akirby
-
Posts
43,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1,458
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by akirby
-
-
Back in the 1950s, dealers secured franchise laws after convincing legislators they needed protection against bullying manufacturers, who otherwise might impose costly dictates on dealers and demand sales and service concessions in return for advantageous inventory. Some states also banned automakers from directly competing in sales to ensure that distribution was "fair."
With millions of dollars invested in facilities and inventory, the dealers' protectionist impulse is understandable. But such matters are more typically the province of contract law, not legislation. The practical effect of franchise laws has been to inhibit competition. Through territorial monopolies sanctioned by the state, dealers effectively limit the ability of consumers to comparison shop. And dealers need not worry overly much about customer satisfaction when there's nowhere else to go. (The dealers' refusal to open on weekends--the most convenient time to shop--has frustrated Detroiters for decades.)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m156..._32/ai_63330933
-
I couldn't help but read the post on dealer amrkup and wonder, why doesn't ford just sell the cars direct? why do we need damn car dealers anyhow? I get more info online about a car than i ever do from some cheesey sales man, and frankly why not eliminate the middle man? ford like so many companys could sell the cars directly online, lots of company sell that way. I'd be more likely to buy a car if i knew I wasn't going to have to spend 4 hours hagling and dealing with a bunch of sleazballs, just go online, heres the price, here is what the options cost, order it up my way, and get it in 6-8 weeks.
Ford could still have service centers, if they wanted, but frankly I take my car to my personal echanic, or do it myself.
I'm just saying, why not eliminate the middle man?
Because they're not allowed to sell cars directly to the public. If they tried to do that the dealers would sue their pants off. Dealers are protected by franchise laws.
A few years ago Ford tried to put used cars on their website where the customer could pick one, then pick a local dealer where they could test drive it and buy the vehicle. Dealers sued Ford and they had to stop it.
Sounds stupid, but that's the law.
-
Now where did I put that Captain Obvious sign?
Yes, I know. We used to own one. My point is if Ford Motor Company wants to stay in the "compact" market, they could use a revamped B series line to do that, while upsizing the Ranger to compete more with the Tacoma/Frontier. Having four different truck lines at a Ford dealer would probably be too much (as I noted before, it didn't work out for Dodge when they tried to be so diverse).
Sorry - I thought you were saying that Ford could continue to sell the Mazda B as a compact truck, which is the same as just keeping the Ranger.
Not sure the B series would be able to survive on it's own without sharing production with the Ranger.
-
If a "compact" truck is still desired, the Mazda B-Series would be perfect for that.
You do understand that the Mazda B series is just a rebadged Ranger, right? And rebadged is the correct term - it's not platform sharing.
-
Good one. Fits well with these MKx cars that look like a takeoff from the Chrysler Pacifica. Why anyone would bother, I don't know. Pacifica doesn't exactly light up the horizon. Why one with a Lincoln badge should be any different ... :shrug: who knows.
If the Lincoln LS didn't set the world on fire, and that was a decent car, what makes you think the MKx cars will? Anybody actually think most customers can tell the difference?
It looks very similar to the Lexus RX350 and they sell a TON of those. Or at least 100K or so. Regardless of the name, the MKX will sell quite well.
-
That would make more sense. I havent really checked much out on mine yet. All I know is fist gear sucks on mine.
I am afraid to say this but I think 1st isnt going to last long. I'm wondering if anyone else is having issues with 1st? Mine is shuddering till it shifts to second. I dont want to take it in though, not yet. haha All other gears are great and it gets up and goes.I corrected that post after re-reading the owner's manual. See corrected post above.
-
If its a 6 speed why does it only say 5 gears? I thought reverse didnt count? :shrug:
Oops - missed that distinction. Here's the corrected version:
D with O/D - shifts 1-6 normally
D without O/D shifts 1-4 normally (5 and 6 are locked out)
If you're in 4Lo 4WD mode then D will shift 2-6 with or without the O/D button engaged.
