machonemoto

Have oem shop manuals (3 volumes). Will research more, but know that tests on, off, steady throttle, brake & engine back-torque loads all experimented with telling my "butt" that stability control (not traction) is 2-level mode...on & something else. Now I having fun..ur comments are relevant 4 me, sir.

My post is not an attempt to disqualify your data nor methodology. Urs is just the most scientific & analytical because of method, so see it as best way to test ESC off theory. The mention of using drive to acheive 6th, then go to sst & upshift twice to regain 6th, is just what i do in a 35 mph stretch but going 40-45 w/ cruise on...irrelevant really. I've no snow/ice experience, nor do I want it. I think you are partially correct about stability/yaw control still there w/ amber lite on (esc off by bottom button), just a larger yaw rate before intervening. I test methodically on specific roads (med/high load @ 70-80 constant radius) and can feel the esc drag inner wheels drag (slip/rotation & sway control), which is fine if not for the constant steering correction required in a constant radius turn at constant road speed. Finally determined that road surface irregularities & grip are cause for incessant yaw meddling. Try and do an aggresive weave manuever @ 60-70 @ ssot (steady state open throttle), in whatever gear, on dry/smooth pavement. U don't even have to switch lanes, just do quick/large steering inputs to initiate a weave, only correcting back to straight once back wheels catch up to front. There's is a difference, but your info as well as what latest Motor Trend police interceptor said about esc having optional levels of intervention (latest superbikes have several levels of tc which are shit until they starts keying off actual torque from crank, which is what MotoGP is doing for that "throttle connection" that flat slide race carbs gave). With esc in sport/track mode, they were able to step back out on SHO taurus under heavy decel @ corner entry...I have replicated that w/ esc off, in the wet & dry. Your observations have cleared what I thought I fully knew. ESC OFF is really ESC LESS ON. I don't drive past 75% of my skill set, but testing need not be done @ 100% pace to analyze dynamics. In racing, large slip angles (slides) where u actually feel lessened foward progress, is bad & usually ends up w/ a high side. But drifts due high lateral & thrust/braking loads that step out of line by an inch or two is optimal balance state which one can feel, see (chassic yaw), but feels correct & right because foward progress is present. It was just a thought. Respectfully.

Fusiondiffusion, u are perfect for this theory if ever i encountered any...very meticulous & observant. Without data (even irrelevant looking), no patterns or cross-connections will ever emerge. So, I humbly suggest maybe replicating your dialed hyper-miling technique, but w/ ESC OFF. Actually, maybe two. Both would be ESC OFF but one w/ auto only & cruise, the other full manual (SST, only using D to get to 6th cuz sst need 45 for 6th while drive will allow 6th below that if no load/downhill..trick for holding 6th in 35mph zone...auto downshift to 5th in sst occurs @ 39mph) if possible only using cruise on flats. Being on an island makes it impossible to clearly see how much, if any, mileage is reduced from the persistant meddling of the Electronic Stability Control. I drive the sport in sst 90% of the time & esc off 99% of the time. I always calc mileage manually (trip miles/gal filled) and reset/compare avg mpg display at every fill-up on 87. No logging, just casual tracking. But on rare, repeatible trips, esc off showed a small gain of maybe 2-3%, not justifiable but for me, noticeable. I notice the scratch on the back of a panel by someone else... Major point is the stability control and cruise down-hill braking are all logic based on dabbing the calipers independently. What a drag (pun intended). I still believe a competent operator w/ optimized (dialed & set-up) equipment cancels all theory (electronic aids in this case). I also hate the reduced/slow steering ratio @ speed or the constant steering correction required @ 90-95% corner loading which freaks me out...chassis is competent/predictable balance which if it weren;t, no electronics could fix. It's main purpose is to control the back because all except brakes are at front. Aloha

Main reason for site sign-up (immediately distracted by performance content threads). So, as suspected, my SECOND driver door interior lock handle FAILURE is not uncommon. First occur was over year ago (<35k miles) so was addressed w/in 15 min, no paper, no comment. Second failure (1 month ago @ 45k) occurred w/ exact symptoms as first, only this time not warranted even under extended (right there in fine print...on the back side of contract...even though i stated "this is direct/all inclusive/bumper-bumper extension of base warranty?" w/ a reply of "yup, bumper-bumper"). Two hour wait & $85 for part (in stock) plus labor. Paid for part, went home and installed in 10 min (studied...actually stared @ shop manual/door panelling for 30 min previous)...U need the correct panel fastener pry tool (resembles mom's forked looking lawn weeding device) & and disconnect only top of interior finish panel. Start from rear to front...they are plastic nipple to grommet type (common to moto). So here's my issue...FORD... The part is flawed in design or material appropriateness. Design logic (handle over-rides lock & prime unlatch control) of vehicle egress is depending on what looks to be no more than ABS plastic (not glass/fiber reinforced plastic which very structural) which is good for chroming. The handle lever has a "cam" shape that needs to bracket/tab it's (90 degrees & off working axis) actuation interface to the lock toggle which is the only mechanical connection to the door latch assy cable. This is the way they are all failing and will continue to fail. This is a SAFETY ISSUE. If a power loss occurs and quick egress is required (car on fire, windows up, hostage in trunk), the guy in trunk has better odds of survival. Only escape is shatter glass (have belt/impact tool in center console always) or make for passenger door. Back doors difficult cuz electric seat's need power to operate last I heard. Secondly, if this was a warranty fix the first time, shouldn't the next occurrence still be a warranty issue? Anticipating the Third Failure to claim lemon law....Focus ST can carry more shit than Fusion and just as much interior width...rented one to scope out.

