akirby

To really understand hp you have to first understand that hp is nothing more than a mathematical formula - it isn't measured at all. Torque is measured and a formula is applied to get hp. I think the formula is (torque x RPM)/5252. I can probably generate 150 lb/ft of torque with my arm but only at a few RPM and only for a minute or so. At 3 RPM that's way less than 1 hp. By contrast a car that produces 150 lb/ft at 5000 rpm produces 143 hp. That's why a mfr can get a hp increase without increasing torque by either moving the torque peak higher in the rpm band or simply raising the redline and allowing the engine to rev higher. Lots of torque at low rpm = more force to get the vehicle moving. Lots of torque at higher rpm = more power to reach higher speeds. If you can flatten the torque curve so you get lots of torque at low and higher rpm like the ecoboost engines you get the best of both worlds.

HP is a function of torque multiplied by RPM. ICEs produce max torque around 4K RPM and max HP is usually a bit higher than that. Electric motors produce max torque instantly regardless of RPM. The HP curve for the electric motor is very different and they don't just get added together. It's a math thing.

They're up because of 2 new vehicles they didn't have last year. But don't you agree that such a drop in CTS sales is troubling? If CTS buyers are simply moving to XTS and ATS then that's not good.

It doesn't say how much their fees are though - with X plan it's limited to $100. Theirs could be several hundred. I mean it's possible they're selling at dealer invoice but that's not typical.

That price includes rebates which I believe are $1K right now, so it's not better than X plan.

Explain why CTS dropped 40% and how that's a good thing for Cadillac.

Because a Titanium hybrid is exactly like a Camry, Sonata or Altima hybrid. Check the options comparison. And none of those get 47 mpg either.

Not sure - I'd have to find them and see. They may have the Lincoln logo etched into them. That was 13 years ago!

Either one is fine - just drop ONE!

I was only referring to the current Taurus, not a new Taurus. Given that the new Fusion offers similar interior space and better fuel economy I think the current Taurus' appeal will be limited until the new one arrives. I wasn't implying that a new Taurus wasn't needed. Thank you Captain Obvious.

The CSR and cyberdman both get their info directly from the Ford system. If your dealer says otherwise then your dealer is mistaken, either on purpose or by accident. Unless the vins got mixed up somehow.

Maybe because it's called Owner to Owner, not Owner to Ford?

The adaptive part (swiveling for turns) is not new, just the LED bulbs.

have they published a specific list of every known bug in MFT? Of course not and they never will. But Ford has said repeatedly there were problems and they've tried to fix them. Some more successfully than others. But they certainly have admitted there were problems.

There appear to be a fair number of bad APIMs out there which are still not working right even after the latest software upgrade. By that I mean freezing, frequent rebooting - serious issues. Hard to say how many but I've heard of several on here and on the ford edge forum. So it's more than one or two. The problem is getting the dealer to recognize it's a bad APIM - they just write it off to the software too easily. The current MFT code was so thoroughly screwed up by Bsquare that it appears to be impossible to fix - based on the current list of bugs still present after many months of effort to fix them. I think there were too many bugs to begin with and the code is to the point now where they can't fix one thing without breaking 2 others. At a certain point you have to throw it away and start over and that's where I think Ford is right now. The good news is the new version should be backwards compatible (at least for the current MFT features) so yes, it can be fixed with software. I just don't have any faith that the current code can be fixed by either Bsquare or Microsoft in a timely fashion. Fortunately the majority of owners seem to have a stable system with only minor issues at this point.

How about the more powerful Fusion 2.0L ecoboost with more torque and much better fuel economy? Taurus 3.5L 288 hp/ 254 lb/ft 17/25 Fusion 2.0L EB 240 hp/ 270 lb/ft 22/33 Like I said, unless you want the SHO or just prefer the Taurus styling I think the Fusion wins out. Unless you just have to have a V6 regardless of performance.

http://www.autoobser...ford-touch.html http://www.ceoutlook.com/2011/02/16/ford-doles-out-75-for-each-myford-touch/ $75 per vehicle is more than enough to hire a MFT/sync specialist. If you're not seeing it and they didn't hire anybody then the dealer is pocketing the $75.

I don't think there is a "lighting sequence" - the headlamp bulbs are just LED instead of HID or Halogen.

If you remove Crown Vic and Ranger and add back in the lost Fusion sales due to supply it would have been a 8% - 10% increase in overall sales. That's not bad. Flex, Taurus and Expedition were down though. I wonder if the new Fusion will hurt Taurus sales. I can't see much reason to buy a Taurus other than the SHO compared to the Fusion right now.

Somewhere. Probably buried in the china cabinet.

Could be bad gas - try another tank from a different station if the CEL light doesn't come on. The other likely culprit is the throttle body.

I'm all for dropping the Buick name here but it is big in China. They could keep it if they eliminated the product overlap. The Buick sedans are really nice but then you don't need cheaper Chevy Impalas and Malibus at the same time. Just offer base versions of the Buicks like Ford is doing with the Fusion and Taurus and Edge. And yes - give the rest of that money to Cadillac.

IIRC - the offer was to allow the debt ceiling to be raised but with a guarantee of a balanced budget within 2 years or so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Bingo - it's above the license plate. The 2013 MKZ owner's guide is now posted at motorcraftservice.com.

If I was the insurance company I would seriously consider non-payment for willful negligence if that's part of the policy - unless there was some circumstance that prevented them from being driven or transported inland away from the flooding. Hurricanes are one of the few natural disasters where we have weeks of warning. I could understand the taxis because they were in use up to the last minute.