GT_IE

Really? You really think "next time use the quote button- thats why they invented it" was sincere? You tack shit like that on the end of an apology? What's my deal? I will actually call akirby out for being the biggest ass i've ever come across on a forum. You really think i'm alone? How bout the guy who started this topic? What do you think he meant about akirby's bullshit remarks?

Are you serious? You mean the post where you insulted him for your inability to comprehend quotation marks?

Jesus, you idiot. Do you have Aspergers? You troll other peoples' threads, spew your idiocy, patronize and belittle them, then ask to move on when really you weren't welcome in the first place and you question HIS comprehension of the situation?

Let it go GaryG, he's not man enough to admit when he's wrong. Everyone here knows his screenname should really be SummersEve

Fyp

Check out the Zephyr in post 13 of this thread, complete with V12 Ferrari engine... http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?52135-Car-Crazy-International-Vehicles-Showcase-at-2011-SEMA/page2

Yeah, see, you have the wheels for it. There are so many spokes in my wheel it's pretty much a waste, but it only cost about $6 and it gave me a chance to get the wheels off for a good, thorough cleaning & wax plus show the kids how easy it is to change pads.

Thanks. I bet not, at least not with aftermarket. The THX 5.1 comes OEM with a 10" sub, but it is pretty weak. This one gets the rear view mirror vibrating. I've got Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on my IPAD. I was driving the kids on a couple hour trip, so I hooked up the IPAD via bluetooth, they pulled up the shades, and I cranked it up. Worked great. And I've got a playlist on my ipod that it is great for too.

last one, for now. I've painted the front calipers black. Haven't done the rear yet. It is pretty subtle. I wish I had done yellow or red I think.

Yes, they absolutely are for that. They couldn't get the 5 star safety rating without them because of the new standards and you'll begin seeing headrest changes in all cars. They could have gone with a more expensive solution where the headrest is further back then comes forward upon impact. the passive solution is much cheaper. It was a major comfort issue for my wife though. Her posture simply didn't work with the new design. Her head naturally rests so far back that the new one should still help somewhat.

Next was more work on the audio/navigation. I added components from PAC Audio. First, the navigation & camera unlock. This unit allows you to enter addresses into the navigation while the vehicle is in motion, and also to view the feed from the backup camera. At the same time, I added a PAC Audio media gateway and HD Radio receiver. The media gateway is only need to pass the HD signal through, but it also has an IPOD input, so I can connect an IPOD through USB in the center console, or through the media gateway in the glove compartment, or both. No pics of these, it is all behind the dash. All controls are through OEM steering wheel, touchscreen and radio buttons.

I replaced the front seat, passenger headrest with a headrest from a 2008 Ford Taurus X. It comes in the same grey stone material. The new 2010 headrest caused serious comfort issues for my wife. In the picture below, I photoshopped together 3 pics of my front seat with 3 different headrests. The 2010 MKT protrudes the farthest forward, I tried a 2011 MKT out because they changed it, and finally the Taurus X which is the furthest back... The color of the taurus looks different because of the lighting in the picture, but it is an exact match.

Back to the rear, I smoked the taillights with VHT nightshades , and later the lower reflectors (no good pic of them). I blacked out the chrome with plasti-dip. I have since removed the plasti dip from the Lincoln emblem, but left it on the horizontal strips... and here's how it looks in the daylight with lights off, tail lights, and brake lights.

Next, I blacked out the grill, and the chrome strips on the lower grill...

Next up came interior Audio work. I already had a leftover JLAudio Power Wedge sub woofer and an Alpine amp. So, I had a speaker terminal port added in the rear and put the amp under the driver's seat It ties into the factory radio through a line output converter. The knob for that let's me turn up the sub independant of the radio controls. You can just make it out on the right of the picture. blends in very well. Now I can put the sub in when I want it, and take it out if I need the space...

Here are a series of modifications I have made so far to my 2010 Lincoln MKT. It started with debadging it. I peeled off the Dealer stickers with a fingernail. Then I used dental floss to "saw" off the chrome lettering. Goo Gone handled the remnants of the double-sided tape. Then a paint cleaner (meguiars deep crystal cleaner) followed by meguiars ultimate polish and meguiars nxt 2.0 wax. Good as new...

