akirby

And 2 years old. Things change. If Ford wanted Lincoln to win magazine comparisons and critical acclaim then they'd pour billions into new platforms like Caddy. But that's not likely to be very profitable. Ford wants to sell Lincolns for additional profit so their conservative approach makes sense.

The EPA rating is the only number Ford can advertise as it's the only sufficiently controlled and reproducible test done on all vehicles. Ford's only choice is to not even mention the mpg number (which they have already started to do). The ads are not misleading because they're ony reporting the results that Ford is REQUIRED by LAW to post on the window sticker. I just don't see where they have any other choice. The EPA needs to change the test so the new small turbos and new hybrids perform closer to the average real world mpg for most consumers.

It seems like every post of yours complains about something and calls Ford or someone else an idiot because something doesn't work the way you think it should work. I only argue with things that I think are incorrect or unfair.

Say what? They've simply been releasing vehicles as soon as they're ready (or sooner in some cases ). Some have been released in January, February, Spring, Summer, even late Fall. And they've been doing that for several years - this is nothing new.

If you can't see out of the windshield, pull over and stop. It's not a safety issue.

The problem is there is no universal definition for city or highway or overall driving. One person's commute is 3 miles of stop-n-go driving in Minnesota in the winter time with winter blend E-10 fuel and someone else's is a 30 mile commute with very few stop signs in 90 degree heat and summer blend 100% gasoline. TOTALLY different driving and totally different mpg results. Just the way a person drives can yield a 3-4 mpg difference as has been proven over and over by married couples. The fact that the EPA mandates ONE number to be published for city and another for highway is the main culprit. I'd like to see a range along with each current figure that represents a worst case scenario - winter blend E-10 with lots of stop-n-go on short trips e.g. - and a best case scenario. Of course the worst case scenario is going to be absolutely terrible and not useful for anything except setting expectations with consumers. So maybe something like this: EPA estimated city fuel economy 22 MPG on average Expected Range based on individual conditions: 15 - 25 mpg.

The only way that would work is if it had a built-in 3G or 4G/LTE modem which would be silly because you'd be stuck with it for the life of the vehicle and stuck with one carrier/transport. This way you can use any modem that your or anyone else already owns and you don't need a separate device or data plan. So go ahead and tell us why the person who decided that is an idiot.

Now I get it. Anyone who doesn't do what YOU think they should do is an idiot, right?

I firmly believe (based on 25+ years of software development and project management) that Ford knew darn well that they were pushing the envelope trying to get these products out the door as fast as possible (Focus, Escape, Fusion/MKZ specifically) to get the cost savings from global platforms and to take advantage of market growth in those segments. I'm sure they didn't expect the problems to be as severe or last as long as they did but I think it was a calculated risk. And if you look at the sales figures so far it would seem that it was a good business decision. Once people who had order delays actually get their vehicles and those with issues get them fixed all will be forgotten. If this is the case (and I believe it was) then I expect future launches to be slower, more prepared and better executed especially knowing what failed them previously.

If you're talking about connecting the car to wi-fi that was intended to be used with the built-in web browser that hasn't arrived yet so it's pretty much worthless until they add a feature that can use it. You can also set up a wi-fi hotspot in the car using a usb broadband cellular modem so all devices in the car can use that one connection. But that's a different feature.

I know someone that will file that one away for a future MFT equipped vehicle......... If anyone runs across one for UGA let me know....

Ok, so the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether the MKC styling is good enough to stand out and get people to notice it and actually want to buy one. I say it absolutely does that (based on the concept) and apparently you two disagree. Whatever.

The only thing amiss is your understanding of the situation. We've explained this ad infinitum but I'll give it one more shot. Ford's hybrids are more sensitive to weather and driving conditions because of their ability to use battery power up to 62 mph. When the other mfrs extend their technology to do the same they will have the exact same problems with the EPA tests. The same goes for ecoboost engines - there is a fine line between great fuel economy and not so great and it's easier to stay under that line on the EPA test and harder in the real world. The EPA tests are really there for CAFE compliance reasons and not to actually predict a person's fuel economy. 5 mpg is only 10% and Ford engines typically show a 10% increase in mpg after 5K miles. The difference is it's usually only 2 mpg in a non hybrid. Go look up the Prius' performance on CR's city test. It was much worse then the C-Max or Fusion hybrid. Ford knows their EPA tests are solid and repeatable. It's time for the EPA to either adjust the reported window sticker numbers (which aren't the actual EPA test results BTW - they're adjusted with a formula) or go back to putting a range on there like they used to. Personally I'd like to see them switch to E-10 winter blend fuel for their testing and standardize the battery charge level on hybrids AND put a range on the window sticker instead of one big number.

There are no mileage "claims". There are only EPA test results. They start with a broken in vehicle (5K miles at least) with a fully charged battery, 70 degrees and 100% gasoline (no ethanol). How "real world" is that?

Or it's just one person overreacting to a simple name and making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It's the wheel weight plus the wider contact patch plus the non-LRR tire plus aerodynamics. I've heard it can reduce fuel economy by 2-3 mpg. I lost 2 mpg just by changing tires on my non hybrid 06 Fusion.

That was directed at lfeg, not you.

Or it could just be.....you know........a name that sounds good. Where is it written that something called "blah blah Company" has to be a totally separate business?

Tires, weight and fuel economy mainly.

I had them on a 2003 Aviator, then went back to halogen and never missed them.

Don't expect a big "end of model year" sale - it just doesn't work like that any more. They just don't have big inventories of older models that they have to get rid of especially when there won't be any major changes between the 13's and 14's. You might get an extra $1K if you're lucky and you're able to find a leftover.

The MB E-class is at the top of the sales heap in its market. Does it have radical styling? The Caddy SRX is also a top seller - is it radical? What about the Lexus RX? Radical? What you THINK sells cars is a far cry from what actually sells cars.

I didn't pay attention to fuel use - sorry!

It does apply the brakes to slow down the vehicle if necessary but I don't think it actually brings it to a full stop. Just gives you a visual and audible warning and starts slowing down. Works pretty well on all Fusions.

Got passed on the freeway in California by a few Priuses in the Fiat 500. It was very humbling.