akirby

I agree with you and I support gay marriage. I just don't believe that it should be a political issue. And if the religious right wasn't pushing to ban gay marriage then it wouldn't be a political issue. And if it wasn't a political issue then maybe we could find some common ground and stop all this bipartisan bickering.

Why is gay marriage an important issue? What does it have to do with running the federal government? The more the right rails against it the more the left rails against the right and it takes focus away from the really important issues like government spending.

GM and Dodge need to stop using those awful rental car grey plastic interiors.

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!

This is what my county does with SPLOSTs (SPecial Local Option Sales Tax). We vote on a 1% sales tax increase with a specified period and expiration date and a specific list of projects that the money can be spent on - period. Taxes should be used to pay for goverment expenses - not as a punishment or a tool to rob from the rich and give to the poor. But when you're jealous of other people's wealth and you have a victim's mentality that allows you to convince yourself that your circumstances are not your fault - or you're a savvy politician who gets votes by convincing people of that you lose sight of the true purpose of taxes.

It's never as simple as you are making it out to be. Let's say Ford knew the grille was going to fail after 3 months BUT they had already cancelled supplies of the old grille and they did not have time to create new ones. So the only choice they had was to sell them with the bad grille and fix them later OR stop selling the vehicle altogether for 3-4 months. In that case which would you choose? The 2011 Edge had terrible MFT problems. Where is it now sales-wise? The average buyer doesn't even know about stuff like this and some who do know don't care. It's never a good thing but it rarely hurts overall sales. In fact I'd be willing to bet that Ford gained more buyers just due to MFT than they lost due to quality problems.

Let me ask this again - what problem would switching to coil springs be solving on the new F150 exactly?

Ok, I'll buy that.

If it's patriotic to pay more taxes to lower the debt, then I suppose it's unpatriotic to spend recklessly to run up the debt in the first place?

I think city fuel economy will improve much faster than highway. A brick is still a brick.

There is a car in those ads? Really?

If you're getting axle wrap and wheel hop in a F150 then you should probably be driving a mustang GT instead.

And since ride quality has never been a complaint with the current F150 (at least not that I've ever heard) - I don't see the point.

The version you had in the Focus was at least 6 releases later than the one that debuted in the 2011 Edge in October 2010. That version was worlds better than the first one, even though it was still severely flawed. Even so, before the update I had to pull the fuse in my daughter's Focus twice and it locked up temporarily a few more times. After the update - no more fuse pulls and no more freezes. And that's what MOST owners are reporting. Not all, but most. I don't know why you keep trying to dispute that. I don't need internal documents. Anybody who does software development (and I've been doing it for 25 years at a fortune 100 company) understands exactly what happened and why. When something isnt working or you don't have time to test it you take it out and put it back in a later release. And you don't change something like that willy nilly at the last minute based on some customer complaints. The new release was likely already in testing before the previous release hit the streets. MFT has bugs, but that doesn't mean that all MFT owners are experiencing those bugs. This is the part you can't seem to understand. Even with the very first release of the software in October 2010 there were some Edge owners that were not having any problems. It doesn't mean the bugs aren't there. I'm sure you use a PC every day and may only rarely have a problem, yet if you look at the windows known bugs list there are hundreds if not thousands of bugs out there.

That's the first complaint I've heard since the new software went out. I certainly don't experience any of that in my daughter's vehicle. I wonder if it has the latest software? All of the comments from owners who had the new software seemed to indicate those issues had been fixed. Dude - this is why we get into arguments. Where did I say that it wasn't Ford's fault? Where did I even imply that this wasn't Ford's responsibility? The only thing I said was that BeSquare wrote horrendously buggy code which caused the fiasco which should be obvious by now. Ford knew it was buggy. They worked hard trying to fix all the bugs. They brought in Microsoft to help. They made a calculated business decision that the problems could be fixed quickly so they released it on the 2011 Edge. The alternatives were to delay the 2011 Edge altogether (not easy to do when plants and suppliers are all geared up for the new model) or go out the door with just the base radio without MFT (not really an option in today's market) or retrofit the 2010 navigation system to the 2011 model (almost certainly not possible in such a short timeframe). Given all that they had to make a decision. None of the choices were good - only degrees of bad. If you want to affix blame, it goes like this: BeSquare is responsible for writing crappy code that could not be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. Ford is responsible for choosing the wrong vendor (in hindsight) and for not managing the vendor adequately during the development process. Ford is responsible for not having an adequate backup plan. Not having a backup plan is ultimately what caused the release of the buggy software in the first place. The reason it's important to understand the role that BeSquare played is that Ford can fix that problem by getting a different vendor as opposed to it being an internal problem that might be harder to fix. It's like the fuel line problem - it's a vendor issue and while it's ultimately Ford's responsibility you have to rely on your vendors to honor their contract and deliver working products. So I ask again - where did I say that none of this was Ford's fault or responsibility?

