old_fairmont_wagon

Well, one thing to consider is that the LWB Wagon is considerably larger and heavier than the previous generation's standard US wheelbase version. The 2.0L/AT4 combo in the old one was definitely a little lacking, and the power to weight ratio of the new one with the LWB and seating is not much better. At least the 1.6L EB engine would give a better torque curve than the 2.5L NA engine. I'm thinking that the 1.6L EB/6AT with the Fiesta's overboost function would have been perfect. Overboost would have given you that torque you needed to get going, then by the time you were up to speed and let off the gas to cruise, it would come out of OB and be ready to do it again at the next light. All the power you need when you need it, and smaller when you don't.

Like I said, advantages that weren't obvious to me. I took a closer look at the packages and what they offered. I didn't think that the wagon was available in XL trim, but apparently it is. Given the use that I want to put this vehicle to (hauling kids and gear back and forth to school, stowing the seats and using it to haul technical equipment or make Home Depot runs, etc.) the XL may be the setup I really need. Its pricing is a bit more approachable as well. It seems a shame that the 1.6L EB isn't available in what amounts to the heaviest retail trim of the vehicle, even though it's got more power and torque than the 2.5L I4. I'm certainly glad to see that at least one of the rear seats is adjustable forwards/backwards.

I was under the impression that efforts on an EB V8 were pretty much over with. While Ford has a supercharged 5.0L coyote available from Australia, I don't know if it's worth federalizing for that small of a sales volume.

I'm starting to see that. I compared it only to the Honda Odyssey LX and, for the money, The Odyssey is a much better deal retail. The MSRPs are within 5% of each other, and the LX has a lot more to offer. I can only imagine that it has some advantages in fleets that don't seem obvious to me.

Well, I've been looking around at some used Mazda5 minivans in my area in an effort to upgrade the used Corolla I purchased last year when my old Caravan SWB died. In doing so, I found myself on my local Ford dealer's lot. They had just recently taken delivery on a couple of 2014 Transic Connects, including a pair of XLT Wagons. Well, being in that market, and since it seemed to be a slow day, I asked a sleepy looking salesman if he would indulge me... My first impression of the vehicle on walking up to it is how tall it is. It was easily as tall as most of the full sized minivans I've been in. It's not quite as wide, though. Looking through the back windows, there's about as much rear storage as there was in my old Caravan with the rear seat in the middle position. As compared to the Mazda5, its considerably larger, but not big as compared to any of the full sized minivans. The rear seat looked wide enough for two adults to sit in, but there was almost no leg room for the rear seat at all. It didn't appear that there was even enough space between the front of the third row seat cushion and the back of the second row to place my hand between them if it was held to place my pinky against the cushion and my thumb against the seat back of the 2nd row. I later confirmed this when I got inside. The salesman didn't know if the rear seat adjusted fore and aft, but, I didn't see an obvious mechanism on either row. I didn't really take a whole lot of time crawling over the whole vehicle as I promised the salesman that I wouldn't take up a lot of his time. The second row was nice and wide and could fit two adults and a child without any major problem. Leg room was decent and the seat, while somewhat firm, felt comfortable enough for short to medium trips. As that is just fine with its intended use, I have no complaints there. It wasn't as "plush" as the full size minivans, but, again, this type of vehicle has a different intended usage pattern and that doesn't matter as much. The drivers seat was not spacious, and my large frame felt a little confined in it. It wasn't so bad as to be uncomfortable, and the seat and wheel were adjustable enough for me to find a good driving position. I'm not a good judge of beauty or design, but it seemed that everything was in a decent enough location, and nothing took too long of a reach. I'd need to learn where everything is, but, it's not disagreeable. As compared to my Corolla, I had more head room, slightly less room in the shoulders, but otherwise, it was similar. It was narrower feeling them my Caravan, and the foot well felt tighter, but controls were closer at hand. At this point, the salesman asked if I wanted to take a quick spin around the block. I jumped at the chance. This model had the 2.5L I4 with the 6AT. As compared to a 2.5L equipped Mazda5 and my 1.8L equipped Corolla, this van felt decidedly more sluggish. Mid range on the engine felt better than stop light acceleration, but, still didn't compare to the 5 or notoriously slow corolla. I don't want to imagine what it would feel like with my 400lbs of kids and their 100 odd pounds of school books, lunches, etc instead of the skinny salesman. The van absolutely needs some more off the line torque. The 2.0L EB would be MUCH preferable I think. The suspension was relatively tight, which I suspect is the stiffer, beefier settings for carrying a load coming into play. It was reasonably nimble for its size and felt like it had a lower center of gravity than my old Caravan. I didn't do any interstate driving with it, so, I don't know how it cruises. Visibility was good for a vehicle that size, though not perfect. Parallel parking it back in its space wasn't difficult. At this moment, comparing the price of a new Mazda5 touring against the Ford Transit Connect Wagon XLT, The Mazda is thousands of dollars cheaper, and looks to get better gas mileage. The advantage of the Transit Connect is that it can fit all 7 of us (the Mazda only has six seating positions), the TCW has a little space behind the rear seat for groceries, a cooler for a day trip, etc, the Mazda has hardly any. Given the flat terrain around here, the power/weight difference doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but, I do know that I'll have quite a load in both vehicles each time we use them. Since this is going to be our second van, and would only ever have all 7 of us if the other one was in the shop, I'm leaning heavily to getting a Mazda5 instead. For me to change my mind, the TCW would have to be at least $2000 cheaper. At that point, the prices would be a wash, and the equipment levels would be relatively close between the two (navigation means nothing to me), so there would be a small difference in running fuel costs. While I was considering reaching for the TCW, its just not worth it to me in my situation. Instead, I think I'll save my money and go to Hertz and buy a used Mazda5 for around 15K, even though I was willing to spend 22K on a new TCW. I just can't see spending 25K on it, especially since, for that money, I can buy a full sized Dodge Caravan crew. I'm not laying into Ford for its decisions here as my circumstances are particular to my situation, but, if I were to offer advice, I'd suggest that the base engine in the TCW be the 2.0L EB and they more closely examine their pricing against their competition. I don't know where their break even point is, but $25K seems too precious for what the TCW XLT is.

