Flying68

$12.16 right now. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/F?p=F&.tsrc=fin-srch

No. I just looked at the 05 T-Bird I am storing right now and the spare appears to be a standard compact spare, it is a Maxxis though.

Where would that be, Fantasy Island??

1. Convenience. Many people like it built in, and not having to connect their phone. 2. Cell coverage. When traveling in some remote areas or rural interstates, cell coverage (with data) can be spotty or non-existent.

No matter what is said on this board, ultimately only a court can decide, unless Ford agrees that they are.

Yes a design defect that leads to engine failure would likely be litigated under an implied warranty for merchantability. After all a car isn't usable with an engine that fails. Warranties and case law are very complex. These cases also show that you can't just make a claim without knowing the case law. I bet they would have had more success with claims for intentional misrepresentation and implied warranty claims, versus just standard warranty defect claims. Bottom line is that good companies will stand behind their products, bad companies won't. All others only do when it is financially sound to do so (and that includes just about every car maker). In the case of engines, Ford can keep warrantying the engines until engineering comes up with a new part that fixes what ever the root cause is. In the case of the vette wheels, there really isn't anything that can be done other than replace them with an aftermarket set. That Indiana case should have been litigated under intentional misrepresentation. Good discussion. Buyer be ware, and know the limitations and exclusions of your warranties. Have a good lawyer if things go wrong.

Yes it is, but the actual suit was tossed even before that issue was discussed. The actual cause of failure never entered into the suit. So from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter how or for what conditions they were designed for. The court agreed with GM's argument that the warranty doesn't cover design defects which is the cause of action that the plaintiffs were using. There was no trial or evidence, GM only argued that if what the plaintiffs alleged was true (a design defect) the wording of the warranty excluded that defect. And yes, another court may disagree and this may end up overturned on appeal, but that will likely take a few years if an appeals court decides to hear it. So for now, this is precedent in California and all automakers will point to this ruling in any other case alleging a design defect, until a court rules that "materials and workmanship" includes the design.

You are quoting something that was irrelevant to reason the suit was dismissed. So this ruling sets a precedent that if a manufacturer designs a product/part and that part meets the manufacturing specifications yet routinely fails because the design itself is inherently unsuitable for the purpose it was intended, that bad design is not covered under warranty. GM actually argued that point. Now was it smart on GM's part not to warranty those wheels, probably not. They could have easily said that those wheels were designed to be driven on smooth surfaces only. However a reasonable expectation from the buying public would suggest that wheels should hold up under normal road conditions. In Ford's case they are warrantying the blocks, so that isn't the question. But your prior statement that design defects are covered is incorrect based on the GM precedent (a court in another state may rule differently, but many will look to previous rulings like this as guidance). So if Ford eventually determines that these blocks are performing correctly, per design, and have no defects in materials and workmanship they may decide to not warranty them. But I suspect that won't happen and instead they will look for a band-aid fix.

Maybe this will settle some of the discussion about the Sport's capability. Most crossovers and compact SUV's don't do well on the slip test or the hill test (and some larger ones as well). The Sport seemed to handle everything just fine.

Not so fast my friend. GM had a lawsuit dismissed arguing that inherent design defects do not fall under defects of materials or workmanship. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/11/lawsuit-over-corvette-cracked-rims-dismissed-in-california/

I had an '04 LS. Always wondered why it didn't have a way to check. I just made sure to have it changed on schedule.

The 33 mpg is using the gas engine alone from my reading of the EPA chart. If you run just like a regular hybrid (which I believe is one of the drive modes) your MPG should be significantly better. The cost to drive 25 miles (driving on gas only) they list also works out to 33 mpg. I think in the long run, the PHEV will actually return better overall fuel economy even if you don't plug in because the engine will recharge the battery as you drive, especially while cruising on the highway. It would be even better if you plugged into a 120v outlet from time to time and add a few miles of range to the battery.

https://www.thule.com/en-us/winter-and-water-sports-carriers/kayak-roof-racks/thule-hullavator-pro-_-1685448

N/M

I am not sure how they figure it in, but it does help. The CAFE number and the MPGe rating are probably not the same, just like the Moroney MPG is not the same as the CAFE rating for ICE vehicles. I would assume there is some type of formula. This is how Tesla maintains profit, by selling CAFE credits to other manufacturers. I did find a document from NHTSA that mentioned that CAFE target fuel economy numbers are now based on foot print size, and SUV's and CUV's are classified in the light truck segment. Passenger cars are their own classification. It had two examples that standout, a midsize car is a Ford Fusion size and has a footprint of 46 sqft. A small SUV is a 4WD Ford Escape and has a footprint of 44 sqft. The target fuel economy number for the Fusion would be 54.9 and for the Escape would be 47.5. This is another reason why there has been a shift from passenger cars to SUV's, it is easier to hit CAFE numbers.