my mistake, not sure why I thought you said cost

TLDR You be the judge. There is an heated debate over whether in the State of Georgia tinted brake/tail lights are illegal. Here are the positions of the 2 parties. Decide for yourself. The Case that it is LEGAL The DOT sets standards, not laws. States establish laws and they may, or may not, require by law that something meet a DOT standard. You can not be cited by a State official for failing to comply with a DOT standard, but rather for failing to comply with a State LAW. In Georgia law, when there is a requirement to meet a DOT standard, it is explicitly stated, as in 120-3-23-.04.H.15.i.1 “in accordance with DOT and the applicable NFPA Standards” Similarly, other states have laws requiring compliance with DOT standards, with typical language such as this, relating specifically to vehicle lighting. 547.3215. USE OF FEDERAL STANDARD. Unless specifically prohibited by this chapter, lighting, reflective devices, and associated equipment on a vehicle or motor vehicle must comply with: (1) the current federal standards in 49 C.F.R. Section 571.108; or (2) the federal standards in that section in effect, if any, at the time the vehicle or motor vehicle was manufactured. The Georgia Law regarding tail lights and brake lights (pasted in full below) states ( with no mention of DOT standards): (d) All lenses on brake lights and signal devices shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications. Nowhere in Georgia state law does it require lighting to comply with DOT Standards. Elsewhere in Georgia law, it is explicitly stated when materials such as tint are prohibited, One example is the following section on headlights. There is no such language in the tail/brake light code. 40-8-22-d The headlights required by this Code section shall be maintained in proper working condition and shall not be covered by any type of material, provided that the covering restriction shall not apply to any vehicle on which the original factory headlights were covered. So that means that the test for part D is whether the brake/tail light meets OEM specs. There are 2 points to consider here. First, if it is the original equipment and a material such as vinyl tint covers it, then the equipment meets specs and unlike the headlight law, the brakelight law does not prohibit covering it with material. Second, there is case law on the subject. See the bottom of the post for an abridged version of the Georgia Appellate Court ruling. In short it says, without specific, documented knowledge of the manufacturer’s specs for the individual vehicle, make/model and even specific to the year of manufacture (since specs can change year to year); without that knowledge, an officer has no cause to cite you for failure to meet manufacturer’s specs. It came down to saying the officer had no idea what the manufacturers specs are so how could he possibly have cause to pull the person over or ticket them. Consistent with that, an licensed attorney in Georgia weighed in with the opinion "Oh, you need to look at the mfgs specs for brightness then see if tinting will take it below minimum", so knowledge of the specs is key and no officer will know those specs. Saying it is illegal because you can't be sure if they meet specs implies a presumption of guilt, i.e. You are out of spec until you prove you are in. Our justice system affords you a presumption of innocence, i.e. You are in spec until the state proves that you are NOT. So, really the test in Georgia comes down to this section of the code: “shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime”. There is plenty of evidence that even with fairly dark tinting this condition is met. For example, the following is 3 pics of a car with tinted lights taken at noon with a) lights off B) tail light and c) brake lights. This is from 43 feet, but I can state from personal experience that the result is similar from 300 feet. Based upon all of that, I assert that tinted tail lights are NOT illegal in Georgia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- full code and appellate ruling at the bottom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The case that it is ILLEGAL Point 1: They may be state legal but they're not DOT legal. And there's a reason for that. Point 2: here is the GA LAW that makes it illegal. Georgia State Code 40-8-23 (e) All lenses on taillights shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications. So it's ILLEGAL Point 3 In response to an opinion from an attorney on the matter stating "Oh, you need to look at the mfgs specs for brightness then see if tinting will take it below minimum" Funny thing about attorneys. On average they're wrong half the time. Point 4: I say it's illegal Point 5: Thousands of drivers get tickets for tinted tail lights every year. If they don't come that way from the factory then they're illegal. Period. Point 6: [if they are illegal, why are there tinted OEM lights?] Because they're not illegal if they're provided by the mfr and they've been certified to meet DOT standards. The mfrs are not allowed to use anything that doesn't meet DOT standards. When you do the modification yourself, you're not going through the DOT certification so you can't be sure if they meet specs or not, therefore modifying them is illegal. Point 7: the facts are indisputable - it's illegal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix: Full Georgia Brakelight Code O.C.G.A. 40-8-26 40-8-26. Standards for brake lights and signal devices (a) Any motor vehicle may be equipped and when required under this article shall be equipped with the following signal lights or devices: (1) A brake light on the rear which shall emit a red light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a taillight; and (2) A light or lights or mechanical signal device capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and which shall be visible from both the front and the rear. (B) Every brake light shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime, and every signal light or lights indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of 300 feet from both the front and the rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a brake light or other signal lights, such light or lights shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No brake light or signal light shall project a glaring or dazzling light. © All mechanical signal devices shall be self-illuminated when in use at the times mentioned in Code Section 40-8-20. (d) All lenses on brake lights and signal devices shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications. Appellate Court Ruling STATE v. KEDDINGTON The STATE v. KEDDINGTON. No. A04A0112. -- December 22, 2003 The State Court of Gwinnett County granted Katie Ann Keddington's motion to suppress [...] because the arresting officer, W.J. Bates, did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Keddington's vehicle.   The State appeals, and we affirm. In September 2002, Officer Bates pulled over Keddington's 1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse because the vehicle had “Euro” style taillights, i.e., white lenses with red circles in the middle.   [...].   Thus, according to Bates, Keddington was in violation of OCGA § 40-8-23(e), which requires that “All lenses on taillights shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications.” Upon cross-examination, the evidence shows that Officer Bates could not produce any documentation in support of his research;  could not state the dimension of the correct taillight lenses ostensibly used by Mitsubishi;  and could not state what company manufactured taillights for Mitsubishi automobiles.   [...], the trial court granted Keddington's motion to suppress.   Held:  [...]  With absolutely no factual support for the officer's research claims-either by way of research content, operation, or reference, we cannot find clear error in the trial court's credibility [...] In this case, the stop [...] based upon manufacturers' taillight specifications [...] cannot be deemed, under all the circumstances, reasonable.   The chance that Keddington's older model Mitsubishi might also fall within the taillight specifications of the later models Bates purportedly researched is just that, a chance;  especially in light of Officer Bates' testimony that manufacturers' specifications may change every three years.   [...] the grant of Keddington's motion to suppress must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

