akirby

I guess Ford should also be creating seats that cater to droopy pants and seats that fully recline for that "cool" driving position and trunks that are prewired for 24" subwoofers and wheel wells that will hold 30" wheels?

They already do. 19" H spoke titanium.

From the owner's manual: (www.motorcraftservice.com -> owner guides) Saving a Passive Setting The vehicle stores the seating and mirror positions for up to three remote controls or passive keys. Next time the vehicle is unlocked, the position of the seat and mirrors will adjust to the last used position. Each time you turn the ignition off, the current seat and mirror settings are stored on the remote control or passive key used. Passive Recall Note: If more than one passive key is in range, the memory function will move to the settings of the first key stored. When you unlock the vehicle with the remote control or pull the driver door handle with a passive key in range, the seat and mirrors will move to the position stored on that remote control or passive key.

I misunderstood your original response. I do agree the CTS is keeping GM buyers in the fold who might have gone elsewhere and yes, that's important. And given the other GM sedan options from Chevy and Buick I would agree that the CTS is by far the best option. But that's an entirely different context than "high performance vehicles" taking market share from the Germans which was the original issue.

But most of those are still older buyers, not younger buyers.

You're assuming they bought the body style rather than the drivetrain. I could easily see both scenarios.

But the Corvette and Camaro SS do exist so those are options if you just want a high performance vehicle and not necessarily a "luxury" high performance vehicle. If someone is dead set on a luxury sedan then yes, they'd have to go elsewhere if the CTS-V didn't exist. I'm just not sure how many buyers are in that category vs. I want a really fast GM vehicle.

I was just wondering whether the V line was bringing in a lot of new GM buyers or not and that's where the conquest rates came in. If it has a high conquest rate then yes, it's bringing in a lot of new GM buyers. Otherwise it's just taking sales from other GM vehicles. And yes - I can see someone who would otherwise buy a CTS-V buying a Corvette or a Camaro SS instead if it wasn't available. If they're really a diehard gm loyalist then getting a BMW M3 probably isn't an option.

I think a good number of CTS-V buyers would have bought a Corvette or STS or Camaro (or Escalade). I'm sure there are some new buyers as well. I'm guessing it's 70/30 but I don't know if it's 70% conquests or 70% GM owners. BTW - you're assuming a CTS-V buyer wants high performance first and just happened to choose a Cadillac. I'm thinking a lot of buyers are looking for a GM vehicle and they get the CTS-V because that's the best GM vehicle available. Just like a lot of us do with Ford.

Manufacturers publish conquest rates all the time - that's not anecdotal. It's based on actual sales and trade-ins. He sounds like a GM loyalist who would have bought another GM product if the CTS wasn't available.

That's anecdotal though. I'm looking for actual conquest rates. I'm sure there are a few buyers from other brands but a lot of the folks I see driving a CTS-V *appear* to be traditional Caddy or Buick buyers. I could be wrong although I doubt that they're stealing any MB or BMW customers.

Did they? Or did they just attract GM buyers who would have bought another GM product? Are there conquest numbers available for the V variants?

Cue the wagon mafia.........

I've been changing my own oil for 25 years including current 06, 08 and 12 vehicles and I have yet to even come close to stripping threads on the oil plug. Maybe if you used an impact wrench......

Agreed.

That might have helped a little but not nearly enough. The business case was wrong from the beginning as far as volumes and potential markets. Had it been able to use the mod 4.6L V8 it would have helped a lot more. That Jag V8 was super sweet but also super expensive and power limited in N/A form.

Fusion ST - I'm betting we'll see it within 18 months.

You cannot get a fully loaded Fusion with the 2.5L engine. It's only available in the S and Base SE model (203A). It's not available with the Luxury, Appearance or luxury driver assist packages on the SE. You might want to check the latest order guide in post 153.

Says who?

If you're talking about the fender mounted side mirrors - they didn't all have that feature.

I think Ford underestimated the complexity of mft hardware and software and totally mishandled their suppliers. We can only hope they're learning and won't repeat these mistakes.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out problems that you're having and you're not the one with the issue here. As others have pointed out there has to be bad APIMs out there that need to be replaced. One owner had their APIM replaced with no improvement, then had a 3rd APIM put in and that one resolved the problem. Keep complaining until you get stable hardware or a software upgrade that fixes the problem. Pulling a fuse is only a short term workaround.

Not definitively but Ford didn't offer a police package five hundred from the factory either. If you wanted a Taurus outfitted with light bars and push bars then it wouldn't make sense to take a regular Taurus (new) and convert it when you could just buy one already made. That was my point.

That's where it is on the current Focus. Not sure about the Escape but it wouldn't surprise me since it's Focus based.

Consider this: nobody here has ever told somebody that said they had MFT problems that their problems were not real. Nobody. EVER. We've never said there weren't bugs in MFT. There are. We've admitted this OVER and OVER. Nobody has claimed that MFT is bug free or that there weren't also some hardware problems. You got your panties in a wad because the "performance upgrade" didn't meet YOUR expectations of perfection so now anyone who doesn't agree with you is either lying or just being ignorant. Why do you believe that 71% of MFT owners would recommend the system to others if it was as bad as you say it is? Please explain that one.