lukemullen

Just bought a CPO '16 Edge SEL 2.0 AWD for my wife a couple weeks ago. So far it's been great. One thing I will mention regarding SYNC3, if you want Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and the specific car you're looking at hasn't been upgraded, the upgrade requires a new USB port along with the software update. The USB port is about $50 at the dealer and takes about 15 minutes to install, so not a big deal.

This issue of coolant leaking into the cylinder is a risk on the 1.6 engines too, right? I'm not finding any TSBs on the 1.6, but I'm assuming its a risk given how similar the engines are.

I know the FSA only specifically deals with the 1.5s, but have the 1.6 engines exhibited this failure as well? I've got a '14 with the 1.6 with 47k miles. No rough idle, smoke, or burnt coolant smell, but I did get a low coolant warning about two months ago (added coolant - no issues since), so I'm wondering if I should have it checked out.

It seems like there might be a future for Mercury. Ford has been marketing Mercury toward the urban set and to women, a couple of large, important consumer groups. The styling is progressing, Ford just needs to continue down the path and further differentiate Mercurys from Fords (Lincolns too), and bring in models more in line with its marketing. The current lineup is pretty good, but more models are needed, and I question the current Mountaineer as to how well it fits with the urban/women market. A crossover like the CX-7, CX-9, Taurus X, Edge, or Flex would work better for Mercury than the Mountaineer. Give Mercury a version of the Focus (next generation, don't bother with the current warmed-over Focus) because it will work with the urban buyers who want a small but upscale car, a midsize crossover like the CX-7, and put the Mountaineer badge on one of the larger crossovers like the CX-9 or Flex. I've also read on this board that the Taurus X will dissappear when the Flex comes out. Is this true? If it is, why did Ford bother changing the name of a vehicle that would be dead in a couple of years?

I'm not going to argue taste, but personally I like the styling. I am dissapointed they didn't update the interior though. It has been the bestselling full size van for the past upteen years, and it was the 3rd bestselling vehicle for Ford in February behind the F-Series and Focus, so obviously Ford has some understanding of the commercial market.

I've heard that's more what the next Ranger will be, rather than the global Ranger. A solid axle equipped reinforced Explorer chassis, probably available with the Explorer's 4.6L V8, and no 4-door version (wouldn't want to infringe on SportTrac sales). It sounds good to me, especially if they up the 2.3L to about 175 hp, drop the Vulcan 3.0 and the Cologne 4.0L, put the 3.5L as the volume engine, and add the 6-speed automatic. It would be a real coup if Ford was able to offer a torquey 4-cylinder diesel, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think bringing the Taurus name back is a good move, Five Hundred was a stupid name anyway. But Taurus X? What is that. If Ford is trying to sell the car as a crossover, giving it the name of a car makes no sense. There is a reason GM is killing off the Malibu MAXX.

I really don't understand why this is so insulting to you D3 owners. It's not like the car is going away, it's just being improved and renamed. It's a very good car that was hampered with a lack of power, dull styling, and a dumb name with zero marketability. We should be praising Ford for doing what is has not done in the past: fix the problems with a model instead of letting it die.

I think this is a good move, Five Hundred was a stupid name to begin with. It was too long and had no history behind it, other that it was a trim level on Galaxies and Fairlanes 40 years ago. It made as much sense as naming a car Ghia or Grabber. I understand the point that the Five Hundred was a larger, more upscale car than the Taurus, but the fact is, the Five Hundred has not sold that well, Taurus has better name recognition, and Ford needs to do something to attract attention to the updated 2008 model. Ford is just admitting dropping Taurus was a mistake, and is doing the only realistic thing to correct that mistake. Although it's just a name, it represents a very un-Ford move and is reflective of Mulally beginning to make some changes.

Although the numbers certainly are not good, I am an optimist for the future. Although Ford is lacking the homerun car that has saved it in the past, the overall lineup is pretty good. The Fusion/Milan are continuing to gain sales, although slowly. I think the Edge/MKX will end up being solid hits, and the Five Hundred/Montego and Freestyle are the best cars in Ford's lineup no one knows about. Individually, none of these cars will save Ford. None of them are the Model A, '49 Ford, '65 Mustang, or '86 Taurus, but Ford would do well to not follow that same pattern. It is better to have a solid lineup than one great car and nothing else. Yes, more needs to be done. The Focus, although receiving a noteable upgrade, desperately needs a complete redesign. The Ranger isn't even a viable competitor anymore, and something must be done about Mercury. I feel this lineup, with regular updates and redesigns, is putting Ford on the right track. Maybe I'm naiive, but I have faith in Mulally and Fields.

For years the auto press harped on the American sedan as relying too much on styling and not enough on substance. The '96 Taurus was a perfect example of function following form. Whether you hated it or not, it at least had styling, unlike the mid-90s Accords, Maximas, and Camrys. But the auto press concentrated on the lack of rear seat room and the sloping trunk lid that cut into cargo space. Fast forward to the release of the Five Hundred, a car that by any measure should be exactly the type of car a mainstream sedan should be. Safe, great room, made with quality materials, assembled well, reasonably good performance, a variety of features, and a superb value. But look what happened; the auto press concentrated on conservative styling instead of the goodness beneith the skin, and the car is going the way of the Taurus in the late 90s. There really does seem to be a strong bias in the press against American vehicles, and while it may not be the main reason for the stigma many people place on American vehicles, the press it at least exacerbating the situation.

Great car. It will be a great day when the Taurus is widely recognized as a remarkable achievement of American engineering and design and one of the finest automobiles ever, and not the boring rental car Ford let it become. I spent my youth riding in an '87 LX wagon and I learned how to drive in that car. The last day of production will be a sad day for me personally.

I have a 1997 Ranger XL 4x2 with the 4-cylinder and the manual transmission, and I've put on 140k miles since I got it new. I've had no repairs except for the clutch at about 110k miles, and the usual assortment of wear and tear items (brake pads, shoes, belts, hoses, etc). The truck has been bulletproof and has consistently delivered 30mpg on the highway and mid 20s around town. I've towed small trailers with it and exceeded the payload capacity more than a couple of times, and the truck was fine. If you're going to get the 4-cylinder, though, make sure it's the 2.3 DOHC, not the 2.5. The latter engine, while getting pretty good fuel economy, lacks power. The DOHC only has 135 hp, but that is much more than the 119 in the 2.5 and the engine is much smoother. If you're going to get the V6, forego the 3.0 (you may as well stick with the 4-cylinder) and go for the 4.0. It really comes down to what you're going to use the truck for. If towing and hauling heavy loads are going to be common, or you just like power, go with the 4.0 V6. If mileage matters, go with the 2.3 DOHC 4-cylinder.

I don't have a problem with the GT/CS or Stampede Mustang, but they also need to bring back the High Country Special.

No kidding, check this out http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ID=200660308002