chucky2

The cup holders in our '14 Flex are vertical as well, without an obtrusive cover, and they too "work fine". It's not like the passenger and I can't use two drinks at once, except when we're both reaching for our drinks, then someone has to wait else we'll be holding hands. Then there's the potential for mix up. It's not about something that merely works, it's about what works best. Vertical arrangement isn't best, it's a compromise necessary when moving the shifter from the column to the console so people can pretend to be Speed Racer. As for the cubby, under the arm rest works fine for seldom accessed stuff that won't needed while driving. Anything else that comes in and out of the vehicle between stops, or needs to be accessed while driving, is best in the console. Multiply that by 2 if you have a front passenger. Multiply that potentially by x for for any rear passengers you might need to support. When you fill up that little console space and you have to use the center arm rest storage, each and every time you now need to access it, both front passengers arms have to come off, then you have to lift it up while driving, rummage around while driving, look in there while driving, get whatever is in there out (this entire time the other front persons arm is over in their lap instead of comfortably on the arm rest), finally get whatever you needed, close the lid, and now arms back on the center arm rest. Or you can reach forward and get your shit from the console storage because the shifter is on the column (which has a nice unused dead spot on it now where a column shifter could go, but isn't, because Speed Racer).

There are two cup holders, in the vertical arrangement which (usually) isn't as effective both in cup holding dimension or usability (in this case the drink for the driver will pass over the super-critical console 'shifters'). By far the better arrangement is like the picture in my post above. As for big storage space, there isn't. It's a covered space (MotorTrend or AutoBlog had a photo of it open) and when the cover is pushed back it really doesn't look that big at all. A far better space provision is, again, like the picture I shared above. That maximizes the cup size holding capacity and access for both the drive and passenger, and, gives both a lot of usable centrally located - and this easily accessible - storage. You know, for people who actually use their vehicle with more than a 20oz water bottle and a single cell phone. I know, the 2018 arrangement is without doubt sub-optimal. We have a 2000, not sure what year in the picture I shared (via Google Images). I really don't care when it was removed, better is better and there really is little doubt for my usage (and thus for anyone who actually uses their large SUV for more than a clean room single person carrying device) that what I've described is the preferred arrangement. Look, if you guys enjoy less functionality, less easily available space, but want it to look more...pretty?...then by all means, moving the column 'shifter' to the console so one can pretend the 5400 lb SUV is a sports car (and one can't even do that now) makes total sense. Me, I'd rather trade the prettiness(?) for actual functionality in a large SUV. I guess I have crazy expectations...

If they hadn't completely borked up the 'shifter' location, thereby completely screwing up the usability of the interior for driver and front passenger, and they had the 3.0L diesel, I'd probably be in line for an EL day 1. Now I'll wait, maybe there will be some kind of police/fleet option that gets rid of the 'shifter' stupidity and puts it back where it belongs.

LOL, I had no idea people actually using their large SUV more than the one Ford engineer at a time was so 1987...who knew?!

I mean the two cup holders (one on the drivers side, one on the passengers side) and the storage area forward of them. An example (Google Images with 'Expedition Interior' has more):

Why in gods name did they get rid of the column shifter <insertVomitEmoji>?!?! Look at all that usable space wasted for something that's used once/twice when first getting in the vehicle and once prior to getting out. Fffff*ccckkk that is a bad actual consumer use design decision...

Might be the entire rail car was stolen...

Yeah, this is dangerous haha, but I'll admit I do it to. In the Telecomm industry, we are working on things to mitigate this (can't say more really). If the Continental has those and doesn't have the damn cockpit design where my right leg is plastered up against some needless piece of plastic, I might end up getting one. I have the luxury of waiting a few years if I need to though, so hopefully Ford wises up and actually has people who call the shots use the vehicles for more than 15 minutes a drive so they can quash these poor design decisions.

There probably are, I just wish they wouldn't outweigh the years of car ownership the buyer will be stick with a really sub-optimal configuration. We have a Ford Flex: It doesn't need a console shifter, it is a massive waste of needless space. Two cell phones, chargers, change, food, medical shit, etc. etc. etc. There are a thousand more worthwhile things we, and everyone else who owns a Flex, will want to put in the open air console portion that can't, that have to be less usefully jammed somewhere else, because of a shifter to be "sporty". Yes, I can see that, for cars with actual manual transmissions. Flex, does SHO even have one? (that'd make Taurus not needing one), F-150, Edge, Expedition...probably many others. LOL, mind shift would be great! Lincoln needs that... :D

Please god, don't put in the useless console mounted shifter! Just put in a column shifter, it's not a f*cking Ford GT, Ford, so stop pretending it is and let the console actually have use for drinks, normal car shit, etc., rather than all that space being taken up by a "sporty" needless automatic shifter. F*ck...I know they're going to do it anyways, and it'll be another vehicle needlessly ruined for people who actually spend more than 10 minutes in their vehicle at any one time.

OP: At CAP (Chicago Assembly Plant) which currently makes Taurus, it used to be (not sure how it is now) that one could sign out a car and take it home for the night, as long as they filled out a review sheet and returned it the next day. It was called "QC" but in Reality, it was people taking home a car each night. Keep in mind they could abuse the F out of it and zero people would really know - exactly the opposite of how some people want their new ride broken in/treated - as long long as they weren't caught and/or the car wasn't a sh1thole when they brought it back. Now, officially of course, this didn't happen. In Reality, this happened all the time. Most people in the plant obviously didn't F with this, they'd just drive their own vehicles to and from each day. But it really just takes one to get your ride at some point in the transpo (from the time it rolls off line to the time the stealership gets it to you) and it's going to have at minimum more than necessary miles on it. Don't worry, they're, "QC'ing" it.

http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147380

Yes, this is known over at least over at FordFlex.net and Yes people are changing PTU fluid over there on their own derived maintenance schedule. Clearly as you note Ford fluid service life has been greatly overrated on these...

