akirby

Don't understimate the cost savings from global platforms. I firmly believe that's what drove Ford to accelerate the Fusion, Escape and Focus launches to the point that they encountered a lot of launch problems. My guess is every month they spent with both platforms was costing them six figures or more. That type of potential cost savings can sometimes be worth some short term pain.

Exactly. Flash cutting 2 plants at the same time and risking a full shutdown of all F series production is not only risky but unnecessary.

FTFY

I know what IMHO means but you can't use it to justify a factually incorrect statement. For example, I can say "The Earth is flat, IMHO." That is a factually incorrect statement and not an opinion. Instead of saying "Ford's don't have enough style or flare" just say "I don't care for Ford's styling" and leave it at that. It's all semantics but semantics are important.

I think it was just beefed up for the extra torque, not a new design.

Nothing wrong with the sentence you quoted. That's your personal preference. But then you say this ^^^ it implies that most Fords aren't appealing in general and that's where you go astray. Maybe you just don't type the words you're thinking and you really meant that they don't have the style that you like or want. But I'm a very literal person so I take what you type literally and what you typed is wrong as evidenced by sales.

Yep, I'll give them that one.

Knowing TTAC they're probably comparing it to a 20 year old Ford product.

Last time I checked Ford was supplying engines to those Euro makes with the high end R&D labs (Range Rover, Aston Martin). Other than aluminum construction, what did any of the PAG brands contribute?

Also, in the report I linked to they cite the Ford hybrids as being the most "egregious" and then later cite the Prius as being among the best. If you look at the actual CR test data, on the city test cycle one or two of the Prius models scored FAR worse than the Ford hybrids, but you won't see that in any CR article or press release.

Implication is their testing represents "real world" when in fact no single test can represent "real world" because "real world" has different meanings for different drivers and vehicles. e.g. their highway test is a steady state 65 mph and that's where a lot of the hybrids came up short in their testing vs. EPA. A steady state highway speed is not "real world" for anyone regardless of the speed. And the results for a Ford hybrid would be very different for folks driving at 65 vs. 60. Our results prove there is a problem with the EPA testing and they agree with us that it should be changed. Implication - without our testing this wouldn't happen. Our testing is better than any other testing so you should use our test results to choose your next vehicle. I don't understand why you keep defending them. Their arrogance is clear.

Hypocrisy is dinging one mfr for a feature they don't like (touch screens specifically) then praising another vehicle and calling it perfect when it's even worse in the same regard. Motorweek notes their test mileage in their reviews but they don't tout it as being "more real world" and they don't make big press releases touting their findings as gospel. For example: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/hybrids-small-turbos-often-fall-short-of-epa-mileage-estimates/index.htm It's not the data or even the test procedures per se - it's how they use the data and how they present the data and their attitude that their data is better than anyone else's data while refusing to disclose their methods.

Pre-production prototype fellas. Let's wait for the production version before passing judgement.

Criticism of automotive "journalism" has nothing to do with being a Ford fan. Hypocrisy, inconsistency and poor writing is easy to point out. We only notice the ones that affect Ford negatively the most, otherwise most of us wouldn't be reading the articles. If you remember correctly CR gave the Escape the highest rating and we called them out on it for inconsistency, so it's not just when Ford products do badly. CR wants people to take their city mpg tests as being the most "realistic" and that's what a lot of people believe. But without any data on speed, idle time, accleration rates, adjustments for temp, etc. it's impossible for me to decide whether that type of driving represents the way I drive or not. At least the EPA gives you incredible detail and their tests are tightly controlled so you know exactly what they're testing and how.

The problem is you're confusing your personal preferences for styling and features with what other people like. Just because it's not your style doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands of other buyers who feel just the opposite. It's ok to say that you don't like it but don't imply that all buyers would feel that way. I seem to remember disdain by several people here for the new Escape styling saying it was going to alienate current Escape owners. Turns out there are far more buyers who want the new style than the old style.

Let's go for the trifecta - a manual diesel wagon. Those will sell like hotcakes.

Looks like leather. Doesn't look cheap to me.

Lack of advertising......

There is no such thing as bad bacon. Only varying degrees of goodness.

For me it's 77 78-79 73-76 05-07 08+

Ranger and Crown Vic are WAY down though. Not sure how much longer they'll last.......

I was just about to say most break before they start peeling. You don't even have to pull off the entire door panel to replace it - just the top portion.

It's an option under Display->Gauge Display - Fuel gauge or Fuel gauge + tach

From the press release: Ford-designed and -engineered 6R140 TorqShift® six-speed transmission uses a new torque converter to manage increased horsepower and torque