anyone have a Ford Flex?
- Thread starter mpvue
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And the average driver isn't getting these stupid high economy numbers quoted either. Eboost is great tech, but you still have a tick less than 5000 pounds to move!
Those "stupid high economy" numbers I quoted were for a '09 Flex FWD with the N/A 3.5.
Whoa, easy there. I wasn't speaking to your quote.
We have (had, one sold) 3 Eboosters in our family up until just recently. All 3 in different vehicles get around 17-18 in normal driving.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And the average driver isn't getting these stupid high economy numbers quoted either. Eboost is great tech, but you still have a tick less than 5000 pounds to move!
Those "stupid high economy" numbers I quoted were for a '09 Flex FWD with the N/A 3.5.
Whoa, easy there. I wasn't speaking to your quote.
We have (had, one sold) 3 Eboosters in our family up until just recently. All 3 in different vehicles get around 17-18 in normal driving.
Originally Posted By: oilmaven
It looks like a refrigerator laying on its side.
I hate to agree but you nailed it.
I actually think the low roofline is its coolest feature.
And the interior is the bomb. If I see one at the auction it just could happen...
It looks like a refrigerator laying on its side.
I hate to agree but you nailed it.
I actually think the low roofline is its coolest feature.
And the interior is the bomb. If I see one at the auction it just could happen...
JHZR2
Staff member
While Im down on the MPGs/heft, I do like the flex quite a bit.
I don't like this:
Way too tight, and the turbos are only specced/designed for 150k of service.
I like the white roof as it is practical for keeping cool in the summer. Wish they had a simple one with an MT and crank windows. Would be wonderful.
I don't like this:
Way too tight, and the turbos are only specced/designed for 150k of service.
I like the white roof as it is practical for keeping cool in the summer. Wish they had a simple one with an MT and crank windows. Would be wonderful.
I dislike crank windows, very impractical for a larger car, unsafe w/ small children, and a security risk; too many times the windows slide down slightly.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: mpvue
I dislike crank windows, very impractical for a larger car, unsafe w/ small children, and a security risk; too many times the windows slide down slightly.
Lifecycle cost is hard to beat. I cant say Ive ever heard of a child falling out of a car because of a crank window (especially because the rears dont go down that far). But Ive heard of lots of $400 bills because of bad window regulators.
Cant say Ive ever seen one slide down either, even in cars with 30 year old rubber.
I dislike crank windows, very impractical for a larger car, unsafe w/ small children, and a security risk; too many times the windows slide down slightly.
Lifecycle cost is hard to beat. I cant say Ive ever heard of a child falling out of a car because of a crank window (especially because the rears dont go down that far). But Ive heard of lots of $400 bills because of bad window regulators.
Cant say Ive ever seen one slide down either, even in cars with 30 year old rubber.
JHZR2
Staff member
So Ive run all the comparisons of the flex versus other cars from CRV to suburban, with highlander, RX450h, etc all inbetween.
My determination is still the same... For the MPGs and all, if you need to move stuff, get a suburban. Nothing can really compare.
That said, the flex is really neat because it is narrower and has great rear seat room that is useful for moving people. Plus the third row, plus some cargo space behind it, and apparently really nicely/well made.
Check this: http://www.ford.com/suvs/explorer/compare/?vehicles=30377|31318|31504|30014
Analysis:
Code:
Explorer Flex Suburban CRV
Wheelbase (in.) 112.6 117.9 130.0 103.1
Cargo Volume (cft) 80.7 83.2 137.4 72.9
Front Head Room (in.) 41.4 41.8 41.1 38.9
Second Head Room (in.)40.5 40.5 38.5 38.5
Front Leg Room (in.) 40.6 40.8 41.3 41.3
Second Leg Room (in.) 39.8 44.3 39.5 38.5
Front Hip Room (in.) 57.3 55.5 60.3 55.9
Second Hip Room (in.) 56.7 55.0 61.8 54.6
Length (in.) 197.1 201.8 222.4 179.3
Width (in.) 78.9 75.9 79.1 71.6
Height (in.) 70.4 68.0 76.8 66.1
Tow Cap. (lbs.) 5000 2000 5100 1500
Economy City (mpg) 17 17 15 21
Economy Highway (mpg) 25 24 21 28
Combined Economy (mpg) 20 19 17 24
Some of these numbers are pretty interesting. For example, the wife and I went to a ford dealer and I sat in an explorer. It had a sunroof, and I could barely fit comfortably with my head clearing the ceiling, even with the seat all the way down. Friends have a CRV that I've logged a LOT of miles in, and it has a sunroof... Ive never once even had the most remote feeling of thinking that my head would touch the ceiling in that car. Yet the headroom (which is perhaps measured a different way) is supposedly much greater in the explorer than the CRV.
My determination is still the same... For the MPGs and all, if you need to move stuff, get a suburban. Nothing can really compare.
