Ford: Mustang Shelby Gt500 Coupe 2-door on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Daily Driver: 2015 Ford Flex

The Ford Flex has been around. It's not T-Rex or even Model T old, but still; it's been hauling people and stuff since 2008 without a major redesign. That's quite a long time in the car world. Sales have been sliding the last couple of years, and the Flex is now considered a niche player in the crossover-centric US auto market. But that doesn't mean it's still not a pretty good vehicle for its purpose: If you need to haul people and stuff, there are few better choices. Some even think it's a guilty pleasure. I spent a winter afternoon tooling around suburban Detroit in a handsomely equipped Flex Limited. We're talking the 3.5-liter EcoBoosted V6 with 365 horsepower and all-wheel drive. Inside, there were big comfy seats, lots of leather, acres of storage space and even a built-in refrigerator. The drive ended up being surprisingly fun. If there's such a thing as a hot-rod minivan, this is it. I also got noticed. The Flex's boxy design has aged well. It's still polarizing, but there aren't many contemporary vehicles that look like a Flex. So if you've ever seen a Flex on the road, and thought: "Man, that thing is big. I wonder what it's like to drive that?" Now's your chance to find out.

Autoblog Podcast #327

New York Auto Show, Jim Farley interview, 2014 Chevrolet Silverado fuel economy, Ford fuel economy app challenge
Episode #327 of the Autoblog Podcast is here, and this week, Dan Roth, Zach Bowman and Jeff Ross talk about this year's New York Auto Show, Chevrolet's latest assault in the pickup truck fuel economy battle, and Ford's reward for developing a better fuel economy app. Dan also has an interview with Ford's Jim Farley about the future of Lincoln. We wrap with your questions and emails, and for those of you who hung with us live on our UStream channel, thanks for taking the time. Keep reading for our Q&A module for you to scroll through and follow along, too. Thanks for listening!
Autoblog Podcast #327:

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.