Jump to content

akirby

Moderator
  • Posts

    43,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1,433

Everything posted by akirby

  1. akirby

    WIERD!!

    To be fair, that's not really how it works. The EPA sets the procedure but the automakers do the bulk of the testing themselves with EPA just doing audits. The EPA only actually tests 10% to 15% of the vehicles. But Ford has been doing this a long time and they know the EPA test probably better than the EPA and they know the penalties (both internally and externally) if they're caught fudging.
  2. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Anything you can think of to help the car on the EPA test will also help it in normal everyday driving. In Hyundai's case they were using the wrong test procedure, not changing the vehicle. Hybrids will get worse fuel economy in the winter due to winter blend fuel, ethanol and running the heater. If you have optional tires that could also lower your mpg.
  3. The biggest issue I see for Ford is that they allow optional wheels and tires that are almost guaranteed to lower fuel economy compared to the standard LRR tires but there is no mention of that anywhere. So even if everything is above board a buyer may be giving themselves a 2-4 mpg penalty by choosing an appearance package without any knowledge that they're hurting their fuel mileage. I realize this is just a side effect of how the EPA tests are performed and reported, but I think Ford owes the customer some type of warning that their fuel mileage could be affected. Throw in ethanol fuel (the EPA does not use E-10) plus other winter blends and running the heater in winter and it's easy to see how a hybrid mpg could drop drastically in a real world test compared to the EPA tests. Had the Fusion hybrid debuted in the summer time without optional wheels I think this would have been a different story. And if the EPA retests and there is a problem then I'll be the first to admonish Ford. But I'm not there yet.
  4. Based on what? Sales volume? What about profits? Then it's a good thing they're not doing it "on the cheap". If they were just doing rebadges using the same doors and same drivetrains and interiors then yes, that would be a recipe for failure. They're not. Just because they don't have dedicated RWD platforms doesn't make them cheap. The ES and RX use the same exact formula and they are wildly successful.
  5. I was referring to the new sheetmetal for the 2010 Taurus. The MKS came out with unique sheetmetal first, then the "new" Taurus came out after that with its own unique sheet metal.
  6. I just read that to say they didn't think it was the same problem as the U.S. and therefore a recall was not required. There were 7 fires so obviously there is some problem somewhere unless they're saying all 7 fires were the result of human error by the driver/owner.
  7. They didn't say they "didn't find anything wrong with the engine". They said they didn't need a recall.
  8. The previous Fusion was more fuel efficient, more reliable and had the same resale value as Camry and Accord.
  9. I hope this decision was concurred with by U.S. engineers and isn't a European CYA. Mulally won't put up with that for a second especially with lives on the line.
  10. I agree with MKZ especially if you're only keeping it for 2 years. It's the newest and coolest right now. If you really need the cargo capacity go with the MkX again. The Explorer would probably be too big.
  11. It should also be noted that EPA testing is not performed on optional tires if they're less than 50% of sales. The optional 18 inch wheels may cost you 3-4 mpg if the tires are stickier.
  12. You can't prove anything here unless you run the EPA test under the EPA rules with some sample vehicles. And I'm tired of hearing Ford or any other mfr be gigged for "advertising" the results of the EPA mileage test. Ford is required by law to post those numbers on the window sticker. Given that it would be stupid for Ford to advertise some other number. If you don't like the EPA tests then complain to the EPA. If you don't believe the EPA test results then have the EPA run their own controlled tests.
  13. GM and Ford had much higher market share in 2007 yet they were losing BILLIONS. Now they're MAKING billions despite lower market share. You still don't understand this profit thing, do you?
  14. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/51891-owners-report-fords-latest-hybrids-dont-live-up-to-47-mpg-claims/
  15. New only for the U.S. market. Applications 150 PS (110 kW; 148 hp) 2010— Ford C-MAX 2010— Ford Focus 2010— Volvo S60 2010— Volvo V60 2012- Volvo V40 160 PS (118 kW; 158 hp) 2011— Ford Mondeo 2011— Ford S-Max 180 PS (132 kW; 178 hp) 2010— Ford C-MAX 2013— Ford Fusion 2010— Volvo S60 2010— Volvo V60 2011— Volvo V70 2011— Volvo S80 2012- Volvo V40 2013— Ford Escape
  16. Definitely the best bang for the buck and a good compromise IMO. I have the Image towers and center channel, dual 500 watt subs (bought from internet "scratch and dent" sale) and the dipole surrounds. I used to have some small Alpha 1s for rear surround but I moved those upstairs to the family room and don't miss them. I just replaced my old non-hdmi Denon receiver with a new AVR-2113CI receiver and it sounds fantastic.
  17. Let me guess - you have those little ceramic things to hole the speaker wire off the carpet so it doesn't develop any static electricity?
  18. You don't have to spend big bucks. A $300 Denon receiver and $1200 in PSB speakers will sound so much better.
  19. It is possible that you have a dragging brake or something like that. But there is so much variability based on how it's driven that it's really hard to tell. Many people report a 4 mpg difference on the same vehicle between them and their spouse just based on different driving styles. One thing you could do is borrow another similar vehicle and drive them back to back on the same route at the same speed and compare the computer mpg. If there was a problem with your vehicle it should show up there.
  20. Now I see what you meant. You should have said "No one ELSE on here alluded to the 21 weeks of retooling". The problem is it's NOT 21 weeks of retooling. It's one week of retooling at each of 3 plants over a 21 week period. That is a TOTALLY different statement.
×
×
  • Create New...