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.

I know people have had problems with K&N air filters but if they are used right they are a good filter. I have used them on all my vehicles since the mid 80s. The harshest use was on two different Ford Rangers. The first was an 89 STX Ranger that was used off-road in the dusty desert a lot, towed my race car and was my daily driver. It had almost 200,000 miles on it when I sold it to a co-worker and it has over 250,000 miles on it now. It never used more than it did when it was new. It still runs very well. My current 2002 FX4 Ranger has over 186,000 miles on it and is still running strong. I plan to run it to at least 300,000 miles and if I didn't trust using K&N air filters I certainly wouldn't be using them. I have never seen any indication of passing more dirt than a paper filters and if it does it certainly doesn't hurt the engine. I have had my oil analyzed to determine if there is any evidence of dirt getting through the air filter and nothing out of the ordinary was detected. I have never had a problem with contamination of the MAF either. I am careful not to over oil the K&N filter after I clean it and I do clean the MAF about every three years to be safe. I didn't start using the K&N air filters because I thought they would provide more power. I just like the idea of being able to reuse them. I also like being able to go 50,000 miles between cleaning. I have 4 vehicles including my race car and anything I can do to reduce maintenance sounds good to me.

It seems that is a good safety feature in my opinion. If you need to exit quickly in an emergency, it would not be good to have to fiddle with unlocking the door before you can get out.

I doubt either one is exact. I had to buy a speedometer calibrator for my Ranger when I went to 33" tires and 4.56 gears. Even with the calibrator I could only get to about a 2% error at best on the odometer. The speedometer is also about 2% fast at low speeds but gets very near accurate at highway speeds.

A worn tire will have less traction on a wet surface, but unless it is worn to the cords it will have better traction on a dry surface. It is a common trick to shave tires to improve dry traction. If the tire is so old that the rubber has gotten hard, it will have less traction but that is not due to having less tread. I have used street tires, with a lot of tread, on the track at racing speeds. They not only have less traction they tend to throw chunks of the tread off do to excessive heating up from all the squirming of the tall treads in the corners. It does not take long to ruin a set of street tires on a race track.

It is not the rolling resistance that causes more stress on the steering. What I see as the problem is when tires are worn, there is more rubber contacting the road and less tread to flex while turning the steering wheel. This apparently over stresses the steering system. Sounds like it is under powered to me. The best race tires have no tread and have more contact with the road. They are also made with a softer compound to get better traction. They are definitely harder to turn but not that noticeable at high speeds.

It could be low on Freon.

If you don't like my race car comparison, I can give you another situation where a street driven vehicle had no problem without an operational fan. I had a Ford Ranger in which the fan clutch failed (free wheeled). This was on the return of a long trip, towing my race car across the dessert. Most of it was on the Interstate but I noticed that when I came to a stop the coolant temperature would start rising. As soon as I got back up to speed the coolant temperature would go back to normal. I was also running my A/C because it was hot in the desert that day. I did stop to see if I could figure out what was causing this. It didn't take long to find the fan was not being driven due to the failed fan clutch. I checked to make sure the fan was not going to come flying off and it seemed secure enough. I continued on and just made sure not to go too slow or stop for an extended period without shutting the engine down. I made it home just fine. I even drove it back and forth to work through the week until I got a new fan clutch and time to install it. That doesn't mean all vehicles can run with no fan(s) without overheating but they should still be able to run at highway speeds without overheating unless they have a sideways mounted radiator like the old Mini Coopers did. It for sure sounds like the OP's car has something wrong with the cooling system. Maybe the thermostat is malfunctioning and not opening all the way but you are right, the entire cooling system needs to be checked out (including the fans).

Usually, driving at highway speeds, fans are not even needed. The airflow through the radiator is greater than what the fans can provide. I don't even have a fan on my race car. It will overheat if I let it idle too long or going too slow but as soon as I get up above 30 to 40 mph, it starts cooling down. I guess the design of the Fusion air intake for the radiator is such that fans are needed at speed but I find it unlikely.

My experience with Monroe shocks is; they are good quality but are not as durable as more expensive shocks. They are tuned for normal everyday driving and typically do not handle as well as Bilstein or other performance oriented shocks. I would guess the quick struts would give similar results. Still not a bad choice depending on what you are expecting from them.

Are you sure the battery is good. When a battery goes full dead, its life is greatly reduced. Charging a dead battery does not necessarily make it good. Have the battery checked out under load.