Damn that Flex is sexy!
Click above for new high-res pics of the Ford Flex
The Ford Flex has that boxy design that people either love or hate, which is good because for many years the Blue Oval had too many designs that nobody cared about either way. After looking at some drop-dead sexy picks that FoMoCo added to its flickr account, there could be a few converts from the abhorrence camp. The Flex is without question a family hauler, but most seven-passenger CUVs look less than stellar out on the town. If the Flex can look this good in daylight and in the dealer showroom, Ford shouldn't have any trouble attaining its goal of 100,000 sales annually. Click on the photo above for more high resolution pics of the decked-out Flex out on the town. Thanks for the tip, Sam!
Gallery: 2009 Ford Flex
[Source: Flickr]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
_Jon 8:08AM (4/17/2008)
I was behind one on Campus* last week and I was impressed with it. What I found most surprising was how big it is. Nearly as big as an Explorer. I hate the boxy designs of Scion, so I'm not thrilled with the basic shape. But it looked good.
(*Campus is the interior area in Dearborn that holds many of Ford's engineering buildings. It has a series of private roads that are used to get around. It is a lot like a college campus, but with cars.)
Reply
epilonious 8:09AM (4/17/2008)
I just saw "flex" and "sexy" in the same headline without any sort of negative between the two.
I don't think it's a sexy car, in the same way that the Jaguar E-type or a maserati is a sexy car.
It's a stylish car, but it's kind of the "we found a way to make a box look good and we managed to avoid beating it with the element/xB/minivan stick"
Reply
Dave 1:14PM (4/17/2008)
I have a lot of Ford stock so I have confidence that they will get their act together and be competitive once again, at least I hope so.
As far as sexy for this vehicle I would have to put it in the Jeep, Hummer, and Aztec catagory. It looks to be a functional vehicle but good looking it is not. The price for a loaded one at $40,000 doesn't sound to attractive either. Do the Ford marketing people really think that pushing the word sexy will help convince people that it is good looking?
Ligor 9:07AM (4/17/2008)
i second that
nothing sexy about a box
you guys have got to be kidding putting sexy and Flex in the same article, no more in the same sentence
Duders 10:14AM (4/17/2008)
I don't get the hype. It's a volvo 200 series wagon. Why are they slapping the title "CUV" on it? It looks to be raised a little but that does mean it will be any better offroading? I doubt.
SGV 10:32AM (4/17/2008)
I think you are confused Duder CUVs are not offroaders, those are the SUVs. The Flex is the quintessential CUV, it is raised enough as much as an Edge, it is car based and has loads of space.
Maybe the only thing that separates it from the CUV crowd could be its amazingly good looks.
Adam 11:26AM (4/17/2008)
Officially Official: Ford is paying AutoBlog for headlines.
;)
Ironman 8:11AM (4/17/2008)
That is one beautiful car!
Reply
Red 8:11AM (4/17/2008)
If the Ford Edge pics were taken like that I'd think it was sexy too. But the Ford Edge is definitely the sexier of the two.
Reply
Vittorio 8:17AM (4/17/2008)
Bring it to Europe! With a 3 litres diesel engine it could be a great success... we got soccer moms too...
Reply
T.O_Guy 8:27AM (4/17/2008)
Wow, the tables have turned, haven't they... :D
adelossa 4:06AM (4/18/2008)
Bring the Transit over here, then we'll talk. ;)
Martman 3:32PM (4/17/2008)
Hey what about soccer dads!! I have coached little league for 5 years, you could get a lot of gear in that thing. The diesel efficency would be nice here in Western Canada our gas is now 5.50 per gallon. But we will not see it here because we are tied to the US market.
Hatchy 8:23AM (4/17/2008)
Bout as sexy as a UPS truck.
Reply
Aprime 8:23AM (4/17/2008)
No it's not!
... Meh, it will probably become some sort of failed icon car though.
Reply
PauloBecker 8:26AM (4/17/2008)
I really like it. But I wonder what's the Cd on that thing.
Reply
nardvark 8:32AM (4/17/2008)
I doubt it's any worse than most SUV's (or CUV's, for that matter). It may even be a bit better, since it's lower to the ground.
It's long and straight once you get past the initial barn door, and it's head-on profile isn't that unusual.
PauloBecker 8:51AM (4/17/2008)
Yeah, you're probably right. It was mostly the hard-edged windshield and the cut-off rear that gave me that impression, but then again, it can't possibly be worse than most SUVs.
C.W. 8:28AM (4/17/2008)
i am seeing them around the detroit area a lot now too. at first i didnt really like it, but the more i see it, the more i like it. certain color combos are actually pretty hot. not to mention this vehicle will be completely customizeable. eco-boost next year. like you said, you either love it or hate it. and that's exactly what car designers shoot for, polarizing designs that unmistakeable.
good job ford.
Reply
Pips 8:30AM (4/17/2008)
is the main different between a cuv and a minivan is that minivan is slightly taller and with sliding doors? gee....i am confuse, what a mind job.
Reply