Back in April 2007 I heralded the 2009 Ford Flex as a sign of life at Ford. By applying cues from the cult-inspiring styling of the Scion xB and MINI Cooper to a much larger three-row vehicle, I predicted that Ford had the magic formula for people seeking a people mover with style.

Well, the 2009 Ford Flex arrived at dealer lots last July, and has tended to stay there. Sales in August were barely better than those of the “dead vehicle rolling” Taurus X (the forgettably styled vehicle on which the Flex is based).

As noted in a comparison test between the Ford Flex and Chevrolet Traverse that I recently wrote for The Truth About Cars, the Flex has many strong points, most notably a lot of room, a smooth ride, and extremely comfortable seats.

So, why the dismal sales? Well, it seems that the gamble Ford took with the exterior styling has failed. Based on comments on that review and elsewhere, some people really like the styling. But more do not. Not necessarily fatal–except that those who like it tend to be men, while this type of vehicle is usually driven by women. And women tend to be in the “hate it” group.

I’ve experienced this in my own family. I’ve long liked the Freestyle, and figured that the Flex might be a good future vehicle for my wife. She doesn’t care for cars that look like everything else, and currently drives a PT Cruiser for this reason. But the first time I pointed out a Ford Flex on the road, she hated it, saying it looked like “a big wagon thing.” And her opinion hasn’t changed in the months since, nor is it likely to.

My wife’s comment points to a second problem with the Flex: it’s larger than most people want a vehicle to be lately, and its rectilinear styling and relatively low roof make it look even longer than it is. The cost is probably prohibitive, but otherwise Ford should consider slicing a few inches out of the wheelbase and rear overhang.

Has anyone else noticed a similar pattern, where men like the Flex and women do not? Any women out there who like it?