OK, I'm done debating it here, the topic of tail light tint warrants a thread of it's very own. I'll be creating threads on a variety of forums, with Polls where allowed, and present both sides of the argument and let people weigh in on which side they believe. I'll be laying out my case, compiled from facts in this thread and I'll put AKirby's case in their too. So, Akirby, you have one last chance to lay out your reasoning for why it is illegal. I will PM you as well so you can put you can post your reasoning here or respond via PM. In the likely event that there is no further response from Akirby, I will be using a compilation of his reasoning as compiled from this thread. His points are as follows: Point 1: They may be state legal but they're not DOT legal. And there's a reason for that. Point 2: here is the GA LAW that makes it illegal. Georgia State Code 40-8-23 (e) All lenses on taillights shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications. So it's ILLEGAL Point 3 In response to an opinion from an attorney on the matter stating "Oh, you need to look at the mfgs specs for brightness then see if tinting will take it below minimum" Funny thing about attorneys. On average they're wrong half the time. Point 4: I say it's illegal Point 5: Thousands of drivers get tickets for tinted tail lights every year. If they don't come that way from the factory then they're illegal. Period. Point 6: Because they're not illegal if they're provided by the mfr and they've been certified to meet DOT standards. The mfrs are not allowed to use anything that doesn't meet DOT standards. When you do the modification yourself, you're not going through the DOT certification so you can't be sure if they meet specs or not, therefore modifying them is illegal. Point 7: the facts are indisputable - it's illegal

duly noted.

How can you possibly believe that? There is absolutely no evidence that it is true and I've shown a lot of evidence that it is untrue. You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly stubborn. To be perfectly honest, I've seen evidence in other threads that probably aren't incredibly stupid. If that is the case, then you may well be the most stubborn, pig-headed person I've ever encountered. You seem to have some serious, serious issues with admitting you are wrong.

I just went through something very similar with a brand new 2010 Lincoln MKT. Their first offer was about $13k below MSRP. We had a lot of back and forth over it and they clearly understood I was ready to walk away from a deal. I was able to negotiate only $499 more off the price which covered their "customer services". So in the end, I essentially paid their opening offer but paid it without the "fee" they tack on to every car. My opinion, the only thing that will bring them any lower is time. If you are willing to tough it out and chance that someone else will get it, wait a month, or until the last day of this month, and THEN make a counter offer.

Trying to fix it is only half the game. How about they try to do something for all the people suffering from it. Offer something, anything, to ease their suffering the way a business who cares about customers would. You know, something like negotiating discounted satellite radio on our behalf, offering us 1 free map update, offering to subsidize an aftermarket replacement by refunding that part of the purchase price that was for this faulty equipment. When it is something mechanical that is suffering from a general failure to perform, they recall and replace it. If Sync / MFT was a tire, it would be called Firestone.

Yeah, you know, I had moved on just as you asked before. But then, the very first person who came into the thread after that point immediately takes a shot from AKirby (see post #27). Why he can't stay out of this thread and leave the conversation to people who actually want to discuss my customizations I can't understand. If he wants to continue trolling my thread and insulting people who enjoy personalizing their vehicles to their own tastes, then maybe you should just ban him from the forum. I'd like this thread to go on, discussing customizations of my, and other's, MKT. Why he can't respect that is beyond me. The facts are indisputable, but he chooses to maintain a willful blindness to fact and reason and interject in the thread with nothing truthful nor positive. Take it up with him.

I don't care what you think. I do care about exposing you as pompous, arrogant and ignorant ass that you are. Judging from the PMs i have received, I'm not the only person sick of you berating, belittling, shouting down, and insulting other forum members. I care about giving you a stage to show your ass and flaunt your stupidity. Your best arguments seem to be "oh yeah?" and "because i said so". People deserve to know what they are getting when the see advice from you, because you dress your BS up as truth and somehow think that your 4 figure post count makes up for your 2 figure IQ. I have presented a mountain of evidence, not just to refute you but to provide others with actual facts on which to base their own decisions. You name call and attack my motives. I don't need to convince myself of anything. I KNOW it is a good idea, because I like it and its my car. Given that it is also perfectly legal, that's all that matters. Now, how about you do the whole forum a favor and if you don't have something nice to say in other people's threads, then just STFU.