I'd be shocked if its anything other then the 3.5L EB.

In my humble opinion, where Ford missed the most on the CMax is that they picked the wrong one. They really should have gone with the Grand C-Max as the base platform for the vehicle. Please hear me out: 1)The reason that most people that own minivans over SUVs are practicality and function over form. Most have at least a more than occasional need to carry more than 4-5 people. Most are looking for better operating costs than SUVs (not just fuel economy, tire costs are higher for SUVs, which is a big deal when you drive a lot). Not every minivan owner needs a van that's larger inside than the full sized vans of the 70s and 80s. 2)It would still be "different" as the only other vehicle similar to it in execution would be the slow selling Mazda5. 3)Its still small enough for the standard hybrid power pack to be viable as its sole powerplant. I also believe that one of the key factors to the declining CMax sales is the almost complete lack of advertising. Aside from a random magazine ad, I just don't see Ford keeping the product in front of people. In an ideal world, It would seem to me that a Grand C-Max hybrid, powered by a 1.5/1.6L EB based hybrid powerplant with PIH option, would have done much better than the current package and also brought a higher ATP as well. That way, you're doing one better than the PriusV as it can't boast a third row. As compared to every other three row vehicle out there, it would be much more efficient than any other one out there. Now, Ford has the chance to do it the right way with the Transit Connect Wagon minivan. It could be offered two ways, one with only the 1.5/1.6L EB, and another with the hybrid powerplant. There's so much untapped potential in that market. I can't even count the number of times I've heard other parents complaining that their giant minivan doesn't get that much better fuel economy than the SUV they chose it over. Many of them wish there was a hybrid minivan on the market. The customers are ready and waiting, someone just needs to build a product for them.

Wait, what happened to the Captiva? I see those things ALL OVER THE PLACE, and they aren't all rentals like they were originally billed as. How many tiny little SUVs does GM need?

HeeeeEEEEEeeeeeyyyyyyyy... (recently bought a used 2011 Corolla)

I think with the GT in the 430-440 hp range, you'd have to have at least more than 10% more power in something like the gt-350. That's about 475-480 hp minimum. On pump gas, do you think that the 5.0 l v8 van be civil, reliable, economical, or even get to that power in mass production trim? I'm not sold on that idea. The 5.8l v8, in N/A trim, could get away with some less exotic parts to come down in price some. I don't believe that it could avoid being very thirsty though. It is very believable that it could make 500hp+ in production trim though, won't require reinventing the wheel, and is light enough for the platform. The 6.2l boss is just too heavy in its current form, and would just drink gas like its going out of style. Where does that leave us with respect to N/A engines? If you allow for forced induction, then you have the coyote in blown and turboed versions that could get you up to 600hp with the right parts. That would allow ford to retire the 5.8l v8 and be closer to their goal of eliminating all the old mod motors.