Have '10Sport no reverse cam or sensors. Assuming wire harness has empty terminal @ cam & oem r.view mirror, will it interface w/ nothing more? Or is a software type driver program or whatever req'd?

Try to make this simple as possible. Monochrome rite direction. Safe assume all new mechanical dampers (shocks/struts) are "cartridge" type. Just a 2-way valve w/ axial flow circuit. All are pressurized (up to 300 psi) w/ N2 via physical/variable seperation contraptions (rubber diaphram or floating piston). Purpose is to reduce pressure differential on each side of valve as fluid flows. The fluid must be seperate from gas or bubbles (cavitation) occurs, which is bad. Normally, insufficient or loss of spec'd psi range is first degradation to occcur...before fluid becomes fish oil or seals/bushings wear. This low psi condition is the primary design life. I call it "dead". The ride will be harsher while feeling looser. Test 1: hit that speed bump we all have to regularly at normal pace, no brakes...low psi will have wheel launch up as hits ramp, maybe go air-born AND will not track (follow back-side landing). Front enough cuz back no load. U know what that bump felt like before w/ new/good shocks. Test 2: definite confirmation for back shocks. Always test @ SSOT (steady-state-open-throttle)...take familiar turn w/ bumps, small potholes, joint lines and note how the back tracks compared to front. Typically, u feel or get a step-out, chatter, momentary un-track which didn't occur before. Low psi. The damper is packing down depending on upcoming load/bump(s). Lose of effective rebound damping also an issue. So, depending on how much you can put up with (degrading performance/safety), that's how I primarily consider (as well as mileage & competent recommendations or manuf. spec) new shocks or service (if applicable...i do my own/others moto suspension). good luck

So the vibe is from a worn out transaxle insulator bracket which seems common. Warranty covered, part b/o. It a yoke support looking thingee (in oem shop manual).

I know u guys will want to see this. Using a first gen G-Tech Pro accelerometer (no teasing plz) here's data recorded thru reasonable care & methodical testing (basically for repeatability). It's the avg. of 2 separate sessions (3 runs/session) w/ consideration of variables (temp, tire psi, fuel load, etc.). It's a tool w/ acceptable error that produces consistent/logical data. •FWHP (to earth): 238.33 •0-60: 6.03 second •Lat g's (instantaneous): 0.81 - 0.94 (really a .87 avg). This was done @ 1500+ miles after 2 oil/filter changes..all stock. Factory 263 hp look accurate (flywheel hp) since power loss thru drive train w/in normal range (10-15+% for coverter cars. SP in today for 45k service AND motor mounts, still under extended warranty. If encounter any vibe (audible & tactile), a/c off & in neutral, when blip'g revs, it will be felt thru whole chassis & steer column, as well as sounding like hard-hard contact. This service to all FWD cars appears eminent as our 2000 Focus ZTS has been done. Glad to find others knowing the hidden potential in this chassis/power train. Aloha

Tanx for ur 1/4 mile post. It somewhat confirms (quantitative) what I suspected due to a lack of track facilities in Honolulu. Factory specs & comparison to similar spec cars (mazda6) dictated low 15's to hi 14's. If only the tranny (aw21) were a 6 speed w/ 1:1 in 5th. It is a short 4 speed w/ dbl overdrives. Aloha

Just another '10 SP owner that enjoys this car for what it is. Corners are only place I up pace and have learned thru repetition that, w/ spec'd wheel rates (suspension, shocks, springs, damp curves, u know) and balance set-up (ride ht, weight bias, etc.) as received, it is a point and shoot (diamond in nascar) type chassis not just because of fwd but also the front heaviness. The suspension rates are decent enough to be predictable and controllable at a very brisk pace (ESC OFF). It is beneficial to have rpm in mid area of torque band (3000-3500) from as early as possible from corner entry with throttle open (steady state, meaning constant speed, not accel), make largest steering input possible (late apex) to aim at exit, then apply throttle as steering is trimmed out. The key behind all of this is having the front suspension in an "ANTI-SQUAT" condition when making direction changes. This is a can of worms to explain sufficiently or properly in this environment. Just know that all vehicles are in their most stable (balance state) when moving at a constant speed under constant throttle. Smooth, deliberate inputs while using throttle to add or reduce anti-squat will reward w/ extreme satisfaction when walking around the outside of a high dollar german sedan w/ hardly anymore contact patch, but about 500-1000 lbs to carry.