ElectricFan69

Shock leaks are typically 'greasy spots' on the shock and/or suspension. Unless you hole it, or do a Raptor wanna-be stunt, you won't see puddling. Remember, the shocks typically have limited amounts of fluid (< 300 ml)- and that amount won't puddle unless you have a catastrophic failure.

If you can get the whole setup and all the modules cheap enough at a wrecking yard, it's a decent option. A TSM with full wiring diagrams will be needed to get everything working. You may also want to consider an aftermarket nav unit and appropriate adapters for steering wheel controls and external microphone. This would give you much newer technology and OS.

Kind of interesting that the same OCI is in force for both the ICE-only and hybrids/plug-in hybrids. In typical suburban driving, the ICE-only car will run the ICE 50% more than a hybrid, and depending on trip length and charge use, substantially more than that with the Energi variant. I get the time dimension - contamination from thermal cycling and all that - but looking at the hours run, the ICE-only car will run a lot more than a hybrid for a given number of miles run in typical traffic. One thing I have noticed - the used oil on our Explorer is substantially darker at approximately the same number of miles than my FFH. Noticed the same with our TCH still in the family - the Mobil one is honey-colored while the it's like very dark coffee out of the Explorer. Even though it has a 20% larger oil capacity....

I've had a '16 FFH for about a year, and drove a TCH 7 years prior to that. Lifetime mileage is 46.8, figure low 40's at 70 MPH cruise, low 50's in 'Dad's taxi' duty in suburban traffic. Only negative I've had is compromised luggage space and relatively modest acceleration. Positives are fuel economy and much better smoothness (no 4 cylinder 'tingle' at the traffic light with the A/C on). If you're an over-caffeinated driver, the car won't fit - it doesn't reward aggressive driving style (mediocre FE and so-so performance). Relative to the 2.5 or 1.5 EB, I'd consider the FFH is a much better choice if you drive it like you're paying for the gas and the repairs - roughly double the MPG relative to the 2.5, particularly if the roads in your area are constipated and degenerate to a 'city' driving cycle. For your crazy miles, a CPO at the right price may help avoid the worst of the depreciation ream, although seems like Ford is doing some aggressive deals now.. One other benefit (that you might not realize due to corrosive environment of salt on the roads) is a relative lack of brake wear - the FFH could easily have 200K mile + pad life if you let regen magic do its bit. The thing there is that you likely should go in and take stuff apart and apply lube to pins and make sure corrosion isn't taking hold - on an ICE-only car, that's about the pad lifetime. On the FFH, the pads won't show much wear, but you have to watch for corrosion. There are also other items the car doesn't have - e.g. drive belts. The A/C is electric, as is the ICE water pump. That's a long-term-ownership double-edged sword - a common maintenance item is eliminated, but if it ever DOES fail, it is a bit $pendy.

The only (remotely) feasible way to approach this problem would be to buy a rear-end-wrecked EB Fusion and transplant the whole powertrain. Due to the increased torque, your trans would not be long for this world, and without a complete harness and ECU swap, you'd be chasing electrical gremlins for a number of years. So, if you can find a rear-end-wrecked EB Fusion CHEAP, are ready to spend several hundred hours on a complete drivetrain swap, go for it - it will certainly be a learning and fab experience. The current engine ECU and harness won't work - the EB is direct injection while your is port (to name just one difference), your ECU and harness is highly unlikely to have the boost control circuitry, the programming is different, etc. You would also be well advised to take a close look at the brakes - typically, performance variants have bigger/different rotors and calipers, as well as subtly different programming. One other item - and the importance of this is personal. To me, a FWD EB 'on boil' has a unpleasant amount of torque steer, certainly a lot more than the 2.5. For me, this would require a AWD variant. Your tolerance for wheel wrestling may be notably higher. As others have stated, the swap is going to be way more $$$$ and work than you might think - and would likely remarkably decrease the resale value of the car. But, folks that muck about with cars don't always care - it is a project that will give you opportunity (and need) to learn a bunch of mechanical skills. If you can find a cheap wreck and are willing to do the work, and can tolerate several months of down time for the car, go for - it will certainly be a skill-building milestone in your life. If you're expecting to complete in a weekend or 2 with no complex issues to manage, you're going to have a REALLY bad time.

The 'clean car gets better mileage' was deemed 'busted', but 'concept plausible', which means the difference, if any, is in the 'noise' area. One item that Ford is investing in and does seem to make a noticeable difference is the under-body panels, particularly if the factory-issued ones are missing or flappy from missing screws/push fasteners. Or you could go "Mythbusters golf ball look" which actually was effective at reducing aero drag..

Unless you drive like a over-caffeinated Chihuahua or tow with the car, at your mileage it's a dealer revenue generator. Kind of like stealers trying to sell 3000 mile oil changes on a modern car that has the oil change monitor built in.

If there was an error displayed, chances are the system stored an error code. The fault could be as simple as a wiring connector not quite attached - or a rack that's on its way out. Get to the dealer ASAP as the start cycles could cause the fault code to be aged off... And there are fault codes that are kept in memory,but don't immediately illuminate the SES light.

