Hoser768

That would seem to summarize the problems lately....

I can has avatar? :lol:

:fan: How many people are actually going to do it?

SkyHawk II

Definitely looks like a leaf and "FFV" to me.

That's where that "I will not downshift." Ram commercial came from.

Good choice. But I prefer, "The Night Santa Went Crazy" Not a direct parody but an obvious shot at "I Believe in Father Christmas".

83 Turdbo Coop 2.3T - Odo shows 65k miles, I'm assuming 165K 86 Mustang GT 5.0 - Odo shows 60k, I'm assuming about 140-150k with non-stock rear gears. 94 Ranger 2.3 - 155K 05 Five Hundred 3.0 Duratech- Turned 50k this week. All run fine but the TurboCoop has a troubling miss and is downright cantankerous until driven a few miles. I'm suspecting some kind of intake leak. I had a 76 LTD with a 400 that had 174K miles. It got sold cheap after the person who replaced the timing gears/chain (me) didn't have anti-freeze on hand and filled the radiator with water to be replaced with anti-freeze before winter, I forgot. :slap:

Which engine? Fordmantpw already said the Flex V6 AWD can match the 4-cyl, my Five Hundred AWD (Think Taurus X sedan) gets 25-26 on its normal "2 lane rural highway" duty with it's 3.0 V6. I guess it does get 22 when the temps hit about -20F, but I'll forgive it for that. I don't think Freestyle/Five Hundred mileage was much different, and I don't think the Venza does anything much better than a Taurus X could. If I get 17.5 MPG, something is seriously wrong.

"Basically I just need a car, and the 1993 Taurus is one." :lol:

That list is pretty messed up. I'll agree with the Avalanche and 96 Taurus though. El Camino has no place on that list. 1st Gen Taurus/Sable I'd disagree with being ugly. The 96-99? I call it the cross-eyed frog. And I bleed blue. The 2000+ to the Five Hundred / Taurus changeover are mostly rental queens with the bugs worked out, with dirt for resale value. If I needed cheap reliable transportation, 2000 to 2007 Taurus would be near if not top of my list. I can see the Chevette maybe in 50 worst cars, but not 50 most ugliest. It didn't look that bad.

Chrysler will still be in business in late 2010?

They have a bunch differentiated by drivetrain. For example, For Fusion they have 4 Cyl, Hybrid, V6 FWD, V6 AWD. Add 4 more for the Milan and there's 8 of the 51 right there.

Since I drive a Five Hundred I'd guess it says there's about t 56% chance I'll get another Ford. I guess the chances are really better, that I'll buy another Ford, but you'll have to pry my CVT AWD Five Hundred from my cold dead hands before I show up on a loyalty survey. I'm waiting for a Fiesta, and the Fiver won't be traded in... :happy feet:

12000 ft? That's going to give a tiny bit of advantage to something equipped with a couple hairdryers. :reading:

I knew it was coming, but I figured it would be the first response.

I know it's been done before, that's partly why I'm surprised Ford would (re)adopt this design now.

The only thing that's really not wowing me is the instrument panel. The arrangement reminds me too much of Grandpa's LeSabre. Three recessed areas, check. Tach on left, check. Flattened bottom in the center, check. Fuel and temp on the right, check. Yes, the lighting and fonts on the Taurus are much different, not seeing it in person, I hope it's not the same eyeball-fry color of blue the lighting at night on the Impala was the last time I drove one. (2006?)

"The center console looks like Optimus Prime making an "O" face." :lol:

Those wheels are Horrible. (Capitalized on purpose.)

Reposted for relevance. Happy car is happy.

3.7 mph? At least the segway has a little more speed to it. I can walk faster than 3.7mph.

I've seen cars that look like crap before, but this one actually looks like "a" crap.