V8 Ford

I think you'll need more than just a suspension tweekand tranny swap if you're adding over 100HP lb-ft of torque to a chassis that initially was designed to top out with a 220HP V6. Maybe the revisions since then have addressed this, but I doubt that unless they planned to introduct the 3.5EB in the Fusion this generation, in which case we'll see a 360HP Fusion shortly.

I'm all for excessive HP and excessive cars. I just don't think you'll see even a 360HP Fusion because it's not built for it. It's a great car and drives nicely, but its still a midsize family sedan. If they decide the MKZ needs the 3.5 EB to compete in the luxury market (not likely, since the IS-F/M3 market is pretty low volume), and the Fusion stays on the same platform then we'd have a situation like the Taurus/MKS, where the development bucks are spent to keep the Lincoln competitive and the Ford can enjoy the benifits.

The image that was removed or that photobucket would remove it?

Not a big deal. The enitre nation never will withdraw all their deposits and considering that there hasn't been a run on a US bank in over 60 years, I'd say its doing its job just fine. To my knowledge the gov't isn't having problems selling bonds. The weak dollar wasn't due to inflation. Real exchange rate isn't a function of price level. It had nothing to do with spending either because deficit spending strengthens the dollar against foreign currencies. In any case, real exchange rate isn't a barometer for heath of the economy like some make it out to be. If anything a weak currency is more desirable than a strong one because it increases output (although parity is the best case). Inflation isn't a problem either. As long as it's low and relatively constant, the costs to society are minimized. Deflation is actually worse since it imposes the same costs to society as inflation and it decreases output.

430hp in a midsize family car. Good Lord We can have a Taurus SHO because its a platform mate with a Luxury Car, but there's no way in hell that stuffing Mercedes 63AMG power into Ford's answer to the Camcord will go over well without a huge amount of modifications.

Correct, although the reserve requirement is a policy designed to prevent money supply from growing too much in the short term rather than an active curb on banking actions. Very rarely does the Fed change the required reserve requirement, and banks almost always hold more in reserves than the requirement out of their own policy. The government never prints money to pay for its debts; the US gov't is stable enough that it can easily raise the revenue it needs through taxation and bonds. The treasury might ere on the side of inflation when printing money, but that's only because ering on the side of deflation would reduce output (in addition to imposing the same costs that inflation causes).

FDA regulations. That's easy to justify. Through neglegence and greed, people can get hurt. Same goes with industrial accidents. Same goes with fraud. I don't know how the free market gets misconstrued as anarchy in the buisness sector. There's no reason to think that people are better in the buisness world than they are anywhere else, and there's no reason for a crime perpetrated in the buisness world not to be a crime. My issue is with "regulations" is when they turn the corner from justice to planned economy. Looking at some of the statements people are making in the financial markets and the auto industry, and that's what it's become (ex: why didn't the Feds force the big 3 to stop building SUVs). When one realizes how silly some of the statements are and it's easy to figure out what the free market is all about: the people running firms should be making buisness decisions because they know a whole lot more about their jobs than the mlhm5's of the world do. Slightly off topic: Do you guys think that regulation through prevention, where the burden of proof is on the firms to prove their innocencse, is fair? Everywhere else, there is a presumption of innocense till proven guilty and the government requires warrents to gather information to make charges. The gov't does impose high costs on firms to prove that their products are up to standards, and their books are honest. Or is the cost of the crime to high to allow for usual justice?

I'm more interested in knowing if Hyundai will want to build the Genesis in a few years time. Besides, they should only be calling out Ford. You can already get a critically acclaimed big RWD sedan that no one wants from GM and Chrysler.

Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it would reverse the economy. It won't, so I don't find it worth it, especially if they manage to push the debt per GDP into the 100%+ range. Once you get there, interest rates on bonds starts to get apreciable and growth won't lower your debt/GDP. It won't help investment either (might be the understatement of the year), and that's before they get the new taxes in place.

This Ann Arbor based magazine sets the bar an all time low in journalistic integrity, featuring truck comparisons based on acceleration with no towing or work, nonsensical rating scales and a general lack of understanding that some vehicles are built without the intension being the ultimate track car.

Does the new fusion not have the TCS/stability control button on the dashboard anymore, or does that no longer turn off stability conrol as well? Or is C&D that stupid?

If it didn't have any affect, there wouldn't be a question of liberty. I'm not arguing for either side on the issue, only pointing out that it would indeed be a deprevation of liberty. Take that fact any way you like it.