You have the classic symptoms of a battery with a weak cell that's failing under load. Measure cranking voltage - I expect it's low. In warm temps, I'd be suspicious of any battery < 11V under load.

Drove a 64 and 67 Fairlane 'back in the day'. Both were decent enough examples from the period - no better nor worse than other vehicles in the segment. The 64 was a 6 with a crap-omatic automatic - which let the car down Given I got the car (well) used, could be that it was just trashed. The 67 had a small V8 and was nice enough - but every modern car would quickly expose its limitations. Neither could reliably exceed 20 MPG, and both were over 10 second 0-60, with mushy handling and mulish understeer. While I have nostalgia at my own ability and condition from 'back in the day', I would not choose to drive either one over my FFH. Nostalgia tends to overlook the bad - and those old stinkpots had plenty of bad, ranging from fussy maintenance needs (15-20K mile plug changes, re-setting points even more often, engines and transmissions hard-pressed to go over 100K without significant work), wonky drum brakes, to the horrific emissions, to kill-zone crash performance. The only 2 cars from that period I liked enough to have as weekend toys would be 63 T-bird (jet-bird tail lights and rear seat toneau) and a 66 7 liter Galaxie convertible. A 71-73 Mustang ragtop with rest-o-moded with the new 5.0 might be some fun too, but would take a bunch of suspension work to make handle. First 2 would have all of the faults from that era, and the third would be a BUNCH of work and $$$$ to do.

To what end? The Fusion is a nice enough car, but 20 years on, it's unlikely to be more memorable than a 90's Taurus, a 80's Fairmont, a 70's Granada, or a 60's Fairlane. All of these models sold in the same market segment that the Fusion now occupies - and all were nice enough cars for their day. But none has more than a passing glance from the collector crowd.

This also depends on your phone and how it manages background noise on a Bluetooth connection profile - some are much better than others. Ditto on Bluetooth connection stability - some phones and OS versions have had issues with repeated disconnects, drops, noise, etc. I'd recommend validating the capability with your device, unless you're OK with replacing the handset if it has issues. As to blind spots - it depends on your seating position. A short person with a seat way up will have different issues than a tall person with it way back. I'd recommend an extended test drive - even consider renting a similarly equipped vehicle over a weekend if you have doubts. Car fit is very much a personal thing - and there are things that don't seem important unless you've been 'in the saddle' a while. For example, one of my 'purchase regrets' was not getting seat memory whenever a short member of the household drives my car. Takes me a while to re-adjust all the settings 'just so' after they've been reset. Now, thankfully, that's not all that often - but it makes driving on a trip a bit of a pain, as swapping drivers ends up being several minutes of settings fiddling.

Many of the characteristics that made it a decent light truck engine 'back in the day' also make it less than great for a 'pony car'. The motor is quite 'gritty' with a less-than-inspiring note in higher rev ranges. The cam drive is a 'Rube Goldberg' design - with no provision for cam timing changes. The 205 HP is pretty lame for the displacement - the 3.5/3.7 get better than 300 HP from less displacement, with better fuel economy. At the end of the day, it was an old design (tracing its origins to the 60's) that reached the end of its development life in the late 90's. Newer designs give both better fuel economy and more power.

Since it's the end of May, the decision is moot, isn't it? The above are in different classes and have different capabilities/strengths. No comparison between them, as the trade-offs make direct comparison lack relevance. That said, Chrysler has had a well-earned reputation for aging badly and having a lot of niggling issues - along with the occasional 'big fail'. The Mustang you describe is likewise one of the least desirable. The 4.0 is not particularly smooth, powerful, or fuel-efficient. Unless there is a compelling price, neither car is a compelling buy.

Well, there are key differences - and the difference just may give the OP a solution. The MG spins the ICE a lot faster than the old-school starter motor, giving smoother light-off. The PSD also uses the other motor to provide moving power, eliminating the light-off lag. The ICE on the FFH doesn't directly power the accessories like A/C (i.e. via a belt). In a hot climate, having the A/C 'go out to lunch' at a stoplight would present an unacceptable (to most) pause in cool air. I would expect that any stop/start system would get an 'A/C override' that disables it while there is a demand for cool air. So, given the above, I'd expect that the stop/start will be suspended when the A/C is on except on very rare occasion. Turning on "Max A/C" should effectively turn it off.

Every boosted engine will have a bit of 'turbo lag' when you're running at low revs - there isn't that much gas flow over the turbine at light load/low rev conditions. Keeps the revs > 2500 or so, the lag should be negligible. Throw in a shift map designed for minimizing fuel consumption, and the car may well feel a bit flat-footed when left to a 'default' map. If you have an aggressive right foot, the car should adjust to your driving style. Of course, manually keeping the revs up and hooning around will kick you in the $$$ at the pump.

