akirby

It's supposed to make money? Who knew?

Try to focus........I fully support push button start. I think it should be available on all vehicles (but not standard on all vehicles). What I DON'T agree with is automatically shutting it off when you leave the vehicle.

It does say you can lock the doors with the keypad OR another fob so I would assume the other fob could still unlock the doors.

The point of a key is to unlock the vehicle and unlock the steering and starter. I didn't say it was a safety issue as long as the vehicle keeps running when out of range. But you'd still need a way to stop and start the vehicle manually when the fob is in the car. You wouldn't want to automatically start the vehicle when the fob comes in range either - that would be unnecessary in some cases and could be dangerous if you're doing maintenance. Could it be done with proper safety protocols? Sure. Is it worth it? Nope.

Nobody knows exactly. If it's like other Ford vehicles they must build 5 days in a row without a single problem. Every time a problem is found the 5 day clock starts over. Could be a few days - could be a couple of weeks or longer.

Yeah, how did that happen?

The 2.5L is really just for fleets thus no manual.

Geez. I say X and you people hear Y. Of COURSE the driver is responsible for crashing into pedestrians. I didn't say anything about running into pedestrians. I said that a fender bender in a parking lot isn't a safety issue. The issue was whether a new vehicle with slightly less rear visibility is less safe. You can back up just as safely in a 2013 Taurus as a 2003 Taurus. If a driver hits someone in a 2013 Taurus then it's the driver's fault, not the vehicle. Therefore poor rear visibility is not a safety issue even though better rear visibility is a good thing. I can't help it. Semantics are everything.

Oh I'm totally in favor of IA and push button start. I just don't think it's necessary to have it shut off the vehicle when you go out of range.

Not sure but I assume they're all disabled

safe·ty/ˈsāftē/ Noun: The condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury: Says nothing about being protected from sheetmetal damage.

Shocking.......

Generally speaking to increase GVWR you increase the suspension load capacity and possibly the tires too. The difference between the GVWR and curb weight gives you the max payload. If you can decrease curb weight you can increase payload (keeping GVWR the same). You can always exceed the factory rating a little but you run the risk of adverse handling at least and if you do it too often or go too far over you could damage something.

Please provide a specific driving situation where the new Taurus would be less safe than the old one. You still have rear visibility. You still have side mirrors. Even in a high cube van you still have side mirrors. Same for semi trucks. You can see what you need to see. Backing into another car in a parking lot is not a safety issue. And if you can't see directly behind the vehicle in any vehicle then you don't back up until you check behind you first.

Yes - IA is disabled until you unlock the vehicle with the keypad.

So you think continuing to spend like a drunken sailor is the way to fix the mess he inherited? That's the problem with all the partisan shenanigans - every time one party does something the other party interprets it as an attack and starts deflecting. Even if the idea itself is good. What is good for the country gets lost in the battle. It's not about doing the right thing - it's about your party winning and the other party losing. If you take parties out of the picture then the solution of extending the debt ceiling now in exchange for the promise of a balanced budget within 2 years is perfectly reasonable. Unless you're a democrat and it's proposed by a republican. And yes - it works the other way too. If we don't stop all the rah rah college football my team is great and your team sucks partisanship - we're all going to be screwed.

Look at it this way - what good does it do to shut off the engine when the fob is out of range? The only advantage I see is that you don't have to turn off the vehicle when you get out. But what if the fob falls out of your pocket inside the vehicle? You get out and it stays unlocked and keeps running. That's not good. All of those potential problems just so the driver doesn't have to turn off the vehicle. Not a good tradeoff IMO.

I am not giving the Republicans a free pass on anything. They've been almost as bad as the Democrats. My point was that someone finally stood up and tried to put a stake in the ground and say that the overspending needs to stop here. It should have been done years before - no argument there. But to say that it was wrong is just partisan bias. They offered a compromise - extend the ceiling now but agree to balance the budget before it needs to be raised again. Democrats think government spending is good and more government spending is better - as long as somebody else is footing the bill. And they don't seem to understand basic financial tenets about revenue and debt and living within your means. Republicans understand it but can't bring themselves to make cuts that affect their home states or pet projects. If you agree we need to curtail spending and stop deficit spending then don't villify the people who tried to do exactly that. if you think we need to continue deficit spending then you need to have your head examined.

Just because YOU can't follow along doesn't make it idiotic. The fact that a new Taurus has a higher rear deck and/or a smaller rear window does not make it less safe. The reasons why you would want a backup camera apply equally to older cars and newer cars. I had to adjust to my Fusion due to the high rear deck. It was annoying at first but in no way was it less safe than my previous car.

If 2 officers have to fire 16 shots to take down one perpetrator from a few feet away and hit 3 bystanders directly and many more with shrapnel - they should not be carrying guns. It's that simple. And the original point was that the headline was implying that the perpetrator went on a shooting spree hitting numerous innocent people and that wasn't even close to the truth.

Why do you keep harping on backup cameras? I said that having more rear visibility is always better. But that doesn't mean that having slightly LESS is a SAFETY problem. I'm talking about the difference between a 2004 Taurus and a 2013 Taurus. The 2013 Taurus probably does have a little less rear visilbility than the 2004. But you can still see behind you so it's not a safety problem any more than a work truck or semi. A 2 year old that can't be seen behind a 2013 Taurus also can't be seen behind a 2004 Taurus. Therefore the 2013 Taurus is not less safe. A backup camera DOES make any vehicle safer because it lets you see things you can't possibly see from inside the car. But that wasn't the issue.

That's what I said - the cleaning process is the same as other wheels. They're just telling you not to use chrome cleaner because they're not really chrome. But you shouldn't use chrome cleaner on any wheels.

I'm not suggesting that having better rear visibility is not good - it is. But please tell me how not being able to see directly behind the vehicle is a safety issue. I'm driving forward, not backwards. Anything I might hit is either in front of me or to the side of me which I can clearly see with mirrors and by turning my head. If somebody hits me from behind that's their fault, not mine, and being able to see them right before they hit you isn't going to help. And it's not like these cars have no rear visibility at all. Please explain how a car with slightly less rear visibility is a safety issue.

"Want to see me run to the Grand Canyon and back?" "Want to see it again?"

I don't understand how poor rear visibility is a safety issue. In college I drove a high cube delivery van with NO rear visibility at all. That's why you have side mirrors. Backing out of a parking space is the only time I can see that it's a problem and that's certainly not a "safety" issue per se.