shibashaba

My radio in my focus has been making crackling and popping noises for a while now. Now it won't always turn on and this affects the bluetooth. Is this a common problem, and if so, does anyone know what part I need to order? Thank you.

not that you would want to eat it, but it's biodegradable. it also wouldn't make animals sick if they were to eat it after it's been junked. just something to try and appease environmentalists, but i doubt they would even notice.

First of all, the thing looks like a joke. Something out of a scifi movie, but with poor taste. Secondly, it's gonna cost too much as others have said. For those of us who work in field dominated by disposable income, the fact that the economy is in the crapper is so obvious I want to cry. I don't think anyone on here has a clue how bad things are yet. IMH(and completely uninformed)O, shouldn't a ground up cop car be based off of something like the focus cargo van thingies they have in europe? Wouldn't be appropriate for every department but would be adaptable to a lot of different uses very easily and get good gas mileage. The drivetrain i'm sure isn't as durable as the crown vic, but given that the focus is used for rallying i'm sure it could be made to go through a pursuit fairly well. Instead of having one size fits all, you could have a small little runabout that could be customized for a lot of different purposes, which is how larger police departments seem to work anyways. For example, if they're riding around looking to bust someone for drugs, theres a k-9 unit following another unit that probably has more equipment or whatever. Where I live, I hardly every see someone pulled over by just one cop car. Small patrol cars would be ideal for a lot of other reasons in suburb and urban areas, they just need to be able to fit the cops comfortably. Screw the person in the back. Not to mention they keep a low profile, and would do so much better than a crown vic. That stupid thing would stand out like a sore thumb, it would be impossible to go anywhere without everyone knowing theres a cop around. Anyways, this whole thing looks like a joke to me. They have very little information on their web site. I would say its a scam but people on this board happen to believe otherwise given the people involved. Maybe these guys should get into making scifi flicks or something...

toyota was getting a free pass because their cars for the longest time were consistantly surveying better than other vehicles. They did it for a lot of other makes too when they would redesign a line that had usually done well in the past rather than wait a year to see how the redesign did. back in the day(10 years ago) i remember them explaining this and doing it for a lot of Fords. I actually remember a time(around 93?) that virtually ever ford was always recommended.

Ford needs to advertise their improvements in quality. If anybody has a reservation about buying a ford, its because there afraid its going to break down on them. They can compare their cars and come up with catchy slogans all they want but it's not gonna do them any good. For years all toyota advertised was JD Powers awards and testimonials from their customers. Ford needs to do the same, anything else is a waste.

A lot of them don't have bank accounts. And a lot of them do very well for themselves believe it or not after they've been here a couple years. Day laborers and the ones that make squat are the drug addicts and alcoholics, or there fresh off the boat and don't have too many friends here. I was reading in the papers the other day that they've become targets for robberies around here since they carry so much cash around.

I can't say the tempo has a good name going for it, but the escort did build up a good name with a lot of people. They just weren't as cool as civics were for various reasons. I don't think it would be a good name for cars targeting younger people. I do remember seeing these popular mechanics surveys, 90% of escort owners said they would buy another. That was the highest for any car. I don't believe they do those surveys anymore though, I haven't been able to find them.

The new focus doesn't look cheap, at least on the outside. It looks like what every stupid fu*kin* import is gonna look like in 4 years.

