In many cases, the first- and last-place finishers in a comparison test are so close that any one or two categories
could determine the order of finish. That being said, the Ford Freestar finished dead last and it had no hope of finishing higher. As soon as the testing began, it became apparent that the Freestar was lacking when compared to such rivals as Honda, Toyota, Nissan and even Kia.
The vehicle tested here is the top-of-the-line Freestar Limited, which already comes nicely equipped, but our tested vehicle had a few options as well. Let's start with what the Freestar does right. We like the fact that the Freestar offers four-wheel disc brakes with ABS, remote keyless entry and a tire pressure monitoring system even on the least expensive base model. More than one editor praised the Freestar's bulky good looks commenting that it looks more substantial and classier than the other entries.
The interior is also very attractive and is second only to the Toyota in terms of its luxurious appearance. However, start poking around and you can see that many trim pieces are flimsy. There are also many irregular and inconsistent gaps among the dash panels. Our test vehicle was a preproduction model so, just to be fair, we visited a Ford dealership where we found the same poor build quality inside two regular-production Freestars we inspected.
The Freestar feels nice and roomy inside thanks to its generous 120.8-inch wheelbase. In this test, only the Quest tops it at 124 inches. The Freestar also offers a very pleasant highway ride. Like the Kia, the Freestar feels heavy and cornering suffers as a result, but from behind the wheel, the Ford's girth gives it a substantial feel that almost translates into a luxurious ride almost.
Of all the vans tested (and even those we didn't test), the Freestar has the biggest engine. Also, Ford offers Freestar buyers a choice of two engines. Most minivans have a V6 that displaces around 3.5 liters. The Freestar starts with a slightly larger 3.9-liter V6 and buyers have the option of upgrading to a 4.2-liter engine. Somehow, all that displacement doesn't lead to more horsepower. The 4.2-liter version does offer a class-leading 263 lb-ft of torque, but its 201 hp number seems curiously low. The extra torque is appreciated around town but some of our editors found that the big V6 ran out of steam at higher rpm. The Freestar also came in second to last when it came to acceleration, coming out just ahead of the Kia. The Honda, Nissan and Toyota all earned times in the eight-second range while the Ford came in at about nine ticks. In the end, we felt like the power was just adequate similar to the Kia Sedona.
Other pluses on the Freestar include an upscale-looking two-tone paint treatment on the Limited version and excellent steering feel. Ford has also given the Freestar a 26-gallon fuel tank which should make for fewer stops at the gas pump, but the larger engine will likely mean that you won't go as far on a gallon of petrol as in the other vans. We averaged just under 18 mpg.
Although we found the Freestar to be adequately powered in most driving conditions, the refinement with which that power is delivered falls far below the competition. The engine feels rough and is too noisy. Kia, Nissan and Toyota all have smooth V6s the Freestar's felt crude and unrefined by comparison. Compare the Freestar to the superior Honda Odyssey and things really start to get ugly based on engine refinement alone, you'd think the Honda costs about $10,000 more. In actuality, our Odyssey EX with leather and a DVD entertainment system cost $6,000 less than the Freestar Limited. Add to this the fact that the Honda, Kia and Toyota all come with a five-speed automatic transmission as standard equipment and the deck is clearly stacked against the Ford.
Inside, the Freestar goes from bad to worse. As we mentioned, the Freestar's interior
looks nice, but the leather seats felt more like vinyl than leather. The seats simply lack the soft, comfortable feel we have come to expect from vans like the Sienna and Odyssey. Ford has also made a big deal about its new fold-flat third-row seating. True, that is a must-have feature in this segment, but Honda has had this feature for years. Being late is nothing to brag about. Toyota was late to the fold-flat third-row seat party as well, but it brought an improvement: The Sienna has a 60/40 fold-flat third-row seat.
And speaking of seats, the Freestar has second-row seats that (in theory) fold down, and then flip forward (as in the Sienna). It took three full-grown men no less than 45 minutes to figure out how to fold the seats down and then flip them forward. All three have been working in or around cars for most of their adult life, yet not one could figure out how to remove the seats. In fact, we even partially damaged one of the seats in an attempt to remove it. As it turns out, the seat must slide all the way back before it will then flip properly but there was no indication of this on the seat itself. To add insult to injury (no really, my back is hurting now), the Freestar's second-row seats are very heavy and cumbersome. Like a few other vans in this test, the Freestar does offer second-row seats that adjust forward and backward (like a typical front seat) but there is so little legroom that we can't imagine a circumstance in which any adult would want to, or be able to, move his seat forward. Even with kids in the second row, the front seat backs are so close to their little feet that they can't help but kick your seat back.
The bottom line is that we feel there is little reason to recommend this minivan. Of all the vans we tested, the Freestar was the most expensive (as tested) even though most of the test vehicles were comparably equipped. The Kia Sedona was the obvious exception, as we tested a rather spartan LX model. Our Freestar tester did not have a DVD entertainment system, navigation system, power rear liftgate, sunroof or premium stereo, but it still ran up the bill just under $36,000. In the end, the Freestar suffered a series of crushing blows, dealt mercilessly by, of all competitors, Kia. The Sedona offers better value, its engine is more refined, it has a standard five-speed automatic transmission and has a much longer warranty. What the Freestar does offer is plenty of standard features on the midlevel trims like the SE and SES. The optional three-row
Safety Canopy System is also a worthwhile feature and could make the Freestar more attractive in the long run. At the end of the day, you'd have to be getting a pretty killer deal to pick the Freestar over the four other vans in this test. Despite its few good qualities, the others are better in almost every way.
Second Opinions:Editor in Chief Karl Brauer says:Like the Toyota, the Freestar is supposed to be "all new" this year. Either it really isn't all new, or it is but Ford forgot how to design a minivan. To me it looks, rides and drives like a Windstar with a fold-flat third-row seat. It's missing key features, like the Kia, and it has substandard interior materials, like the Nissan. But it doesn't come at the Kia's price and it doesn't have the excellent driving dynamics of the Nissan. We somehow managed to break the second-row seat on the passenger side before we realized that the seat must be in a very specific fore/aft position before it will flip forward and rotate back without getting jammed. In 2001 Chrysler tried to claim it had redesigned its minivans when it really hadn't. Now Ford is doing the same thing. Can you say "penny-wise and pound-foolish"? Message to Ford: This is not how you protect your market share.
Road Test Editor John DiPietro says:In general, I'm one who pulls for the underdog. But I never thought the underdog in this comparo would be the priciest entrant. I didn't think the Freestar was awful (well, except for the frustrating-to-remove second-row seats), as I found the design inside and out was handsome. But c'mon, Ford, for $37 grand, there should be more substance under that sharp-looking sheet metal. Next to the refined V6 engines of its competitors, the Ford's motor felt and sounded antiquated. No wonder, considering its old-tech design. And although the steering felt solid, the handling was anything but, as the Freestar's body lean reminded me of an old Country Squire. Like my cohorts, I don't think Ford's refreshing of the Windstar should be touted (and named) as an all-new minivan. Good looks only go so far, especially in a segment where perhaps the least amount of importance is placed on that quality.
Add A Comment »