Lowering taxation (who its on is irrelevant) wasn't so much responcible as the spending was. Reagan never was able to negotiate a balanced budget with congress (they called his budgets "Dead on Arrival"), and he ultimately felt it was more important to get his stuffed passed and win the cold war than run a balanced budget. Clinton didn't have so much to do with the deficit as the end of the Cold War and the recovery from the short late 80s recession did. Either way, the federal debt never reached dangerous levels (like seen around WWII), although its not ideal to run a deficit for for an investment oriented economic plan, like used by the Republicans. Hopefully the 10% increase in debt/GDP from this budget (based on spending more than revenue) is a one year thing, but probably not if the Dems keep beliveing they can stimulate the economy with spending 1:1. Funding for the war is not in the federal budget, it hasn't since the begining of the federal government. Its a special congressional spending measure, like many other projects. $600 billion over 6 years isn't much in the grand scheme of things either, and the war is all but over, in a large part thanks to the policy changes at the midpoint of Bush's second term. Deregulation is a simplistic, political argument based in hindsight. Case in point, the Senate head of the Financial Regulation comittee who was grilling Greenspan at the end of last year. The Fed isn't responsible for this recession or regulating wallstreet (find a scapegoat political component) and he was in congress with a Democratic senate majority when he should have been saving the economy with regulation (hindsight component). And the Democrats are still hypocrits for pursing an economic policy that demands deficit spending while criticizing the republicans for running one.

The gov is rarely reponsible for recessions, and isn't for this one (people give it a lot more credit than they should); this is hardly the demise of the US either. I wouldn't have a problem with the Dems using spending as a stimulus if they weren't stuck in the 1930s and pretending that gov't spending results in a nearly perfect increase in output; observation over the last 60 years has proven otherwise.

Stabilizing at zero maybe I don't think cheap gas matters as much for people buying premium cars as it does for people where $gas are a more significant portion of their income.

I'm not criticising his plan. I'm criticizing the fact that 6 months ago, Iraq was the "failed policy of a failed administration following a failed ideology" and now, because of the success of his predecessor, he is implimenting an almost identical plan. The same goes for his budget. Six month ago, we were selling away our childrens future. Now we're saving them with a $1.74 trillion deficit, over triple before. You know our schools don't teach economics when we elect Keynesian economist with the expectations that he will balance the budget. At least I can say for the Democrats that when they run a deficit it is by design rather than apathy (although that does make them bigger hypocrits). That said the Republicans did manage to keep the debt/GDP fairly constant.

That would imply that their competitors offer equally horrible reviews, only they that favor Ford and Lexus (do they still hate Lexus for not building sporty cars? I haven't read them in a while). It's news to me that they picked a Ridgeline over the F-150, but given the way they review trucks it doesntt surprise me. Didn't they pick a Tundra over the F-150 too?

Fixed. At least it generally means that the most obvious exercise in common sense gets done. And yes, Obama is a politician (for those of you still cry every time he makes a speach)

I understand that you think that think its for the best (and I will not challenge that) but arguing that something isn't a deprevation of liberty just because its not legally enumerated as one in the bill of rights is absurd. Slavery was legal until the 13th amendment, women couldn't vote until the 19th; forcing people to change their preferences though economic means would be a deprevation of liberty (else it would not be required to force them to change their preferences). I do not mean to argue that deprevation of liberty cannot be justified, only that that liberty goes beyond what is legally given. In fact, arguably the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit a federal gas tax, so the bill of rights does prohibit it; barring counter arguments using the "necessary and propper clause" and the univerasal justification of federal government action, "regulation of interstate commerce".

Chuck the lame Ecoboost tag. SHO powered by a 214 Cleveland sounds much better. 3.5 Cleveland doesn't sound half bad either.

If the 3.5EB is any indicator, a 2.5 Ecoboost would be like a NA 3.5 with a much better torque curve and better fuel economy (and lighter). It would in no way be similar to the high reving torqueless wonders in the Civic Si or S2000. I'd still take the V8, but for the majority of people that take the V6's, it'd be a big upgrade.

I don't see what he's going on about the engine sound; I need my big V8 growl, thank you very much. Other than that, I love it. Kudos to the engineers that came up with Revoknuckle.

The Tundra remindes me of Homer's body fat test: Look at that blubber fly

I would have thought it would have been much faster with that much power in a focus, but very impressive none-the-less.

Didn't some automag decribe this at debut as "Kia builds a better Explorer"?