That said, the flex is really neat because it is narrower and has great rear seat room that is useful for moving people. Plus the third row, plus some cargo space behind it, and apparently really nicely/well made.
Check this: http://www.ford.com/suvs/explorer/compare/?vehicles=30377|31318|31504|30014
Analysis:
Code:
Explorer Flex Suburban CRV
Wheelbase (in.) 112.6 117.9 130.0 103.1
Cargo Volume (cft) 80.7 83.2 137.4 72.9
Front Head Room (in.) 41.4 41.8 41.1 38.9
Second Head Room (in.)40.5 40.5 38.5 38.5
Front Leg Room (in.) 40.6 40.8 41.3 41.3
Second Leg Room (in.) 39.8 44.3 39.5 38.5
Front Hip Room (in.) 57.3 55.5 60.3 55.9
Second Hip Room (in.) 56.7 55.0 61.8 54.6
Length (in.) 197.1 201.8 222.4 179.3
Width (in.) 78.9 75.9 79.1 71.6
Height (in.) 70.4 68.0 76.8 66.1
Tow Cap. (lbs.) 5000 2000 5100 1500
Economy City (mpg) 17 17 15 21
Economy Highway (mpg) 25 24 21 28
Combined Economy (mpg) 20 19 17 24
Some of these numbers are pretty interesting. For example, the wife and I went to a ford dealer and I sat in an explorer. It had a sunroof, and I could barely fit comfortably with my head clearing the ceiling, even with the seat all the way down. Friends have a CRV that I've logged a LOT of miles in, and it has a sunroof... Ive never once even had the most remote feeling of thinking that my head would touch the ceiling in that car. Yet the headroom (which is perhaps measured a different way) is supposedly much greater in the explorer than the CRV.
JHZR2
Staff member
"real world" isnt something that anyone can count on. I beat the EPA highway numbers driving in the city. I get that. But for an apples to apples comparison, it has to be the same drive cycle, with some assumption that there was no funny business with reprogramming ECUs to excel on the EPA course.
Then we get what we get...
5 MPG loss vs the CRV for 10 cu ft. 2 MPG gain on the suburban for 54 cu ft of volume!
See my point?
If youre moving a lot of stuff and need the space, the suburban is tough to beat. Doesnt mean that everyone needs one.
But Im allowed to be disappointed that the flex isnt offering me a slightly slower package (I really dont need 7.5-8.5 second 0-60 times) that returns 28+ MPG highway.
So dont get me wrong, the flex is a really neat, well thought out vehicle that is different, unique and has a lot of plusses.
But if Im carting around three babies and carseats and cribs and all kinds of junk, 54 cubic feet of cargo space is pretty compelling given the 2 mpg youre giving up versus the flex.
My wife likes the explorer a lot for in a few years when we need a big vehicle. But based upon this discussion, I really dig the flex, and I think we may go look at one for fun this weekend...
Then we get what we get...
5 MPG loss vs the CRV for 10 cu ft. 2 MPG gain on the suburban for 54 cu ft of volume!
See my point?
If youre moving a lot of stuff and need the space, the suburban is tough to beat. Doesnt mean that everyone needs one.
But Im allowed to be disappointed that the flex isnt offering me a slightly slower package (I really dont need 7.5-8.5 second 0-60 times) that returns 28+ MPG highway.
So dont get me wrong, the flex is a really neat, well thought out vehicle that is different, unique and has a lot of plusses.
But if Im carting around three babies and carseats and cribs and all kinds of junk, 54 cubic feet of cargo space is pretty compelling given the 2 mpg youre giving up versus the flex.
My wife likes the explorer a lot for in a few years when we need a big vehicle. But based upon this discussion, I really dig the flex, and I think we may go look at one for fun this weekend...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
While Im down on the MPGs/heft, I do like the flex quite a bit.
I don't like this:
That's not the Ecoboost. That's the regular 3.5L - it does need an engine cover.
The Exoboost looks like this:
Quote:
Way too tight, and the turbos are only specced/designed for 150k of service.
That's the typical design life of a car. Cars are designed for a 150k service life. Most with decent maintenance go a lot further but that's what they are designed for.
And all cars are tight in the engine bay now. When I had my G35 I swear they shoe horned the engine in there. You could not see any ground in that engine bay.
While Im down on the MPGs/heft, I do like the flex quite a bit.
I don't like this:
That's not the Ecoboost. That's the regular 3.5L - it does need an engine cover.
The Exoboost looks like this:
Quote:
Way too tight, and the turbos are only specced/designed for 150k of service.
That's the typical design life of a car. Cars are designed for a 150k service life. Most with decent maintenance go a lot further but that's what they are designed for.
And all cars are tight in the engine bay now. When I had my G35 I swear they shoe horned the engine in there. You could not see any ground in that engine bay.
