bravestar
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by bravestar
-
-
It looks to me like the same old styling theme with the front fascia. It would be great to have a fresh idea instead of different variations of the same old. Nothing interesting. They nailed the Bronco and Bronco Sport. It doesn’t have to be rugged, maybe just a more unique look for an all new vehicle.
-
3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
Most reviews I've seen for BS describe the 1.5 as just, fine. I've never seen anyone glowing about it but I've also never seen anyone ripping it to shreds.It is not the engine. It is the noise it makes and it is worse when the weather and engine is cold. A little sound deadening would go a long way.
-
1
-
-
The three-cylinder engine is fine, it is the lack of noise isolation, budget interior, and bland styling affecting Escape sales. Hopefully a refresh is coming soon to address this.
-
2
-
-
What is it you like about the new Escape over your Edge? The Edge has more comfortable seats, quieter interior, better ride, more luxurious interior. I do believe the 1.5L 3 cylinder engine is far more responsive and has better fuel economy than the 2.0 Edge engine that surges on light acceleration. It has a too aggressive throttle tip in. 3.5 V-6 was a smoother engine with similar fuel economy.
-
1
-
-
The exterior looks like one of the vehicles in the Cars movie, the interior looks cheap and there is very little sound deadening in my opinion. Who would think that this would be a recipe for success? The Bronco Sport with its more traditional SUV styling is really the new Escape. The one they are marketing looks like a tall six year old Focus, again in my opinion and it appears the market agrees.
-
1
-
-
We all know this isn’t a Mustang. If it means the death of the pony cars, so be it. Let the name die with dignity instead of attaching it to something that does not resemble anything like a Mustang other than the taillights and front end.
-
3
-
-
I hope the new screens are dark instead of the light background like on the new Explorer.
-
Latest iPhone update fixed this issue.
-
1
-
-
My iPhone has the same issue after the latest phone update. It is coming from Apple not Ford.
-
It could be a bad PATS key.
-
I thought the same thing!
Yes. At least, the video I saw on the rear hatche mentioned it could be opened with the fob too.
Great! I am pleasantly suprised!
-
Does anyone know if the rear hatch can be opened by the remote fob? I am not sure that I want to be kicking around under the vehicle with my arms full and ice on the ground.
-
This RAV4 copy will probably have the horrific MyFord touch as well as reduced sight lines and abandon everything that has made the Escape a success.
-
2
-
-
Flex...too expensive and baboon ass ugly.
Maybe that is why dealers do not stock them, no demand...except for California Dean. Rebates are within $500 of each other, last time I checked.
-
I think the glass will come up separate from the liftgate, like the 02 Explorer with a little painted trim filler at the bottom of the glass panel.
My gosh, can't spell today...at all
-
Likely be the EB 2.0.
What if Mustang had to morph into an FT-86 like car in the future. Smaller, lighter, low cowl, no V-8?
OR
God forbid, transverse engine mount AWD?
Then you just lost me as a buyer and probably anyone else that values a Mustang for what it represents.
-
Over 155,000 miles on our current 2002 Explorer and I am trying to hold out for the next generation.
-
Knowing Ford, the vehicle will be renamed for US shores.
Want to know what the name will be?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Free-MAX
LOL, I couldn't resist.
I thought it might be Super Free Max!
-
Nice feature, I am glad they added it. After driving a Five Hundred with it I missed it on other Ford vehicles.
-
ARRRRRRG!...everyone need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask a perfectly legit question...when the 3.5 eco gets put into a REAR wheel drive platform that can handle SUBSTAMNTIALLY mor ehorsepower than the FWD SHO...WHY, oh WHY would they feel inclined to dial it DOWN ( it has seen close to 500 on the bench but dialed down to the 365 so as not to obliterate FWD transmissions ) thats an INSULT to the Mustang mentality....IMO it will be 400 plus and in a limited edition..........
Dean, I know that you are excited about this setup, but I think that it will not meet its sales goals for such a package. This is only me, I think that Mustangs are V-8 performance and v-6 or 4cyl more economical models. The Mustang does not have a great history of high performance packages other than V-8's. Betcha a Coca-Cola Classic on it.