While I completely agree that the duty cycles of a mod 5.8l v8 in the gt500 and a derived 7.3l v-10 would be substantially different, I would imagine that the much reduced cylinder pressures on the v-10 as compared to the blown v-8 would lend a lot to improving its durrability. It would also allow the v-10 to use less exotic pistons, less exotic cylinder lining technology and perhaps have some other cost improvements. From a regular maintenance perspective, both the boss 6.2l and the v-10 use similar amounts of oil, have the same number of filters and hoses, and both only have one oil filter. The v-10, since it has only one plug per cylinder, actually has fewer plugs that the dual plug boss, to the tune of 6 less. So, except for major overhauls, i'd imagine that the v-10 is cheaper to maintain. I can't imagine that a dual plug boss derived v-10 would make anyone very happy. 20 plugs? Really? The radials on the b-17 didn't have that many plugs! (One row, 9 cylinders, dual plugs) None of these are very good solutions. Ford needs a bespoke architecture medium duty gasoline and gaseous engine if it wants to be serious in this market. Basic characteristics should be 7.0-8.2 liters base displacement range, one plug, dohc, dual vvt, cgi block for durability and weight reasons. The design should be flexibile enoigh to handle reverse flow heads for a turbocharged version, staight flow heads for n/a and supercharged gaseous versions, and should be also capable of marine duty. Can some mod delete the above duplicate post, I accidentally hit send while editing out typos...

While I completely agree that the duty cycles of a mod 5.8l v8 in the gt500 and a derived 7.3l v-10 would be substantially different, I would imagine that the much reduced cylinder pressures on the v-10 as compared to the blown v-8 would lend a lot to improving its durrability. It would also allow the v-10 to use less exotic pistons, less exotic cylinder lining technology and perhaps have some other cost improvements. From a regular maintenance perspective, both the boss 6.2l and the v-10 use similar amounts of oil, have the same number of filters and hoses, and both only have one oil filter. The v-10, since it has only one plug per cylinder, actually has fewer plugs that the dual plug boss, to the tune of 6 less. So, except for major overhauls, i'd imagine that the v-10 is cheaper to maintain. I can't imagine that a dual plug boss derived v-10 would make anyone very happy. 20 plugs? Really? The radials on the b-17 didn't have that many plugs! (One row, 9 cylinders, dual plugs) None of these are very good solutions. Ford needs a bespoke architecture medium duty gasoline and gaseous engine if it wants to be serious in this market. Basic characteristics should be 7.0-8.2 liters base displacement range, one plug, dohc, dual vvt, cgi block for durability and weight reasons. The design should be flexibile enoigh to handle reverse flow heads for a turbocharged version, staight flow heada for n/a and superchargex gaseous versions

Why reinvent the wheel? Ford has the blueprint already for a better 6.8L V-10 from the modifications that they made to the 5.4L V8 for the Mustang Shelby GT-500 (DOHC, bored out to 5.8L). The same design principles applied to the 6.8L V-10 would give you a 7.3L V-10 with DOHC. The engine could then be given variable cam timing on the intake cam and run the balance shaft off of the exhaust cam. I have to believe that just doing that would give you decent improvements in performance. Assuming that these numbers from Wikipedia are true... 2012 Ford F-650 & Ford F-750, 3-valve SOHC, 362 hp (270 kW) and 457 lb·ft (620 N·m) It would make sense that the improved engine would be capable of at least 10% more performance, resulting in approximately 400 hp and 500lbs of torque. It don't believe that such an improvement is out of the question as this was supposed to be a modular engine architecture, and such modifications to an (admitedly low volume) production V8 from the line should translate to the V-10. It would retain largely the same tooling that it currently uses, most of the dressing to the engine, and be more cost effective than further development of the 6.2L albatross that Ford came up with. Also, the increase in displacement will also be very valuable when its used for CNG/LNG applications as, from what little I know, they are down on power as compared to the gasoline version of the existing V-10.