At one point ford had the probe, escort gt/some trace equivelent too, mustang, thunderbird, cougerr, taurus sho, capri?(can't remember when that was discontinued), lincoln mark viii in the sport coupe segment. They decided they had too many sports cars and that they should just focus on high volume sales on a couple models. This was in the mid 90's when the Japanese started to actually make decent cars for the first time and were starting to show up the domestics(All toyotas had standard fuel gauges on them, and civics were approaching a size that someone over 130 lbs could fit in!). Ford I guess had blown all their resources on SUV's, trucks, and buying exotic European brands that no one else wanted; leaving little time/resources to remodel 6 or so cars all at the same time. So they axed everything(also including tractors, big rigs, and old white people) but kept the mustang. The Focus svt failed because it was mostly suspension crap, like the steeda focus. There is just not much of a market for $20,000 cars that arent especially fast or have anything to do with economy cars. Expensive trim levels focusing on mostly the suspension works for the Mustang because it already has more than enough power and cachet. While the Focus SVT may have looked good on paper compared to rivals, those rivals can get by on the fact that Hondas, VWs,etc are status symbols to some in this country and have other desirable qualities. And from what I understand, the RSX, eclipse, are not doing all that well compared to what Ford was selling and later expecting with the probe, zx2, focus SVT. Mitisubishi is as far as I'm concerned is a niche car player and is used to selling cars nobody really wants Remember that 10 year old article about how they do business over there that was just on here? http://www.mitsubishisucks.com/cars/new-mo...ipse/sales.html http://www.automotive.com/features/90/auto...7577/index.html Does 12-30k vehicles a year justify a market for a company like Ford? The Solara and 2 door accord sell to repeat buyers that have had 4-6 sedan models of those vehicles who are now going through a mid life crisis or whatever it is for them. I don't even want to think about what a 2 door taurus or 500 would look like. A 2 door fusion might work, but it may also be stretching the market for the Fusion at this time, they should maybe try a 4 door sport sedan(and please Ford, don't try to put a spoiler on it). The Monte Carlo isn't anything spectacular and only sells cause of the name as far as I'm concerned. When the monte carlo came out it wasn't, "Did you hear about this car chevy's bringing out?". It was, "Did you hear the Monte Carlo is comming back?". I'm sure if Ford waited 10 years or whatever the thunderbird could have the same response for a few years, no matter how much it sucks. Now people on here have made a little bit of noise about the cooling housing market and economy in general. When everyone and their illegal landscaper isn't pulling equity out their ass what's that gonna do to the $30K plus car market that the majority of 2 door sales are in? I wonder where all this new money(err debt) is comming from? The market for $10-20k practical sports cars/hatchbacks/fastbacks/whatever might be comming back.

so what explains the increase in crown vic sales? there seemed to be a lot of police agencies/taxis trying various alternatives, are they going back to the crown vic?

