Monochrome11

I think it is perfectly normal for a vehicle to use 1/2 qt in 5,000 miles. The rings need lubrication and allow a small amount of oil to pass for this purpose. If an engine used zero oil it would need the rings replaced at low mileage and would begin to use a lot of oil.

Besides, I understand the only benefit (negative) of gutting a cat is reduction in performance because of the expansion and compression of the exhaust gasses while going through it. Yes, modern cats are high flow and do not restrict flow if working properly.

I think the problem is the shop that did the work. I would certainly take it back and ask them to do it right. Hopefully, they can.

If you have grinding and grooving into the rotor, you have metal contact to the rotor. Most likely a pad in installed backward. I have done many brake jobs and know how to do it. I still installed one backward once but realized it right away like akirby did and corrected it before any damage occurred. It sounds like your damage has gone too far.

Have you reviewed the Owner's Manual to see if it addresses this?

I tend to agree with you abrowne. There is one thing that I am concerned about with disabling the airbags though, liability. Would an insurance company find a way to get out of paying for injuries if the airbags where intentionally disabled. In the event of a death would life insurance be subject to being voided. Could a passengers family win a lawsuit because you disabled the airbags? I think this is a tough decision and could be more complex than thinking you are making it safer in your vehicle.

The only thing I agree with is premium fuel doesn't burn any hotter or provide more power than regular. However, its resistance to premature combustion does allow the engine to be tuned to utilize more of the power in the fuel. It is pointless to argue about your other statements because they are an opinion and have no scientific basis or logic. Then again it could just be the way you are wording it that makes it seem irrational.

akirby, I don't know where you are getting your information but it has some misinformation. Yes, premium fuel does resist spontaneous combustion before the spark which is called pre-ignition. Premium fuel has a more stabile burn compared to regular fuel and the burn is definitely different after spark ignition. Higher compression destabilizes regular fuel and when the spark or pre-ignition starts the burn that actually increases the pressure and spontaneous combustion can take place in areas beyond the flame front resulting in more of an explosion (also know as pinging) rather than a rapid burn like you get with higher octane fuel. Yes, spontaneous combustion can take place even after spark ignition. You are actually contradicting yourself when you say lower octane results in retarded timing with lower power and higher octane allows the timing to be advanced to create more power. This is true but it is directly related to the way the fuel burns. A stabile burn is what is needed to be able to set the timing (spark) at the most efficient time. If the compression ratio is low enough, regular fuel will work just fine but higher octane will allow higher compression or more advanced timing to improve efficiency resulting in more power. I don't know how anyone can say it has nothing to do with the way the fuel burns.

I have never been a fan of Fiats. They seem to have a problem with reliability. I am not familiar with the Fiesta's reliability but I think it would be a good bet that it is better than the Fiat 500.

It is true that engines that are tuned for regular gas may get worse gas mileage with premium gas because it tends to burn at a slower rate and may have some of the power going out the exhaust. I doubt it is not getting combusted, it just may be combusted at the wrong time to deliver the most efficiency. However, I thought the ecoboost engine was design to run on premium gas but it detunes itself when regular gas is used. Maybe that is not true. Your driving could still be a factor. MPG is mostly effected by acceleration and you still need to do this to get up to speed. I am sure you do it several times during your commute. You may not even know you are using that extra power. Then again, this is all dependent on the Ecoboost engine being able to tune itself for different octane fuels.

My guess is your computer is adjusting the tuning to give you more power with the higher octane. You in response are using that extra horse power and the use of more power consumes more fuel. Another thing is higher octane fuel can contain more ethanol to boost the octane. Ethanol has higher octane but provides less gas mileage.

Contacting a regulating or legal agency can be very useful. I was having a problem with AT&T about returning some of their equipment and wanted to charge me for it. It was a mix up in their system but me repeatedly contacting them and providing proof that I returned it would not resolve the problem. I kept being harassed by AT&T. I contacted FCC and filed a complaint. In less than two days the issue was miraculously resolved. I can't recommend an agency to contact in your case but some of the suggestion made before sound like a good start.

Is the 4.0 in a Mustang a different engine than the 4.0 SOHC engine in the Ranger? I think the one in my 02 Ranger is a decent engine. It does everything I want it to do. I certainly would not call it gutless. I easily tows my race car all over the country. I don't hear any unusual noises coming from it and it feel smooth to me. Also, what are you calling bump steer? Normally bump steer has noting to do with the rear axle. Bump steer is controlled by front suspension geometry.

If you believe only what is advertised, you may someday be in for a big surprise. I am an Aerospace engineer and know the value of testing. It is very difficult to set up a test for real world results. Tests are typically a screening tool. I have seen the top performer in a test fail terribly a real world application. Besides, there is nothing in that test report that states K&N filters will damage an engine more than standard filter as you are stating. It only states that K&N filters have poorer filtration than some paper filters. I have experience with two vehicles at near 200K miles with K&N filters in severe use applications that show no signs of wear due to poor air filtration. This is the real world. If you don't want to use K&N filters, that is your choice. However, telling people that a K&N filter will damage your engine more than a standard filter has as much credibility as typical advertising. Even if K&N filters did cause more wear than a specific standard paper filter, I believe it is so minimal that many other things would fail long before any problems due to the K&N filter passing contamination. As to being a knuckle dragger, my arms are not that long. What makes you think long arms or posture has any effect on mental capacity anyway? I forgot to mention that I did clean the K&N filter in my Ranger after being in the extremely dusty conditions for a long time. It was so full of dust that I could barely see the pleats in the filter. I did wipe the interior of the intake tube after the filter with a white cloth and got no evidence of contamination getting through the filter. I was surprised the engine would still run with that much dust on the filter.

Making a statement like "it will damage your engine more than a standard filter" is just an opinion without proof. I have run two engines to near 200K miles with no oil related wear problems. I also had oil analysis conducted to check for wear particulates and air filter contamination. All were within normal parameters. This is not 100% proof that K&N filters are as good as standard oil filter but it is pretty convincing evidence to me. I will know better when I hit 300K miles with my current Ranger. I just spent 9 days in the desert off-road behind 5 other vehicles in the deserts of Utah with my Ranger (very dusty). I am sure it will need cleaning but I will check the intake tube after the filter and I will most likely detect no contamination on the white cloth wipe as I have in the past.