3 - starts and stays in 3rd gear
2 - starts and stays in 2nd gear
1 - starts and stays in 1st gear
-
akirby, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, the link will not open. Gives a message saying scripts error.
Interesting - works for me on both Firefox and IE.
Here's the info from the 2007 Expedition OM:
D with O/D - shifts through 1-5 normally
D without O/D shifts through 1-4 normally
3 - starts and stays in 3rd gear
2 - starts and stays in 2nd gear
1 - starts and stays in 1st gear
-
The car should of been designed to accommodate a transverse DOHC 4.6 or 5.4 (with AWD of course), then it might be a legitimate player. It's a striking looking machine thought, it looks like BMW 540 to me.
It's not the car, it's the platform. The D3 platform was originally designed by Volvo who doesn't use large V8s.
They're working on a compact V8 (smaller than the 4.6L) that should work nicely but that's still a few years off. Until then they'll do fine with a 3.7L standard V8 and Twin Turbo option.
The RL only had 300 hp. A Twin Turbo 3.7 should be pushing 375. More than enough to compete with the NA import V8s.
-
There is no difference between ordering and taking one off the lot - that's up to the dealer.
There are very few models that Ford says are not eligible for A/X/Z plan. Here is the current list:
Current excluded vehicles include Ford GT, Shelby 500 GT, Jaguar XK (2007), Volvo C70, F-450 through F-750 Super Duty, E-450 and Aston Martin vehicles. This list of excluded vehicles is subject to change.However, it's totally up to the dealer whether they sell you a vehicle on A/X/Z plan or not. Most dealers would not do X plan on a Mustang GT until recently because they were selling all they could get at MSRP.
If dealers are selling the Edge and MKX as fast as they can get them for close to MSRP then you'll be hard pressed to find a dealer willing to do A plan (or X plan), and you can hardly blame them unless you're a long time customer.
-
I have stopped at 2 Ford dealers and neither can tell me how the shifter controls the gear the car is in. For example, on my 97, 1 stays in first; 2 stays in second; d goes through all 4 gears unless I have the OD button in. I see the 2007 shifter has 1,2,3&D, plus an OD button, which addes up to 5.
RTFM:
https://www.fleet.ford.com/maintenance/owne...als/default.asp
-
Is it me or does the Edge seem a little pricey? I don't have an issue with the price, but I wonder how this segment is suppose to be priced. This seems a little high for a 5 seater. The Freestyle is priced similarly.
It's at least $2K less than a comparably equipped Murano, it's closest competitor, even at MSRP. And it outperforms the Murano.
-
I think it would be easier to provide a user selectable setting such as normal, sport and track that would dictate shift speed, engine braking and upshift points rather than trying to "guess" what the user wants based on throttle/braking and/or steering inputs.
-
Check with the dealer. Some of the rebates aren't allowed with A/X/Z plan. Hopefully the college grad rebate is ok. I know the $500 Quarter Horse Association rebate isn't combinable with A/X/Z plan (wish I'd known that before I joined).
-
It was 91 for both the 05 and 06 Navigators but for 07 it's 87. The hp and torque ratings are the same, so either they used different software tuning for the 05/06 but didn't advertise the power difference or they said 91 was required when it was really 87. Can't imagine how they'd make a mistake like that for both the 05 and 06 models but I guess it's possible.
The 2007 Expedition uses 87 octane. You can get owner's manuals for all vehicles here:
https://www.fleet.ford.com/maintenance/owne...als/default.asp
-
Sadly, given the state of the electronice that are installed in these vehicles, using adaptive shift scheduling in any of these vehicles is as easy as a new software burn to the PCM. There may be an extra sensor or two involved, but, really, it doesn't have to be that expensive.
True - but actually developing the software that uses the sensor inputs to modify the shifting is incredibly complicated. Shift quality is relatively easy - there is a table of shifts by rpm with the current pressure and expected shift time. Each shift is compared to the expected shift time and the pressure adjusted if necessary. But trying to figure out when to shift or not or how hard or soft based on numerous inputs either requires software that's incredibly complicated or it requires an algorithm that's so simple that it's not very useful.