This is an old article but I thought this was interesting, sounds like Ford needs some better lawyers and should have at least paid the medical expenses upfront: from overlawyerd I am one of the lawyers who represented Mrs. Munoz, and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding the case. If you are to be critical of a jury verdict such as this, you might want to have all the true facts before crying foul. Here they are, and if you want proof, please let me know. (1) Ms. Munoz was a rear seat passenger, not required by law to wear a seatbelt, and the case predated 2003 changes in Texas law, which now makes seatbelt use admissible in such cases. (2) Ford/Mazda did not allege that Ms. Munoz was negligent or did anything wrong that caused her injury. In a court of law, you have to file pleadings asserting who was at fault, and failing that, you can't just make it up as you go along. The belt use issue was not even pled by Ford. (3) Too late in the case, Ford hired an "expert" who it had paid literally tens of millions of dollars to over the past two decades to say that if Ms. Munoz would have had her seatbelt on, her injury would not have occurred. This same expert has given no less that 10 contradictory opinions, under oath, in the past two years alone where belted occupants receive fatal or paralyzing injuries in a Ford vehicle rollover. In those cases, his testimony has been that stuff like this just happens, regardless of belt use, in dynamic rollovers. (4) The jury was in fact informed that Ms. Munoz was ejected from the vehicle, and Ford's lawyers hammered that issue throughout trial. (5) Ford's position that it took publicly after the verdict that the accident was caused by "driver error" is a farse. Ford's own experts, corporate representatives, and lawyers at trial all admitted and TOLD THE JURY NOT TO BLAME THE DRIVER. (6) Referring to Ms. Munoz's injury as "limp" is insulting, ignorant, or worse yet, absolutely false and misleading. Ford, Mazda and Firestone all agreed that she had a greivious injury. For example, Ford's own experts put her in a wheelchair by age 50. She was incontinent of bowel and bladder. She was a quadriplegic, for heaven's sake. That she remains capable for a number of years between now and age 50 to walk by dragging her right side is a testament to her efforts at rehab and unwillingness to quit. Your attempts to diminish her injuries are completely at odds with even Ford and Mazda, not to mention the truth. (7) Yes, Firestone settled and Ford could have too, before trial. Instead, Ford chose to take a risk of loss, offering $0 to this young woman, who had over $2,500,0000 in medical expenses alone. We can't make a defendant do the right thing. We demanded a very reasonable amount in settlement and had $0 offered. By getting a sizeable verdict, maybe Ford and Mazda will do the right thing now. Of course, because we were forced to trial, we had to spend over $300,000 to prepare and try the case to verdict, so the process is exceedingly costly and not ideal for any party. (8) The case was not decided "against Ford and Mazda" solely on the basis of the tire aging theory. The case was decided on a number of factors, many of which you fail to mention: (a) hundreds of internal Ford documents showing that engineers at Ford had warned management of the problems with the Ford Explorer and why it was going out of control from tire failure events, but management decided to conceal this fact from the American public and let hundreds die instead of fixing the problem; (B) the jury was shown evidence that Ford actually heavily participated in the design of this recalled tire (Firestone made the same tires for GM and Toyota, which were not recalled)-only the Ford specification was recalled; © the tire had a manufacturing and design defect that Ford failed to inspect for/notice when mounting the tire at the assembly plant—Ford admitted these defects; and (d) Ford has known for years about the hazards of tire aging but provides the consumer with no information about that hazard, not even how to tell the age of a tire. (9) Your claim that we settled with Firestone and then got to somehow only blame Ford and hid the fact that we blamed Firestone is absurd, false, and just plain stupid. We did blame Firestone, and so did Ford and Mazda, and the law allows that, especially against a settling defendant such as Firestone. That is why the jury charge asked the jury to find defects in the tire. That is why the jury charge asked the jury to apportion fault between Ford, Firestone, Mazda, and the driver. Do the truth and facts matter in your perfect political ideology that all lawsuits are bad and if won, were cheated, wrong, misguided, etc.? (10) Ford’s owner’s manuals were not used against Ford somehow improperly. Ford lied to the jury, and we are allowed to prove it, just like Ford would be allowed to prove the jury if we lie in trial. Ford and its experts stated UNDER OATH that tire aging was not a safety issue that can cause tire failures, or even be remotely hazardous to a user. According to Ford and its experts, you can use a tire that is 25 years old without any problems. But if you look at Ford’s 2005 tire safety section on the Ford website and certain 2006 owner’s manuals, Ford warns that tire aging is in fact a safety hazard and to not use tires that are more than 6 years old. The system would certainly be broken if we were not allowed to prove that someone is lying under oath in a court of law. (11) As to the recall notice issue, this vehicle was purchased used by Derek Saenz and his father. Saenz graduated with high honors and was a good, smart kid. They were not sent a recall notice, but heard about the recall and took the vehicle in during the recall just to be safe. Two tires were replaced, but the tire store missed the spare tire and thought it was not recalled. This was typical of the early, confused days of the recall. Many spare tires were not replaced or even checked due to tire shortages as well. Moreover, Mazda claimed it did send a recall notice to the Saenz, but the recall notice was wrong-it did not recall the spare tire. So, if the Mazda recall actually got to the Saenz, it would have advised them to keep the bad tire. There was no allegation of a need for a second recall letter. (12) Your allegation that Plaintiff was allowed “double recoveries†is absolutely false. Under Texas law, as well as all other states I am aware of, double recovery is not allowed. For example, the defendants are given a credit against the judgment for the amount Firestone paid, and also typically only have to pay their assigned percentage of the reduced judgment. So it is the defendants who typically pay even less than their assigned share of the judgment due to the double dipping of settlement credit and apportionment of fault. For example, even if the entire judgment were upheld on appeal, Ms. Munoz would never receive the entire judgment since Mazda will always pay merely 10% of the judgment left after reducing it by what Firestone already paid. These facts may not fit with your politics or beliefs about lawsuits, but they are true and you can verify them. If you are wondering how the facts could have become so distorted, ask yourself who is spending millions of dollars a year to create a perception of some lawsuit crisis, broken system, and runaway juries. Use your brain—there is always more to the story. I hope you have moral fortitude to post this. Sincerely, Roger S. Braugh, Jr.

thanks for the advice, they found the problem right away! For future ref. if the check engine light comes on while your cranking the pcm isn't getting the pip signal from the distributor.

I'll try this over here see if anybody has an idea. Happened suddenly car had been running fine, hasn't stalled out ever since I've had it. Went to start it back up after having been in the store and wouldn't start. The engine cranks fine but won't start, I can't get any spark. When I jumper the h5 terminal on the TFI wiring harness to ground I can get a spark from the coil but that's it. It wont spark while it's cranking. I've changed the rotor, plug wires, cap and coil and checked all the fuses. Makes no differnce with the spout in or out. Also, the front windshield wipers don't work, but the back one does. Everything else seems normal, the check engine light comes on but the battery's died so I doubt theres any codes on it. From what people have told me the computer won't set off any codes while it's cranking if it doesn't start, is that true? If I get a code reader I'm only gonna be able to get one of the cheap $20 ones. Thanks for any advice I can get.