I understood and agree that replacing a leaf spring with the same capacity coil spring would increase overall capacity due to lower weight. What I don't know is whether you could keep the same GVWR and GCWR with coil springs or if you would have to lose some of that capacity at the top end. I'm thinking you'd lose some of the max capacity and like you said I'm not sure Ford wants to do that.

Until you hit the upper limit of the coil spring which I'm sure is much lower than the upper limit of the leaf spring.

If you're referring to non-MFT Sync vehicles I think it's safe to assume that all of Ford's resources have gone to fixing MFT the last 18 months and fixing stand alone sync problems have simply not been a priority. It sucks if you're a Sync user having problems but I don't think it's fair to assume that Ford has "abandoned" anything or that they will abandon MFT in 2 years. At some point they will no longer provide bug fixes but as long as you have the same functionality you had when you bought the vehicle (with no serious bugs) then I don't see the problem. Pre-MFT you never got ANY updates of any kind for the infotainment systems.

Not once have I EVER said that there were no problems or the problems weren't real. What I did say was that some people were exaggerating the scope of some of the problems but never have I said anything bad about people claiming to have MFT problems. Not once. There are still people with problems but far far less than before and most not as serious as before. Bullshit. That was always planned to be added back. It was already in the code in development when the production version was released. You don't just decide to add something like that back at the last minute and it's suddenly available 2 months later. I even said the reason it was removed is that they either had a problem with it they didn't have time to fix or they just didn't have time to get it tested so they took it out and would probably add it back later. This is what happens. You say it's horrible and full of bugs and nobody is happy. We give you real examples of people who are quite happy with it and are experiencing no problems ONLY TO TRY AND PUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE. Not to suggest that nobody is having problems or there aren't still bugs. We've said OVER AND OVER that there are bugs and some people are not happy and more work is required. But we've also pointed out that these bugs only seem to be serious for a small percentage of owners. You have this mistaken impression that a problem has to be a problem for EVERYBODY or NOBODY and if we try to put a problem into perspective relative to the entire owner base you think we're trying to imply that there are no problems whatsoever. Nobody is saying that at all. That was your opinion and your expectation and it was not accurate. Ford has never said or implied that anything would resolve all complaints or glitches. That's something you and your Focus Fanatic buddies made up all on your own and now you're trying to blame Ford for it.

Lots of folks change at 30K or 60K rather than wait until 150K. A long time internet buddy used to be a Ford transmission engineer (he worked on the 5R55 and the torqshift truck tranny) and he changes his every 30K just to be safe. 30K seems to soon unless you're towing or driving in extreme heat. 60K seems to be a good compromise to me and it's probably what I will do with mine. Edit: make sure you get it done at a Ford/Lincoln dealer where they use a machine to swap it out using the cooler lines. That gets 95% of the old fluid out and is much better than just dropping the pan.

The fact that Ford sells 85% of the volume that GM sells with 50% as many employees should tell you all you need to know about GM's lack of efficiency.

Since we still have a federal income tax, does everyone agree that having a single percentage rate for all income above a certain amount (say 35% on income above $200K) with NO loopholes, deductions, exceptions, etc. would be fair from the standpoint of people "paying their fair share"? If you only make an extra $10K you pay $3500. If you make an extra $10M you pay $3.5M. If you make an extra $100M you pay $35M. I don't see how anyone can argue this system from the standpoint of rich people paying their "fair share". A person making $100M does not use any more government resources than a person making $1M or $100K. The problem comes in when people want to use tax rates to affect changes or just as punishment. Rich people are taking money away from the poor - tax them! Rich people didn't earn their money - tax them! Rich people and corporations will create more jobs if they pay less taxes - cut taxes on the rich! Poor people need an incentive to keep working at low income jobs - let's give them a tax credit even if they paid no taxes. When one side wants to game the system it cause the other side to do the same and that's why the tax laws are so damn complicated. One of the reasons that conservatives don't want tax increases is that we either don't agree with what it's going to be spent on or we don't know what it will be spent on. If my county government says we need extra money for a new park or a new road or new sewers or something beneficial then I don't have a problem with a tax increase to pay for it. But if the government is wasting money left and right and says we need extra money but they can't say specifically what it will be used for then no, I ain't paying a dime. If the rich knew that a tax increase would be used to pay down the debt or some other necessary function most would not have a problem with it. But they don't like seeing their hard earned money wasted on foolish investments and unnecessary government spending.

Not only was one car covering 2 segments, it was also a fleet queen even in the early 2000s. Apples and watermelons.

It maintains itself. I assume better cooling and better bearings have made the turbo problems of the past disappear.

It could if they required a dedicated production facility. This might be the case if F150 sales jump. They're already running 5 out of 6 shifts in 2 plants.