I believe that what everyone is saying is that: The emissions regs for gasoline and diesel engines are identical for each CERT tier. The regs, as they currently stand, are easier for gasoline engines to meet each tier than for a comparable diesel engine. Because its easier for a gasoline engine to meet each tier, as they are currently worded, the regs must favor gasoline engines. And, to the point that the manufacturers are completely ignoring the issue of particulate emissions from GDI engines, note that many are moving to integrated exhaust headers that transfer heat better from the engine block to the catalytic converter, and that hold the CAT closer to the engine in general. The faster the converter lights off, the lower the average emissions from each engine is. Given that, for over 90% of each cycle of operation for each gasoline engine, they are in a phase of combustion that is naturally lower in particulate emissions; why do you want to saddle the end buyer with yet another piece of emissions gear that will need servicing and add cost, and yet will spend the vast majority of its time doing nothing useful?

seconded!

I believe that since Toyota doesn't currently have a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup in the market to threaten the sales of with an uprated Tundra, that this may indeed be their objective. A 5.0L Diesel that gives appropriate modern power and economy numbers in a Tundra HD (ala the late 90s F-150HD) with some beefed up components to justify a higher tow and payload rating might just make some decent sales for them. Given the massive gains in capability that the light duty and 2500/3500 trucks have made over the last two decades, there's plenty of room for Toyota to play with the market. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect that this will put a major dent in anyone's HD sales numbers, but, as it will be incremental volume for the Tundra and lead to better plant utilization for Toyota, its all sorts of win for them if they can justify the price premium to cover the improved parts and make their targeted sales volumes. Toyota isn't completely stupid. A 5.0L V8 diesel is NOT a fuel economy engine in a half ton pickup. That's a power engine, pure and simple. Toyota doesn't currently make a high volume gasoline engine that's larger than their 5.6L V8 that's already in the Tundra. Its nearing the end of the road for its power/longevity/economy levels as compared to Ford's 6.2L/3.5L EB, GM's latest small blocks and Dodge's Hemi V8s. When you're pushing power levels that high, buyers will naturally consider diesel as an option.

Perhaps an answer to the "Supercharged!" question a couple of posts back... Ford Power Products offers 6.8L's modified for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) generator usage, large hybrid gas/electric buses and a supercharged version for hydrogen-powered buses. Information can be found at www.fordracingparts.com

This is just a stupid question, so please don't flame me too badly... If the V-10 6.8L is based off of a truly modular architecture, could it reasonably be expanded to be a V-12? If evverything remained the same with respect to volumetric efficiency, and they only made adjustments related to balancing issues, the engine would be a 7.75 L V-12 making about 545 ft/lb of torque and 430 HP or so. That's retaining the 3V heads and making no further efficiency enhancements to the engine. Since it will be a V-12 at that point, they can spend some development money working on other aspects like the inherent better balance characteristics of a V-12 allowing the removal of the balance shaft and that allowing them to use 4V heads like the Coyote has with TiVCT. And, yes, I realize that the engine would be VERY long and tough to fit in a regular superduty engine bay. I was thinking that medium duty engine bays might be a bit bigger...

I don't recall about the offset pins, but I do know that it uses a balance shaft that's driven off of one of the cam shafts. That's the entire reason that, though it does now have 3V heads, it doesn't have any VCT. The instant you would try to phase the cam, the balance shaft would go out of sync and, well, there'd be a whole lot of shaking going on. As for displacement increases for the 6.8L V-10, any kind of factory boring would require very expensive cylinder liners or the same treatment process that the 5.0L gets. Not good for industrial grade usage. I believe that there is enough displacement there, but that Ford should take another stab at new heads for it. I suggest a DOHC, 4 valve head with variable intake cams and non-variable exhaust cams (Still need to drive the balance shaft). I believe that, combined with maybe a switch in the block to CGI to save some weight, and you could have something that's untouchable by the competition. As for the 6.2L V8, from what we've gotten from OldWizard and others over time, its capable of factory displacement numbers up to 7.0L, 4V heads, and can potentially have GDI. On a test bench some place, Ford has one at 7.0L with twin turbos producing other-worldly power numbers. The problem with big power increases for the Hurricane, is that it isn't reliable at those power numbers. All of this has been hashed about on this very forum several times.