Some simple things like not upshifting if you're negotiating a curve can be done but it's going to take awhile for the software to catch up with the hardware capabilities.
-
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2574
Doesn't say what vehicles have this software installed.
Adaptive shift-quality control is what I was referring to - it's common. I'd like to see examples where the Adaptive shift scheduling is actually used. I bet it's Land Rover, Jag and/or Volvo. I doubt it's in any F/L/M vehicles yet, although it would be nice.
-
The 5R55 has absolutally nothing in common with the Aisin trans, or the new 6F transmission.
I didn't say it did. But the shift control is usually in the PCM software - so it's logical to think that over vehicles would use the same strategy. I know the controls for the 6F are in the software - that's one difference between the Ford and GM version of that tranny.
Most new transmissions, have adaptive learning programs in their CPU's. They are fully integrated into the engine and vehicle CPU's, so they can easily adapt to different peoples driving patterns. It will usually take a week or so, for the transmission to fully "learn" your driving style.I think transmissions that actually adapt their shifting to the driver are rare. I think you may be overestimating the meaning of the word Adaptive in advertising. Do you have any real examples that clearly say the tranny adapts to the driver?
-
I think the Aisin transmissions connect to Ford's PCM, and Ford's PCM features a transmission controller that does indeed learn over time--and become eerily predictable, as long as your driving is similarly predictable.
I know that the 5R55 family does not learn driving patterns but does learn the proper shift pressure required to return a perfect shift (per factory specs).
It measures the pressure used and the amount of time that each shift takes and adjusts the pressure to account for manufacturing variances or wear over time. Some people think that it adjusts to how they drive the car but that's not true, at least for the 5R55's used in the explorer/tbird/LS.
-
has any one heard of someone damaging there car from not running any type of tune after moding.
these cars have mas air flow duel knock sensors god knows how many timing sensors oil temp senors air temp sensor how did ford screw up the pcm were u cant force feed it or even have lots of bolt on's and the car not know how much air is there can someone give a more detailed answer to why such a technology driven motor cant handle it i dont get it ?
The factory software can only provide so much adjustment. If you exceed that then you need a new tune. If they designed it to work on such a wide range of conditions it would compromise fuel mileage and performance the other 99.99% of the time.
-
Apparently there was a TSB for some problem with the FFV vehicles that suggested not using E85 until a fix could be determined. I think that was the basis of the lawsuit - that some vehicles labeled FFV were not able to use E85 because of this problem that Ford apparently hasn't yet fixed.
Unless it affects all vehicles and they're unable to fix it I think the lawsuit is without merit - not that it matters when it comes to suing Ford.
-
The Aisin vs. the 6F wouldn't make a difference to me, honestly. Performance should be comparable, and I haven't heard or seen anything regarding problems with the Aisin 6-speed, and there are several hundred thousand running around.
What confuses me from what was stated above is that "Ford ran out of engineering resources" to include the 6F in the MKZ. Uhhhh...wouldn't incorporating a new engine & transmission combo be MORE resource-intensive than just using the 3.5L & 6F that is already integrated and being introduced on the Edge/MKX?
That just confuses me.
Scott
I wasn't given any details. That would seem to make sense, but the MKZ and Edge/MKX are different so there could have been issues that only affected the MKZ. It could have also been a supply issue.
If I was buying one it would really matter to me. I just expected the new 6F50 to be used hand-in-hand with the 3.5L.
-
...is Chief a transmission engineer? (I guess I don't get where that question is going)
My information that the Aisin unit is being used came from a Ford transmission engineer. Not sure why iluvford feels the need for any further confirmation.
-
I emailed Ford and asked. I will let you know when they get back to me.
Why wouldn't you take the word of a Ford transmission engineer?
reviews of edge begin ...
in Edge Forum
Posted
More importantly it keeps Ford buyers in a Ford instead of them jumping from an Explorer or Expedition to an import brand.