mkxnsap

My bad. I read the rules, thought it was weekly unless "unscheduled." Perhaps now? 2016 MKX - VIN 2LMTJ8LP2GBL72806 Thanks

Update? 2016 Mkx - VIN 2LMTJ8LP2GBL72806 Thanks!

Dealer: L63349 Order: C522 Thanks!

So far so good. Lincoln Drive Control is very impressive, in particular.

The trucking company must have been in a hurry this morning. The dealership received the car at 9:00 AM this morning. Drove it off the showroom this afternoon! Many thanks for tracking, Cyberdman!

I'm really thinking this will be the last time you have to track this. Next post I make in this thread is going to be a PHOTO! 2LMHJ5AT6DBL54910

Can we see if its en route? 2LMHJ5AT6DBL54910 Thanks!!

Update? Ford customer service seems to think it is production now... 2LMHJ5AT6DBL54910 Thanks.

Got a VIN from the dealer, so apparently the status has changed: 2LMHJ5AT6DBL54910 Thanks!

2013 MKT EcoBoost Dealer: 63349 Order: K111 Been over two weeks. Thanks!

Cyberman, if you could... 2013 MKT EcoBoost Dealer: 63349 Order: K111 Thanks so much!

It says clearly that the site is not affiliated in any way with Ford. And I'd suffice to say that having "NEWS" in the name implies a media outlet. I'm not sure we're obligated to provide evaluative accounts of our sources. What if they don't want mentioned (even in general form)? Does adding "a source confirmed" to a sentence make a dramatic difference when it's already obvious (to most readers) that the site is a 3rd party media outlet? That phrase does not change the delivery of the key message. I'm not arguing against the usage, just arguing against its significance. If that is the root of your beef, we can easily address that during the next report. So during the next report in which we coin that phrase ("a source confirmed") I don't anticipate a 3-page thread here arguing over the semantics of the report. And no, Freep and DetNews just use US as sources!

We're sort of arguing here which path to take to the same destination. If someone at FIN was implying to be a source I could see your point, but I think it is fairly well implied that we are reporting, not issuing a press release.

Our source was a direct employee and it was pertinent for this person to have that information. That is all I will say on the matter. Sources can confirm or deny reports. That is not something unprofessional and is done every day in industry press. Ever read Motor Trend? If your view is that Ford is the only entity that can report facts on Ford, I'd recommend sticking to only the Media site for reading material because no one in the press has that view.

No worries, and I wasn't intending to direct my comment to you or anyone specific. Just trying to get the facts out. Austin may be new to all of this, but I am not. I genuinely would not ever allow any report to be published on either of our sites that I felt would have come from embargoed press material. I've been on the other end of that (having embargoed material and someone else breaks it). I hate it and never aspire to put anyone through it. To be honest, I was told that Ford was getting rather jealous of the relationship between GM and GMI. Perhaps Ford is loosening the strings a bit? Wishful thinking perhaps, but I've seen more unusual things happen in this business. We do have press fleet access at FIN, which is a terrific start! I do hope you some of you guys get involved in our review process...we always ask for photo requests, questions, etc. when we have a press vehicle in the garage! Will we be wrong on some stuff? Perhaps. My goal is for FIN to have a similar reputation as we have at GMI, which is quite good. I have full editorial control on what is published...and I am not one that kills accuracy just for the sake of hits. I want a long-term reputation with FIN, not a short one! Thanks for the welcome!