I currently own a 2011 Corolla LE that I purchased from Enterprise coming off rental duties. I was in a bind when the Caravan's climate control system completely collapsed in a most impressive way and would have cost me a gigantic amount of money to fix, and coupled with the fact that Enterprise was running a trade in bonus special and the fact that I have a family member that works at Enterprise that could get a discount for me, meant that I got the Corolla for a song. My impression of the Corolla is that it is a remarkable bit of automotive appliance manufactureing. There is absolutely nothing complicated about operating the 2011, and from what I've seen of the 2012-13 that got a modified center stack due to the new radio/information/control system, its not at all complex either. This is a car that is absolutely designed for someone that needs to get from point A to point B without any fuss whatsoever. It's plenty roomy inside for me to drive (and I'm no small man in height or weight) and also allows me to pick up my four oldest kids from school and seat them reasonably comfortably. Its not a corner carver, it doesn't sprint off the line at stoplights. It definitely does allow me to make three hour drives across the state at 75 mph and still get 35 mpg or so. Its got a big trunk and fold down back seats and can carry a surprisingly large amount of stuff. Its biggest failing right now is that awful tansmission. That 4 speed is the most confused, desperately cost cutting lump of metal I've ever had the displeasure of operating. It may be rock solid reliable, but it couldn't find the correct gear for a situation in under a second if it's very existence depended on it. It is just as lost as the one in the 2006 Corolla that I had right after Katrina flooded my hand-me-down accord. The CVT will absolutely be a welcome improvement. The optional engine will also be a hot item. The current Corolla is starting to lag behind the competition in the mpg department, and in that segment, that's a big deal. You have to understand that segment. Except for just a few cars in it, the compact car segment is NOT aspirational. Compact luxury? Yes. Compact sporty (MAzda3, Imprezza WRX), yes. Compact commuter? No! These are almost all universally appliances. Some are better than others. Some lag the pack. The Corolla excels in being inexpensive, having a comfy ride, being roomy inside, and being VERY reliable. An excellent commuter vehicle for someone that doesn't really care about the experience and just wants their car to get them there. They are continuing to address its biggest flaws agains the general market (and not in the enthusiasts' eyes) and this is another step in that direction.

Wow, RJ's not in the greatest of moods today, is he?

How soon we all forget, that "entry level, mass market. volume vehicle" was exactly the role that Mercury was supposed to fill. It was to give the Lincoln dealers enough volume to make ends meet while they moved the occassional Lincoln to big margins. What I don't think people get today is that, in much of the global car market, there is WAY TOO MUCH competition for ANY segment to have huge margins unless you just happen to have a car that becomes a pop culture hit for a few years. In every segment, you've got at least three established players that all have volume vehicles with well established audiences that you're going to have to fight against if you want to take share in. This is true at the bottom of the market in the 10K to 15K USD range and it's true in the 100K to 200K USD ultra-luxury range. Lincoln needs to find a space in the market that they can effectively make decent volume and margin in. Entry luxury and mid tier mainstream luxury is very saturated with vehicles from all over the place. Its going to be a very rough ride trying to claw and grasp for share there. Because of that, Lincoln dealers are going to have volume issues for a long time to come. I know that Ford was having profitability issues when it offed Mercury, but I still think that FoMoCo could use a brand that has a near luxury/higher performance feel to them that can also play in the entry luxury market without canibalizing its top end like Lincoln would. Its just my opinion, but that's what I see it taking for things to get better for Lincoln and her dealers. Either that, or a Mercury that was marketed as advanced vehicular design that could be the poster child for hybrids and efficient near luxury. Something, anything to add volume, and allow Lincoln to move further up market.

Hugh, I had even forgotten about the Volvo purchase. The idea wasn't about competing with ford's domestic production. Its arguable that a Volvo/J/LR buyer already isn't a Ford buyer and thus, do not represent much of an opportunity cost. What does represent a real cost is assembling premium, but low margin vehicles overseas at the wrong end of an unfavorable exchange rate, and then factor in the cost of shipping, and floor planning at two seperate dealerships. If ford could have done combined Volvo/J/LR dealerships in the US, built those low margin cars in the US, and then sold them in the volume that they could have reasonably achieved, they would have built up a much larger family of owners and created regular traffic in those joint showrooms for the upper levle products of each brand. I believe that selling those brands when they did was essential to Ford surviving in the form that it exists today. The mistakes were made many, many years earlier and doomed the purchases to failure as business ventures. And who doesn't believe that a slightly stretched, AWD C-1 platform X-type wouldn't have been better than the poorly disguised Mondeo that it was in reality? It could have been built in the same plant state side as the S40 and a C1 derived small SUV for Land rover.

