atvman

I doubt a 3.7L is significantly cheaper than a turbo 4. Remember, with a V engine you have to machine two heads and two cylinder banks. Plus you need a more complex timing set, more complex intake, an extra set of camshafts, an extra exhaust manifold, two extra pistons, two extra rods, all the extra hardware, etc.

Pricing was about what I expected it to be considering the level of equipment available.

Not true. A properly driven manual is still more efficient than an auto. The auto gets better sticker ratings because it's easier to program one to trick the EPA.

So what's this about a new AWD system? Is it the latest and greatest Haldex system? In case you guys didn't know, Saab's XWD was actually Haldex 4.0. GM and Haldex had a one year exclusivity agreement that has expired, making the very good system available for other automakers. It certainly wouldn't be a bad addition to the MKZ. I keep hearing rumblings about the 3.5L EB making an appearance as well. The combination of 355hp and H4.0 could make for a very competent sports sedan.

The business case for a new Ranger in the U.S. will get a lot worse in a couple of years. With all the work Ford is putting into the next F150 to make it several hundred pounds lighter, it should come out with some pretty eye popping fuel economy. Drop 500lb and the 2.7L Nano EcoBoost might be the ideal engine in that truck. A 3.5L EB truck gets 16/22 today, a 2.7L Nano with 500lb less to lug around might get 17/24 or better with plenty of power.

What kind of transaction prices were those Rangers fetching? How many of them were discounted fleet sales or stripped out $13K out the door specials?

I remember how much whining went on when the supercharged 2003 Cobra beat up on the LS1 Camaros. Fast forward to today and it takes a both 1.2L of displacement and a supercharger for the Cowmaro to beat an NA Mustang. I love serving crow to people.

The Chebbie boys are already declaring victory over the GT500. I can't wait to see that serving of crow.

The Nano sounds like it could be a great engine. I'm hearing that it's super compact for a V6, which means it will fit in a smaller space and weigh less than a Duratec. I'm thinking it would be a good fit in the MKZ and Fusion. I want to hear the official details.

I don't know if I'd call it wasted space, it's just where the axles are located. In a FWD car, you're pretty limited on where you can hang the front axle. On a RWD car, you can push that axle as far forward as you want. If two cars are the same size, the RWD one will have a longer wheelbase. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Not making much of a case for the Taurus, that's for sure. The Fusion is obviously packaged better.

This segment is dying, it's not one worth investing heavily in. Even the best vehicles in this segment are seeing sales decreases. Most of the people complaining about the demise of the Ranger are people who wouldn't buy a new one anyways, just like Crown Vic slappies.

That color is absolutely fantastic. This is probably the best looking sedan under $50K.

Ford has to develop a Mustang anyways, might as well make the platform work for the Falcon too. Who knows, maybe then we'll get one over here too.

10 months and 13,000 miles on my 2011 Charger R/T with a very similar touch screen system. No crashes, no bugs, no frustration. Granted, the Dart's gauge cluster is more complex, but I'd be confident in owning it after my current experience.