BrewfanGRB

I am on of the approximately 2% of buyers that RTFM. When I read mine, I discovered the quick start feature (it has an actual name, but I'm forgetting what it is). And once I did, I loved it. Basically a 1 second flick to start and I can let go and let the car do the work. It just means less stress on all the parts because the computer is going to be better at starting the car than I am.

Every generation feels the next generation is the end of the world and are shocked SHOCKED! at what "kids these days" do, want, have, expect. They are young adults...not emblematic of something particular about their generation or a sign the world is ending. (Baby boomers did a good enough job of that putting us on that course, many could argue).

And what is this: What you seem to not be getting is that calling the MKZ and the Fusion "shared" vehicles is like calling me and my 3rd cousin "twins". Some shared DNA, but not in any possible way the same person.

Alright, so those quotes, in proper context, are what? You being an objective, reasonable critic of Ford, as a company, in today's auto market? What is this, exactly? "Something doesn't pass the smell test with ANY of Ford's hybrids." We all know the thread this is from and the context it is in. And it's undeniably an insinuation of poor management--allowing the their desire for MPG to do bad things. I can offer commentary on ALL of the quotes he provided. And any number of us would argue you're going hard at Ford's management. Who's to blame for the acrimony you have for where Lincoln is today? Is has to be management, right?

I'd like to "quadruple like" this post. Fantastic.

Everytime you derisively dismiss the MKZ as an "anything Fusion", you're diminishing the MKZ because of its shared relationship with the Fusion. You want to get into a semantics battle over "I think the MKZ sucks but *I* never said it was because of "PLATFORM SHARING"...I said it sucks because it's a better (or tarted up--I honest forget who used it first, you or VX-8) Fusion"? It's been a while since I've run into someone as deliberately obtuse as you.

I'm 5'8". Headroom is not an issue for me in any car. The passengers? They're not paying for the car, so I couldn't care less about them. Outward visibility? Open the roof after I've backed out of the driveway.

LMAO. "Not taking that bait." You mean "I can't create a defensible argument under those conditions because I really do mean "tarted up" and "platform sharing" as a negative."

Then why the hell even bring it up? Why even BOTHER comparing the Fusion to the MKZ when in no discernible or meaningful way are they the same? It's precisely to attach a negative connotation to it. If VX-8 or you do not have a problem with an ES/Avalon or Infiniti/Nissan, etc...then there's NO REASON to even bring up that they share a platform.

Oh. So basically, you're saying "It's premium if I say so and I like German makes and they are premium because I say so." Nonsense.

How could it be MUCH MORE appealing if it's merely a tarted up Fusion?

You're comparing the Hyundai and Ford cases and then are befuddled why the refund offers are different? You need to take a critical thinking course. Sit down, take a deep breath and think VERY CAREFULLY about why they different. (And they ARE different...they aren't just "Well, derr, dey both are like about numbers and stuff.")

Then why are you here? Solve your problems by not ever buying a Ford Motor Company product. And selling any you might currently own. You telling me "FMC is not quite the angel.." isn't going to change my thinking. I might buy a Fusion with MFT out of spite.

The C-Max never got a 47 "on the test" because it was never tested. Which is exactly the argument you've been making! At this point, I'm almost wishing Ford Buyer would come back. You're more obtuse than he was on his worst day.

What?? The whole argument in this Biblical thread has been that Ford did the actual test on the Fusion and just used the same figures for the C-Max because the loophole allowed them to do so. There are no "issues" for the Fusion to have because that figure wasn't based on the assumption that we're all criticizing. You could at least try to pay attention and not undermine your own argument.

If the real-life figures were close to the sticker figures and they could get another 2-3 mpg (or whatever) out of "just" doing a software update, why the hell wouldn't they do so? It helps CAFE and it'd help them batter Toyota over FE even more. The idea that they could improve FE (both in RL and on the sticker) by doing a software update but wouldn't is implausible to the point of being unbelievable. Then again, the idea that you would present this idea is completely believable and expected.

I don't disagree with the idea that Ford screwed up in its handling of this. It shouldn't have relied on the "loophole" and just stickered the C-Max w/ a real FE number. Not very many us have really disagreed with you at all on this. And sure, the software update is suspiciously coincidental...but they still needed to put the time and money into it to make it work. My objection was purely to your assertion "well, it wasn't a planned update, so I'll dismiss the update/changes out of hand. I only consider SCHEDULED changes and improvements." And the FTR, I don't think you'll find many EPA fanboy defenders here, either. I think we (for the most part) agree the testing protocols and regs are imperfect. But improving it isn't as simple as "be more right in the real world".

No, I didn't. Your point was simply silly.

You missed the point. It's the idea that the C-Max software upgrades (along w/ the hardware updates on '14's) weren't "scheduled", therefore, they don't count I was objecting to.

First, it was only a joke. But...THAT'S what you're going with? The "the referees are in the bag for the Packers (even though everyone could see--including Ray Charles, who is dead--believes the replacement officials made an egregious error costing the Packers a win) so they can beat the Vikings" whine fest? And how the hell can you say how bad the O-line has looked so far? You're basing this on a glorified practice that's really just fun for fans and the first pre-season game? Come on, now. You're better than that, aren't you? I agree, Rodgers gets sacked a lot. Far too much. And yes, I agree, it's likely the O-line will not be good enough this year. But let's put a hold on the conclusion jumping. YOUR team, btw, has far greater, broader problems than the Packers do....namely this is the NFL and your team does not have a competitive QB.

Uhh, Richard wasn't the one that brought up that truly stupid analogy.

What?? So if a company finds a better way to produce a product or additional research finally yields the ability to produce a better product, then the introduction of that product better be "scheduled"? My God.

And what happens when you ask for "meat" and when they ask: "Beef, chicken or pork?", you say "pork". When your wife asks why you bought pork steak instead of ribeye, you say "But I thought we always ate pork steak on Thursdays?" and your wife says "No, dear, it's ribeye." The point is, if given 8 choices, the customer (who, on average, is an idiot), will pick the best-case scenario. When his real-life results don't match that number (because his real-life driving is NOT the "best-case scenario"), he's mad. Perhaps even madder because he thinks "They give me 8 choices...I'm no car expert, I don't know what to pick, but they had one where I could get 45 mpg in the C-Max, why don't *I* get that?" I just think you're VASTLY overestimating the intelligence, competence and self-honesty of HUMANS.

He's a Vikings fan, so odds are probably pretty good he could run that team at least as poorly as it is now.

Wow. More like "intelluctual dishonesty", since you have no problem taking a position where you lack the required knowledge. (It's been pointed out repeatedly here the label was FULLY within the EPA testing regulations. Was it unethical. Yes...and those some many posters noted. But with a rational EPA testing protocol, it wouldn't have even allowed for the unethical approach to occur).