akirby
-
Posts
45,246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1,639
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by akirby
-
-
If Ford had the money and time they would have developed a RWD chassis that could work for the Mustang, Explorer, Falcon, Lincoln, and a PI,
Fixed it for you.
-
thanks! I wonder how the present focus would continue to sell at the same price as the new fiesta..
Can't see a consumer going for the present focus compared to this new and exciting Fiesta..
It's bigger and to some people that will be important.
-
I agree that finding your own answer is preferable. However, I can assure you that some people don't e even know the question to ask. I am just going to let this go. You have missed my entire point. Your reponses to postings on the forum are rude and add nothing.
If they don't know the question to ask, how are they going to ask the question here? Your argument holds no water because no matter what their issue or question they are certainly capable of opening and reading the OM for 5 minutes first. Why is that too much to ask?
I find it rude for people to ask others to do something they could do themselves in just a few minutes. And 99% of the time I will give them the answer and even look it up for them if I have time, but I also make the point that they could have done the same thing themselves a lot quicker and more easily.
-
I was wondering if the new ford fiesta replaces the ford focus in the Ford USA lineup in 2011?
Any best guesses appreciated.
JB
No need to guess. The Fiesta replaces nothing - Ford doesn't currently have a B car in North America. There is a new Focus based on the European platform due for 2011.
-
I thought police had to buy american cars.
Why would you think that? Local governments can buy whatever they want.
-
Check the Ford website and build a Focus coupe? Find out that way :P
Why can't you go look it up for them and post it here so they don't have to do it themselves? To some people that build your own website might look like a quiz on quantum physics.......
[/sARCASM]
-
The answer is that for some people a 286 page owners manual looks like a 13000 foot mountian.
Let me get this straight. They're smart enough to use a computer with internet access and a web browser to read and post forum questions but they're not smart enough to read a simple owner's manual? If they're that dumb then they probably shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle in the first place.
I'm sorry you're offended but I think reading the manual and trying to find the answer yourself before posting it is just common courtesy to everyone else.
-
The team at Automobile Magazine, initially duped like everyone else, has recognized that Audi was quoting torque measured at the wheels, not at the output shaft – the industry standard. Measuring torque at the wheels takes the multiplication effect of the transmission and final drive gears into account. The resulting figures are generally ten-fold of what they would be at the crank (meaning cars like a 3.6-liter Chevrolet Malibu packs a similar 3,115 lb-ft of torque). Audi's e-tron torque figures are not exactly dishonest, but they are using a completely different evaluation without making mention of it in the press release. Long story short, Automobile estimates the e-tron makes about 252 lb-ft of torque, or a bit less than the Tesla Roadster's 273 lb-ft.
-
It is easy to forget these days, but Ranger numbers used to be hugh.
I bought a 1990 Ranger for $7995. Regular cab, manual trans 4 cylinder. Came with chrome wheels, sliding rear window, upgraded stereo and a tailgate trim piece. They were blowing them out towards the end of 1989 just so they could maintain their #1 sales lead. The dealer switched colors on me (drove a bright red, they sold me a burgundy and I didn't notice because it was after dark) but that was a heck of a deal at the time. I think other similar trucks were at least $1500 to $2000 more.
-
You gave the same answer (about the manual) when I asked a question about my wife's new Marnier Hybrid. I have a question for you. Why are you on this forum? Someone has a basic question that was easily answered by someone else. They now know who to work their radio, and everyone is happy. We all learn from this since the question itself may not have occurred to someone else. That is why there is a forum in the first place. So, the answer to every question is not to check the manual. This is a discussion among people who have a common interest or concern. There is no place here for someone who sarcastically chimes in on every post that the person should check the manual. I am trying to say this respectfully. Okay, go ahead and say someone crude back to me. You seem irritated with almost any question anyone has asked. Maybe, you could check a psychology text (" manual " ) and find out why you have more a thousand posts on here telling people how stupid they are for not checking their owner's manual. Maybe you should check yours.
The mfr goes to a lot of trouble to put that type of information into the owner's manual so that people can find the answer to these types of questions. In addition to answering an occasional question about a specific issue, the owner's manual will also point out many features and options that the owner would never know about.
There are a lot of things that are not in the OM or the OM is unclear about so you have to ask for help.
What I do not understand is why someone would take the time to log into a forum, ask a question and wait anywhere from a few minutes to a few days for a total stranger to give them the answer when all they have to do is take 5 minutes and look up the answer in the owner's manual which is right in the glovebox and is also available online.
Look at it this way. If you were sitting at your desk at work with a dictionary and internet access and you wanted to know how to spell a word, would you:
a) look it up in the dictionary
B) go to websters.com and look it up there
c) post it on a website and wait for someone to tell me
This is no different. I am encouraging people to read their owner's manuals and yes, it's done with a lot of sarcasm.
So other than "I don't like your attitude" can you explain why it's better to post a question than to actually read the owner's manual?
-
In what universe?
Putting more aggressive cams in most cars will dramatically increase the power but at the sacrifice of fuel economy. Less agressive cams? Less power, more fuel economy. The same could be said for most other typical things done to extract more power from an engine. The only place where tuning for fuel economy can result in more power is adjusting the air/fuel ratio properly, which should be done on all vehicles pretty much the same regardless. But I guarantee you if Ford tuned the 3.5 V6 in the Mustang for 260 horsepower, they'd be able to extract considerably better fuel economy from it in the process.
The only way I can see is if you move the torque curve lower which would have the result of less max hp, but you're not really changing the max torque output of the engine in that case.