IMHO, Ford's biggest mistake was half assing the purchase and investment in J/LR in the first place. J/LR lacks something that most of the Luxury brands have, competent lower end volume products. Mercedes has the C series here, and domestically, the A and B series as well. BMW has the 1 and 3 series. Audi has the A3 and A4. Lexus the IS250 and ES350. Jaguar had the abysmal X-type and the under whelming bottom end S-type. Add to that fact that production of those units was restricted to some of the most expensive to operate factories in the world, and you hada complete recipe for disaster. Ford should have immediately found an underused plant, shuttered it and retooled it for J/LR production, then initiated domestic production of a compact Jaguar, and entry level Land rover, and perhaps a volume mid-size Jaguar. They lost their money selling that stuff in the US both on the high production costs in the UK and the currency transactions against the UK Pound. The biggest argument that I hear against that plan was that people wouldn't stomach purchasing a Jaguar or LR produced like that. I point at the BMW and Mercedes plants in the US and then encourage you to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by luxury buyers that those vehicles aren't made in Germany. What, you don't hear it? What, those vehicles are among their respective manufacturers most popular? Just making sure. 99% of the world doesn't know or really care where the vehicle they are looking at on a lot was made. They want it to look like it's supposed to, drive like a luxury vehicle, and not break down without breaking the bank on the drive off the lot. In choosing to keep production in the UK, they doomed the lower end, higher volume vehicles to never make money.

Though MS SQL does have a free edition, it does have designed in limitations. For simple to moderately complicated and sized websites, this isn't a big deal. For complex and large websites, it can be. MySQL has no such limitations, save for being hamstrung by having to live under Oracle now. Though, since that project was forked over to MariaDB, you can enjoy all of the MySQL capabilities, with new improvements, and a much easier to deal with license environment. In my experience as an IT admin, there exist three classifications of databases. There are the small and simple ones. These can run on almost anything you want to run them on, from a simple old Sybase server, to MySQL, to the simpler versions of Ms SQL server. Then there are the mid sized databases. These can run in the tens to hundreds of GB in size, have actual performance requirements and constraints, and be mission critical. They require actual dedicated hardware (or VMs on a good foundation with solid storage systems), DB design planning, and regular maintenance. These seem to be best implemented in MS SQL's larger editions, but can be successfully deployed by solid admins with MySQL/MariaDB or on smaller Oracle installations. Oracle usually winds up being overkill here, but some use it because of the name, or because the solution provider is an Oracle partner. Then there are the huge DB installations, multiple terrabytes on up, with 24/7 access and tight performance tolerances. Though MS SQL has some products in this range, from everyone I've talked to, its not ideal. This is where Oracle shines. Its worth every penny in that environment. From what I've seen, the product that you like the most tends to depend on where you're coming from. As for SAP, well nobody with any sanity really likes them. But they can sure charm the pants off of management and promise that SAP will save them millions (even when their current overhead costs are nowhere near that), create customers from thin air, make all their buildings shinier and their stock options fatter, and anticipate problems before they happen. SAP, of course, can be made to do anything. Want a report on how many grains of coffee that your multinational corporation uses in all of it's break rooms, broken down by the hour and type of coffee? It'll do that for you. Just submit this change request form and one of our top notch SAP report developers will have that ready for you in about 4 to 6 weeks. That'll be $130,000. I've supported MS products for well over a decade. As long as you're in a pure MS environment, they tend to behave and function as designed. The instant you start introducing third party products, especially antivirus scanners and multi-media applications, it all goes downhill in a hurry. I have to say, though, that Windows 7 and Office 2010 are the best things that they've put together for the office PC in ages. Outlook, for all of its stability issues, is extremely powerful when connected to an Exchange server on the back end. I've yet to see any other product out there that can really rival it for the integration of its many functions. Lotus Notes is good when you've got a competent developer that can maintain the server and all the groups and folders constantly, but, its got many more issues than Outlook/Exchange. Oh, an Mullaly = good.