JHZR2
Staff member
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
yup, I don't really like the east/west config either but that's what the world has come to...
I generally prefer a 4cyl for initial cost/ease of maintenance. wod is the next ford flex will have the 4cyl ecoboost, but IDK if that'll be enough for such a large car.
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
yup, I don't really like the east/west config either but that's what the world has come to...
I generally prefer a 4cyl for initial cost/ease of maintenance. wod is the next ford flex will have the 4cyl ecoboost, but IDK if that'll be enough for such a large car.
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
There was also a complaint that the turbo/engine was only designed for 150,000 miles. You do know that is pretty standard across the board, right? As an example, the modular motors in the F-series were designed to that standard as well, and what general reputation do those motors have?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
If it's like my wife's V6 Escape it's not that bad. You can get a wrench in there but have to hunt for them by feel.
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
If it's like my wife's V6 Escape it's not that bad. You can get a wrench in there but have to hunt for them by feel.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: mpvue
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
How often does the average person use the third row? Id be more considerate of the average family where having one or heaven forbid two car seats renders the whole vehicle useless. Plus a stroller or two? Yikes.
But for that duty, the flex only gives 10 cu ft vs the CRV, which was kind of my point.
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
How often does the average person use the third row? Id be more considerate of the average family where having one or heaven forbid two car seats renders the whole vehicle useless. Plus a stroller or two? Yikes.
But for that duty, the flex only gives 10 cu ft vs the CRV, which was kind of my point.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
There was also a complaint that the turbo/engine was only designed for 150,000 miles. You do know that is pretty standard across the board, right? As an example, the modular motors in the F-series were designed to that standard as well, and what general reputation do those motors have?
You realize that turbochargers can be a bit more sensitive than some of the other run of the mill parts, right? I hold a slightly higher standard, and while I love turbo stuff (own three turbo vehicles myself) in a fairly heavy use like this, IMO it doesnt cut it for longevity for me - time will tell. Might be a high standard, but I expect vehicles to last like MB diesels - essentially forever if they dont rust away.
There was also a complaint that the turbo/engine was only designed for 150,000 miles. You do know that is pretty standard across the board, right? As an example, the modular motors in the F-series were designed to that standard as well, and what general reputation do those motors have?
You realize that turbochargers can be a bit more sensitive than some of the other run of the mill parts, right? I hold a slightly higher standard, and while I love turbo stuff (own three turbo vehicles myself) in a fairly heavy use like this, IMO it doesnt cut it for longevity for me - time will tell. Might be a high standard, but I expect vehicles to last like MB diesels - essentially forever if they dont rust away.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
If it's like my wife's V6 Escape it's not that bad. You can get a wrench in there but have to hunt for them by feel.
In my 4 cyl engines they are right up top and visible. In my I6, two are tucked a bit more, but not like this.
That said, navigating the steering coupling to get to a few plugs on a suburban is tough, though not a hassle like the stupidity that is a transverse V6.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But my point with that picture is to show why v6 engines are so stupid in fwd cars. I'd hate to know the hassle of swapping those rear plugs...
If it's like my wife's V6 Escape it's not that bad. You can get a wrench in there but have to hunt for them by feel.
In my 4 cyl engines they are right up top and visible. In my I6, two are tucked a bit more, but not like this.
That said, navigating the steering coupling to get to a few plugs on a suburban is tough, though not a hassle like the stupidity that is a transverse V6.
I certainly do recognize the potential for issues with turbochargers. My point was that the durability target for said part that was pointed out as being unacceptable is quite honestly industry standard. No more, no less. Other engines built using this criteria have proven to be much longer lasting in many applications, and time will tell in this one as well.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: mpvue
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
How often does the average person use the third row? Id be more considerate of the average family where having one or heaven forbid two car seats renders the whole vehicle useless. Plus a stroller or two? Yikes.
But for that duty, the flex only gives 10 cu ft vs the CRV, which was kind of my point.
I wasn't worried about the average, I was concerned about MY needs. we are a family of 5 and often have extras tagging along. even when we don't have extras, have you ever traveled w/ 3 kids in ONE row?
I can't imagine how many times I would have to say "don't make me pull over!"
Originally Posted By: mpvue
btw, I appreciate your earlier comparison chart, but I'd leave out the CRV; it doesn't have a 3rd row does it?
How often does the average person use the third row? Id be more considerate of the average family where having one or heaven forbid two car seats renders the whole vehicle useless. Plus a stroller or two? Yikes.
But for that duty, the flex only gives 10 cu ft vs the CRV, which was kind of my point.
I wasn't worried about the average, I was concerned about MY needs. we are a family of 5 and often have extras tagging along. even when we don't have extras, have you ever traveled w/ 3 kids in ONE row?
I can't imagine how many times I would have to say "don't make me pull over!"
- Status