Review: 2009 Ford Flex, a useful family car that pretends to be a styling statement
Ford’s new Flex crossover was supposed to be a revolution for the company. Sales of its Ford Explorer, once the best-selling SUV in the country, have collapsed, and its first seven-passenger crossover (the Freestyle, now called the Taurus X) has never seen strong sales.
The Flex hasn’t, either.
It’s not because the Flex isn’t as good of a family car as competing midsize car-based SUVs, such as the more popular Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, or General Motors’s four crossovers.
The Flex is very smooth-riding and very quiet cruising on the highway, it holds seven in more comfort than many competitors, and has more space behind the third-row seat than most SUVs.
.jpg)
Perhaps it’s the look. The long, low box shape was intended to make it stand out from the crowd of the midsize family-hauler class, but comments circulating have suggested it just looks too much like a station wagon. That is not, of course, an acceptable term in automotive marketing. Essentially, the Flex shares its proportions with a decade-old Chevrolet Suburban, just one a slightly smaller scale. The slab sides do it no favors in its efforts to look modern and stylish.
Perhaps it’s the marketing. Advertising for the Flex has touted the Flex’s styling as the basis for its appeal, leaving those who don’t love the vehicle’s look with no reason to pay it any attention. Had the ads suggested that the boxy shape was for utility purposes, a la Honda Element, they could have done well to bring in interested families, especially considering the name that implies usefulness. (Never mind that the Flex’s total cargo capacity is actually low for a vehicle of its size; this is marketing we’re talking about here.)
Perhaps it’s the price. The base SE model reviewed here ran a sticker price of close to $30,000. Honda or Toyota have the reputation to sell expensive family cars; Ford does not. With its focus on refinement, the company seemed to be trying to position the Flex upscale of more utilitarian competitors.
But whatever the reason, people aren’t looking at the Flex. And they should. It’s not cheaper than the Honda, Toyota, or GM competition, but it’s better.
The Honda Pilot suffers from cheap interior trim and excessive noise. The Highlander lacks a comfortable third-row seat. The Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Saturn Outlook aren’t as quiet and don’t have comfortable second-row seating (the seats are too low to the floor).
The Flex, meanwhile, is all-around competent. The closest thing to a glaring flaw is less total cargo space than the others once you’ve folded down all the seats, but room is still abundant. But much of the others’ cargo advantage seems to come if you load the car up to the ceiling, a practice which is not typically conducive to optimizing rearward visibility anyway.
But with its very comfortable front and rear seats, and a relatively comfortable third-row seat, the Flex is a useful family car. Its smooth and quiet ride, capable acceleration and handling, and good-for-what-it-is gas mileage round out the package nicely. The “what’s that?” slow-selling Flex slots into the upper echelon of three-row SUVs, and is in many ways better than the established class leaders.

However, while it’s one of the best midsize crossovers, it would still be a bit of a stretch to call the Flex the best vehicle in its class. The Hyundai Veracruz adds more power and luxury at a lower price, and Ford’s own Taurus X offers most of the Flex’s strengths, plus a bit more cargo space, for less money. And for anyone who can handle the image, a minivan offers far more space than any SUV, while costing less and driving more pleasantly than most.
Add the Flex to your 7-passenger shopping list along with those vehicles.
Vehicle tested: 2009 Ford Flex SE
Vehicle base price: $28,295
Vehicle price as tested: $29,820
Photos by Brady Holt