My point was that making the engine more efficient usually increases both power and fuel economy and they are not always mutually exclusive. Look at the current 3.7L versus the EB 3.5L in the MKS. The EB 3.5L gets way more power AND better fuel economy.
I don't think there is enough fuel savings to be realized by detuning an engine to make it worthwhile.
-
Pressing and releasing the FF button skips to the next track. Pressing and HOLDING the FF button should fast forward through the song. At least that's how it works in my 10 Fusion Sport.
If only they had some type of manual that you could keep in the car that would tell you exactly how to do these types of things.........
:shades:
-
I see four...
F Series, Escape, Fusion, Focus.
Focus is #14, therefore not in the top 10.
-
In order to be that big, you would have to eat 7K calories every single day. The fattest living person in the world (at 976 lbs) eats 20,000 calories a day. Lets say you are an adult at 165 lbs, every day you do 1 hour of high impact aerobics, 5 mile run at 6 min miles, high intensity weight lifting for another hour, you burn an incredible 1,543 calories on that plus the normal 2K calories a person uses daily = 3,500 calories a day. If you eat 7K calories, you will still gain massive amounts of weight. Unless you are a professional athlete like Michael Phelps, which eats 12,000 calories every day, there is no way for anyone to burn off that much calories every day just by exercise.
Obviously you can eat more than you can possibly work off but that's an extreme case. My point was that if you don't exercise regularly then it will be difficult to lose weight unless you starve yourself. Every time I hear "I've tried all these diets and nothing worked" I can almost guarantee that there was no exercise involved.
Weight loss is extremely simple - eat less than you burn.
-
In the end, if you produce less power, you use less fuel. Of course, there is a practical limit to that concept, but 300+ HP V6's aren't it.
Only if you reduce displacement. Given a fixed displacement (naturally aspirated), tuning for max fuel mileage naturally results in more power. Now we're talking about engine power output, not actual vehicle performance. You can tune a vehicle for less performance and better fuel mileage by changing the throttle calibration and response, gearing, air intake, etc. But that doesn't affect the engine's power level.
-
My guess is such people (who are truly suffering, and not merely gluttonous) are likely suffering from some other malady (e.g. depression), that takes the visible symptom of morbid obesity. However others with the same underlying problem, could easily be anorexic/bulimic.
Regardless of its origin, it's being imposed on those who (also through no fault of their own) must bend themselves to accommodate. It's a little too easy to just say to the man in the center seat to 'just deal with it' (especially if you aren't in the center seat).
Would it be different if a religious-fundamentalist was to constantly prosthelytize to the man in the center seat, if the man didn't want him to? Then why would it be socially-acceptable (or you would expect it to be tolerated by others) for the same person to be so large as to invade others' personal space? Both are impositions on the man in the center seat.
A certain level of inconvenience can be expected when we're flying, but some things are unreasonable to expect people to tolerate.
Exactly. I'm sympathetic to people with problems but I don't think we should dismiss it as something out of their control and jump through hoops to accomodate them at the expense of others. If you're that big, buy 2 seats. End of discussion.
And obesity is not just an eating problem. I could eat the same way and not gain a pound. The difference is exercise. I get so sick and tired of hearing "I did this diet and it didn't work". People are just lazy and don't want to do the work to get the results. I'm naturally lazy, too and I'm at least 30 lbs overweight. However, I can play tennis for 3-4 hours and I don't have any associated health problems. I also don't have any problems functioning in society.
When someone is sticking to a diet and getting regular exercise and is still not losing weight then they deserve the disability label. Otherwise it's just bad behavior and poor voluntary choices.
-
Anyone with a disability that needs to seats gets them. It's far better than people that are far too fat trying to get into the single seat because they didn't want to pay for the second seat.
Being that big is a self-imposed problem 95% of the time. Why do you relieve people of personal responsibility? The vast majority of bums, homeless people, fat people are that way because they want to be (or allow themselves to be) and it's nobody's fault but theirs. Telling them that it isn't their fault just makes the problem worse.
-
Why does the Fusion model S I-4 automatic have a 34 MPG rating
and the Fusion model SE I-4 automatic have a 31 MPG rating ?
Both have six speed automatics.
Thank you
Weight, options, tires, etc. The S model was targeted at max fuel mileage for advertising purposes (Fusion gets 34 mpg!)
-
I picked up my wife's new 2010 Mariner Hybrid. I have a 2010 Fusion Hybrid. On the Fusion, when you turn off the car, it provides a lifetime mileage reading. Even if you reset the milage on every fill up, the car has a separate reading of long term mileage. Does the Mariner Hybrid have this feature? Thanks.
Richard
If you have the vehicle already and the owner's manual - why are you asking us?
-
I liked the square headlights. 77 looked real good too!
On second thought I guess I do prefer the 79 over the 78. The 78 just reminded me of trying to put a round peg in a square hole with the headlights.
Boy, did they screw the pooch with the 1980 model or what?
-
I think the best looking Ford pickup was the 1979.
No way - it was the 77 Ranger XLT. They ruined the grille in 98 with the square frames and round headlights and then made it worse with square headlights on the 79. I plan to restore one when I retire.
-
Part of the added diesel cost is the beefier transmission and other upgraded parts to handle the higher torque.
-
Here's one that has 2 pictures of Excursions. 2003 Excursions that is!
-
they do...regardless of where they are aimed, it multiplies the light output...its NOT so much blinding but it IS noticeably brighter and with hazy conditions the light is scattered anyways....
Never ever had an issue with oncoming factory fog lights. Maybe it's time for that Lasik surgery......
Cop Car packages
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Duh - I totally forgot that!