With any used car, the condition of the vehicle is #1 concern. Your dilemma is typical - the more complex the vehicle, and the more 'stuff' it has, the more likely that some of it will break. If cheap-to-keep is a priority, simpler is better, particularly in cars with complex sensor nets located in easy-to-damage places. As to the generational change - any number of sources will show that the first year of a new model will be the more troublesome - trading off the new technology for more grief. The trade-off is a significant improvement in fuel economy, looks, and better technology. In any case, make sure all the recalls (and the '13+ units have had more than a few) have been completed. A CPO (certified pre-owned) may allay fears by supplying warranty coverage - of course, at a price. Ideally, no crashes, current generation, lightly used, and cheap - but unlikely to be had in a single vehicle. You'll need to evaluate individual cars for the combination of attributes and how close to ideal they get.

Looks like a suction hose and manifold. RockAuto has it. The link is for the 3.5 - double-check if yours is a 3.0. The part number seems to be the same. You'll have to have the system evacuated and recharged after replacement - and you may want to replace the receiver/dryer as well. Look at the other hoses and, given the car's age, consider replacing the o-rings as well.

There isn't any notable aftermarket support for that motor because Ford makes the 2.0 and properly engineers it to take the boost. There is a lot more to getting a long-lived boosted motor than just strapping on a supercharger. You have to: Make sure you can manage the ignition and fuel properly. This means hacking the ECU to re-map ignition timing and fuel curve. You could also run into fuel pump capacity and pressure issues. Hacking the trans to make sure it doesn't die from the increased torque. Making sure the engine structure can handle the increased combustion pressure. This includes head bolts and head gasket. Work around the designed-in goals for the engine that result in so-so top end breathing. Figure out hot to plumb in a charge cooler. For 1/3 bar or less, you could do without - but then the results would be 'meh' at best. Work out packaging for the blower. That's a challenge due to already-tight packaging. A belt-driven supercharger is going to be tight to get a pulley on the crank. Figure somewhere > $3K for a basic setup, including some dyno time to dial it in. If the goal is to have a project to futz with for the next couple of years, go for it - it could be fun. If the goal is to have a reliable car that doesn't scare with funky noises, trade up for a factory boosted version.

Could also be something simple like a belt. Could you describe 'whine' sound a bit better or post a recording? A belt will generally be more of a 'squeal', but light slippage could start as a 'whine' at higher engine RPM. A belt that is 'glazed' or has cracked/missing ribs would be more likely to slip. The clutch could also have issues, as could compressor - without better clarity and diagnostics, it's all a shot in the dark. A diagnosis would be in order - starting with checking refrigerant state of charge - a low SOC could create high pressures that cause belt slippage. This would be followed by determining what component is making the noise and then what the noise truly is.

The technique may not be as effective with the Fusion - Ford already programmed in many of the 'manually invoked' concepts in the video. Also, the FFH isn't particularly good with the 'glide' part - Ford programmed in pretty aggressive regen when you lift off the throttle. And the charge/discharge cycles will have inherent energy losses. More pertinent to the Ford programming would be to maximize the "coach scores" for cruise, braking, and acceleration. I'm enjoying the 'springtime MPG lift' - so far (3600 miles of suburban commuting), the 16 FFH has an average of 46.6, with current tank of 52. And this from a long-time "Brand T" owner (with a '08 TCH, still in the family, with which I had MPG average over 75K+ miles of a shade under 40, against EPA estimates of 34/33. The one thing I've noticed is that the FFH is considerably more speed-sensitive as far as fuel economy. With the TCH, cruise speeds around 70 would consistently return around 38 MPG, against a suburban commute of 42. With the Fusion, similar highway speed drops the FE to 42 from a suburban commuting figure of 50. To a degree, it's a matter of expectations - doing 6 MPG over the EPA rating seems 'better' than barely meeting the EPA highway figure - even though the FFH is 10% more fuel efficient. Face it - the cars are run by the computers, and do a pretty good job of energy management. As the programming has gotten better, the ability to 'game' the mode to eke out the last MPG by gaming the programming is likewise going away.

On the '16, the brake coach gives the highest recovery scores when you maximize coasting. On my '16 with the ECO switch 'on', getting off the accelerator pedal gives a pretty serious slow-down; for the most part, you can avoid the left pedal except for the last few feet. The ECO being 'off' feels slightly less aggressive when you get off the left pedal. The reason I qualify this is that the '15 I drove had a subtly different feel, with the max regen being confined to brake application. Let's face it - the computers run the show - and with the adaptive learning, will alter their behavior to your driving style to some degree.

Did you load-test the battery? The symptom you describe is often exhibited by a battery that has a bad/weak cell that drops voltage too much under load. Measure voltage when cranking - if it drops below spec, replace the battery. With a bad cell, the charger will shut off (call it 100 %) because the rest of the cells are fully charged.

LMAO. Your're absolutely right - but for folks with a hankering for a project - and with a wrecking yard as the family business, it is possible. Not cost-effective, but definitely something that will teach you all you could ever want to learn about how cars are engineered and assembled. Heck a Coyote V8 in a Fusion and rigged with a RWD suspension - now that would be COOL!

No real shortcuts - the dealer has to look at individual circuits/components to see where the excessive 'off' draw is at. Process is a PIA; hopefully the dealer has a good body electrical diagnostics guy. Could be a 'bad' module, or could be a switch / sensor that's keeping a component on.