-
That's the part that bothers me most. It's a complete switch from the consistency. Didn't Mullaly insist on bringing back the Taurus name to be consistent? Now they go from S-H-O, which was always pronounced the same as SE, SEL, or any other acronym trim they have used on the Taurus over the years to calling one lone trim level "Show"?
It just doesn't make any sense. (And it sounds stupid :P )Is it Tore us or is it Tar us? I have heard both.
-
Remember the SVO? Mustang owner here...not a wannabe. And besides that, how many BMW owners are going to be cross shopping a Mustang anything? Not the traditional Mustang buyer, they are the v-6 group and the V-8 performance clan. I am all for choice, as I said in the past, but do not replace the V-8 with a boat motor sounding v-6.
Here's the take from someone that was one of less than 9900 original purchasers of the SVO:
If the EB V6 gets about the same HP as the V8, and doesn't get a lot better mileage (SVOs were about 15-20% better), then - even if the price is the same - there won't be any EB V6 sales to speak of. Go take a look at all the comments about the mule mentioned in the C&D blog. People are either adamant that it's a coyote (even though the single exhaust is pretty telling), or are dissing it completely.
An EB V6 Mustang will need to slot between the base and GT models for both price and performance if they want to get any sales.
I was offered a great deal on a 84 SVO when I ordered my 84 1/2 GT Mustang. I was waiting for the mid model year v-8 horsepower increase that never materialized until the 85 model year. I loved the looks of the SVO especially the seats but could not justify less for more. Later the SVO was intercooled but still...more money for a car that was not a v-8 did not seem, to me, what a Mustang performance car is.
If I had the opportunity to afford a Shelby Cobra GT500 (what a mouthful) I would rather have a 7.0 Boss engine with the same or maybe even less power than a blown 5.4. Just seems like that you aren't playing fair with a power adder from the factory.
-
I seriously doubt GM will be laughing at Ford. I mean, have you seen the torque curve of the 3.5 EB in the SHO? Even with the lower max torque rating than the 5.4, I'm sure that engine would keep up with the 5.4 (and maybe walk away from it) given the torque curve (and I think the 5.4 is a great engine). Don't even bring up the 5.3 in the Chevies. Now, once that engine is no longer limited by the FWD tranny, look out! I drool just thinking about how that thing would tow my travel trailer.
If the 3.5 EB and the 4.4 diesel were both available in an F150 now, and I was looking for a new F150, it would be a hard choice. I would love to have a diesel, but the expected cost premium (if it were available) would be tough to swallow over the 3.5 EB with a similar (if not better) torque curve. I'm sure the 4.4 would be better on fuel while towing, and maybe slightly better empty, but with 90% of my driving being empty and small trips, I think I'd probably go 3.5 EB (and I've been a big proponent of the 4.4 diesel for the F150 all along!). In the F150, I don't look for a big premium to step up to the 3.5 EB. I'm thinking $795 MSRP over the 5.4.
Maybe I need to explain my position better. I have no doubt that the EB 3.5 will be one of the best engines available in any vehicle. My concern is the cost of such a powerplant to Ford against others with simple design engines. I also agree about the delayed diesel. I cannot understand why that engine would not be feasible in the Super Duty and, geared differently for the F-150. Must be a great cost issue there as well.
-
ask yourself...how many RWD platforms does Ford have?
and I ask you, since your soo into the Flex. What is the price premium for the ecoboost Flex and how do you think that would fit into the Mustang demographics? Only as a premium in my estimation and the same thing is true with the F-150. GM will laugh its ass off at Ford for an expensive ecoboosted v-6 verses there LS engine Silverado. Unless Ford has at least a 2 or 3 mile per gallon better fuel economy. I would think that Ford would be concerned about their cost in this setup especially with cost conscious buyer such as fleets.
2022 Nissan Frontier
in Competing Products
Posted
Very much so! With F-Series doors.