We've got standards in place right now that are 20-30 years old and those IT systems are still doing billing, ordering, and servicing - across different competing companies no less...that's why you have a well thought out standard that everyone follows. Do you really think in 30 or 40 years there are going to be 100M vehicles that are that old running around? Keep in mind if they rolled this out in 10 years, that the 20-30 year old cars would already have the tech in them. For the comparative few that remain, a simple tax sticker fee as they do now for electrics would suffice. I don't think tech wise this would really be a problem. In 40 years 5G data packets will still be around...

You have to simply apply the solution to the vast majority of vehicles when the solution takes affect. You can have this solution rolled out for a decade or two before it ever takes affect, and honestly, with at least one stage implemented, to allow sufficient saturation of the US vehicle fleet. This isn't some massive amount of data btw, we're already in peta here are we're dealing with it. And I'm not saying they're nothing - they are something, but they're not at all some massively complicated insurmountable hurdle. The communication problem is already handled (except for extremely far outlier areas, and even those in 20-30-40 years won't be outliers any longer). The vehicle technology issue...handled. Backend hardware? Handled. Compiling data? We do that today already. Billing data? Already done today. These are matters of architects and SMEs sitting down, hammering out their area, and making it so. We literally do this daily here - on scales such as this already. Yes, on such a large scale it's a big issue however it's not so big that it's inconceivable. It's large, but not really that complex.

When the vehicles are all rolling off the assembly line with the Fed mandated tax solution in them, for 20-30 years, it doesn't matter how many are out there now. We're not talking about rolling this out tomorrow, we're talking about long term tax $ application fixes going into affect decades from now.

I do to (daily). I doubt we'd be retrieving that data though, better as a push.

Can you supply evidence that you yourself have that credentials to evaluate that? Please note, doing antivirus scans, setting up an e-mail server, etc. is not evidence. What multi-million $ IT projects have you led where you'd be a good arbiter of such evidence? Here's a clue: The stuff I'm working on has already rolled out the building blocks for this in the vehicles, and there's more to come. You keep quoting a 254M figure as if that means something in the technical sense. Maybe a question you could answer that would make that a real number to care about is: How many vehicles in 30-40 years do you think will be running around without their ECU? Can you give me a SWAG on that?

Short of devising the solution, what would satisfy you that this is not as complicated as you yearn for it to be?

Why would you ask about tracking that many vehicles?

Vehicle Hardware: Nothing, built into cars when they're all running cell and GPS in 20 years. Possible cheap as dirt encrypted chip/subroutine to compute charge data. Backend Hardware: Not much really, nothing being done that isn't already being done. APIs: For most part one time major development effort. Maps: We already have these things, the street layouts for the vast majority of locales aren't changed...well...ever... Assignment of taxes: One time major effort, small state supervised county based ongoing efforts. You all must be on some small projects/efforts to think this is some insanity large and complicated effort - it's not. Large sure, overly complicated, not really.

Cost more for who? The consumer pays what they use the roads for. If they're driving all over gods green earth, then they should pay more than someone who drives to the supermarket 1 mi away once a week and to church two blocks over on Sunday. What a system like this solves is your money goes to the people whose roads you actually drive on and in the %'s you drive on them in. Fuel tax doesn't do that, nor does $/mi tax. I think you guys are confusing 'most fair' with 'easiest to implement'. I'm not saying this is the easiest to implement.

This is really not that complicated (and yes I work in IT too). Does it have complexity? Sure. Really not that bad. I'd estimate our IT group could have the IT side of the implementation done in a year and a half - that's working at sane pace instead of the we need it yesterday pace we're generally at. Hardware is nothing, it's built into the vehicle because the OEMs are already building it into the vehicles. Hardware on the IT side, who cares? It's boxes, order some up for your 3 locations and be done with it. The hardware aspect of this is a nothing. Don't get me wrong: I don't ever see this solution happening - but not because it's too complex (it isn't). It's just that the privacy concerns are too large, and 'good enough' solutions such as the other options you've pointed out exist. They're not as accurate, but, they are a good enough compromise with the public that they - should - win out.

Those companies pay that fee and pass it onto the consumer, which they do anyways with the existing gas tax. If the system is designed correctly, they don't need to really hire tons of people. We don't have tons of people being hired to track I-PASS for our tolls in IL, the system just works. Obviously, if a GPS system was employed, it'd need to be that reliably accurate. Won't really be that much cost at all in a decade or so. GM, Volvo, Audi, and others (not sure I can talk about them) are all rolling out vehicles with cell connected and GPS enabled technologies. Throwaway cell phones are commonplace. What is needed would be a centralized (maintain by Federal most likely, hence the Big Brother concerns) storage and IT system, APIs, standards, etc. that once setup shouldn't need much tweaking. Google maps is likely accurate enough. States can maintain the exception process for people living in those States. Yeah it's overhead but it would be the most fair. I'm not at all saying it's the most cheap, the fuel tax is likely the cheapest way to collect road taxes for fuel (or the electric car stamp is even cheaper I guess), but it would be the most fair. Those responsible for those roads will have to maintain them to the degree they feel they need to be maintained with the money from their bucket, just like they do now. No change there. How does one break up the quoting on this BBS once you've quoted someone?

Miles driven can't accurately apply your road usage, hence the need for GPS. If you have grandma who is only driving locally, none of her usage tax (however that is collected) should be sent to the highway system.