got great mpg compared to my excursion. I have owned the limited flex for 3 years now and love it with the ecoboost engine. Out on the highway it gets 22-25mpg which doubles what my excursion was getting. I just wish it had a bigger gas tank
I live in a small town that is nowhere near a suburb but these are quite popular around here. Everyone I know who has one loves it. Our youngest daughter uses one at her workplace occasionally and really likes driving it. A couple who I know have a 35 mile commute every day. They bought a new one a few years ago but traded it for a Fusion for better commuting mileage. As soon as they heard that the flex was going to be discontinued they ordered a new one and kept the Fusion as a commuter car. They love their Flex.
The Flex is not a vehicle I would buy because it is not the type I like. We have never owned a minivan, a crossover or SUV. Actually, we raised 3 kids while only owning 2 door cars. I did drive a Flex once and was very impressed with the experience.
I’ve always liked the looks of the Flex, one of very few crossovers with clean, attractive, well done styling. I thought about one, but it was more expensive than I thought and I really had no need for such a large vehicle.
I do know someone who recently bought a new one, must be one of the last ones built. I haven’t had the opportunity to check it out yet, but I’ll have to have a look inside. They’ll probably only keep it a few years as they seem to like changing vehicles every couple of years but we’ll see.
Like others, I’m amazed it stayed in production so long. But perhaps the few they were selling brought in enough money to justify it. It actually surprises me that it was a Ford and not a Lincoln, though perhaps with expectations of selling 100k a year, Ford thought it was going to be a lot more mainstream and less the niche vehicle it turned out to be.
In 2012 we were set to buy probably a Caravan or T&C to replace my wife’s Pontiac Montana (don’t laugh, it wasn’t bad) when I saw one of those “one at this price” ads for a new Flex: About $25K for the SEL with a moonroof. The dealer actually still had the vehicle. Seven years, 80,000 miles (and a lot of soccer games and family trips) later it’s going great with no major problems. For a family bus, it’s actually a decent car to drive – indulged in a few peel outs and flinging around corners AFTER dropping off the team at practice.
i have owned 3 mini coopers. 2 as clubman variants, includes our current 2013 model- certainly see a strong DNA source of the Flex in our ride. . We also drive an Element. Wanna talk about niche buyers? those wanting to carry a tandem bicycle inside vehicle, but not be limited to having 2 seats once the bike is loaded. A tandem bicycle fits upright down the center of our Honda Element (Front wheel removed) and can still keep a rear row seat down/open for human seating. it can also load a single bike in there alongside our tandem. This was essential for bringing along our son and his bike. Alternatives: dodge caravan, possibly some of the other new dodge & ford cargo based 7 passenger vans, extended cab pickups with a cap over the cargo box and full size ladder frame vans. that’s about it. In a Flex, with the comparatively low ceiling, i would have to fold all the mid & rear seats flat and lay the bike in sideways stack a single on top and have no place for our son to sit. A used E was about 1/2 the cost and nearly 2 ft shorter than a caravan or any new alternatives. With their long model run a used Flex would have been a strong competitor if it had met our peculiar needs.
As a longtime Flex admirer, I never thought I could afford one, but I finally got mine. 2013 Limited with EcoBoost. I needed AWD to assure that my Uber income would be preserved in the winter here (mid sized Snow Belt city) because my Charger R/T wasn’t going to cut it.
I can accommodate 6 passengers now, and the Flex is an absolute tank in the snow with good winter tires. And the compliments I get on the car are just never-ending. Ride comfort, power, and looks. I love the look… I’m also a big square car fan (2 Honda Elements, 4 VW Vanagons in my recent past) and this Ford beats then all.
I can still remember back to when the “2005 Fairlane” concept car showed up in some magazine (Car and Driver?). I found it appealing, and of course wondered if anything like it would come to market.
I have no idea how similar its dimensions were to the production Flex, but in the end it was just too big (and costly to own/operate) for me to justify. All the owners I talk to are loyal–and appear to have the means to comfortably own them.
Maybe if this had been a notch smaller—say, the size of the Ford FreeStyle (Taurus X) car—-I might have been a customer. All that said, apparently time is flying by, ’cause I had no idea it was in production a decade, or that that Fairlane concept is almost 15 years old now:
Sad to see it go. A unique design that stood out without the requisite swoops and gashes that are expected these days. Not overly populated here in Houston, but I recall seeing a high concentration in the Westchester area 5-6 years ago. So maybe the Flex demographics in fact were of a higher income bracket.
I drove one and really liked it during the Great Car Search of 2013. But the 3.5 in our 2010 Edge had given us a lot of problems, especially with overheating despite the HD cooling system, so I passed on the opportunity to again give Ford my money.
When my husband needed another vehicle, he knew he wanted a Ford Flex. He said they reminded him of his first car, a Country Squire he bought at the ripe old age of 14. We both like the styling; it doesn’t look like everything else in a parking lot, although on one 200 mile drive, we counted 15 other Flexes on the road. The size is perfect and it has more than enough power to tow whatever we need. It’s very comfortable for long drives and the AWD comes in handy when it snows. We’re sad to see the Flex has been discontinued and I’m sure we’ll see them in car shows in a few years.
I think the reason the flex didn’t sell is because it wasn’t mentioned in most commercials, especially in the last 6 years or so. I would watch a commercial for Ford and they would literally show every model except the Flex. We have a 2011 SEL and we love it. It’s basically the same size as my brothers Explorer but lower to the ground so my wife who is short can get into easier. That was one of the reasons to buy it. They need a replacement model. Something large like the explorer but easier to get in to. It feels safe, handles well and doesn’t feel like it will roll like a larger SUV. Ford is to blame for the lack of sales. They don’t advertise it. You can’t buy something if you don’t realize it exist. It just needs a makeover. The looks are starting to look dated but it’s still a cool looking ride.
Far more appealing to me than any crossover.
However, part of the cool factor in this vehicle is the turbo engine. The cheapest MSRP for one of those is $46,000. Once you’ve felt the Ecoboost sling this family car down the road, it’s hard to want to lose 90hp and still spend 36 grand.
Not even what you would call a Ford guy, but I can acknowledge that I’ve liked the looks of these things since they first came out.I don’t normally care what other people think is stylish or not, but I’ve thought it to be a clean and attractive design. Without having a need for a vehicle this size, I still like the looks of it. And, glad Ford has kept it in production.
There was a time when the leaders at Ford Corporate looked at a car destined to be a Ford, and said, “No that Thunderbird should be the new Continental”, and saved the brand. I look at the Flex and the MKT and feel that they should have been swapped, with the appointments of the Flex upgraded as a Lincoln and the grille of the MKT converted to the three bar or whatever Ford standard country squire attitude would appeal circa 2010. I feel they would have both sold far better…
I always liked the looks of the Flex. It was like a maxi-Mini. Straight lines on a car are a daring statement now, and the Flex had longer and straighter lines than any other. I can only imagine the expanse of passenger and luggage space inside. Because my needs were never so large, it wasn’t on my list.
Of course, the C-Max wasn’t on my list either until two years ago, when I helped my daughter buy one. Now I have two in the driveway. With a unique combination of utility, economy and driving pleasure, it feels like I’m in on a secret. Probably the same feeling you’d have with a Flex, if you can spare the economy part.