wkienzle

The filter wrench specification is 75mm (+/- 1.0mm), 14 flute. I purchased a RiteFit A251 for the job on my 2006 I-4. I haven't heard of any changes to the newer models, so the setup should be the same for your 2008

I am pretty sure that the stock system doesn't allow for High Speed Timing Adjustments (or any other type of timing adjustment beyond the advance curve set by factory programming), or adjustable rev limits (not sure why two would be needed - or how you would implement more than one - maybe for low engine temp and normal engine temp). The diagnostic LED looks like fun and might be handy if something goes wrong. I would consider this unit if the factory part breaks, but to replace it just for fun doesn't seem worth over $500 to me. MSD has a reputation for making good stuff, but there are a few other performance items I would buy first.

With such a small difference in fuel economy, many things could be a factor assuming that it isn't just rounding error or the difference between how you top off the tank at fill-ups. Do you have an instant fuel economy readout? I added one (actually it is a trip computer and diagnostic scanner too) to my 4cyl Fusion and can see the fuel economy going down at the higher speeds. Other things that can make the fuel economy change: - More efficient shifting patterns (applies mostly to manual transmission) generally increase fuel economy (see below for an exception) - Warmer outdoor temperatures increase fuel economy - Longer trips increase fuel economy - Miles on the engine (is it broken in yet?) increase fuel economy - Fuel - did you fuel up in a region that requires oxygenated fuel on a seasonal basis? Do you always use the same brand and type of fuel? Oxygenated fuel (usually with ethanol) decreases fuel economy. In some cases, premium fuel can also decrease fuel economy - Is it just you in the car all the time? More people or cargo decreases fuel economy In the '80s I heard that certain manual transmission Accords got worse gas mileage at 55MPH than they did at 70. The reason was the the overdrive gear was lugging the engine even at the legal highway speeds at the time. Honda's recommendation was to not use 5th gear. I'm not saying that is the problem you are experiencing, just that a bunch of weird things can come together to affect fuel economy. You didn't say if your I-4 was connected to a manual or automatic transmission.

This happened to me a couple of times, but I would call it surging. It seemed to happen only on the rare occasion when I started the engine just before it fully cooled down from the previous trip. The next time I let the engine return to idle for several seconds, it didn't seem to be a problem anymore. BTW, I also have a 2006 4cyl 5 speed manual.

Most Turbo's made in the last couple of decades recommend premium fuel for best performance, but don't require it. A knock sensor allows timing and turbo boost adjustments to accommodate most any grade of gasoline. Premium will get you better performance and likely better gas mileage, but regular works well enough for nearly all driving situations. Because of the higher octane of E-85, Ford claims it delivers even better performance than premium in those variants of the EcoBoost engine that are FFV capable. The consumer might not like the higher price of premium, but if the 20 cent price difference between between regular and premium continues even as the price increases, premium may result in a better value for those engines that can take advantage of the higher octane benefits.

Great list! One minor correction: 57203 - Wix

Cool ride! You must have been sorry to see it go. I knew someone with a Renault Fuego Turbo (early 1980's). I think it had the same type of switch on the dash. Knock sensors made the switch obsolete. I understand that on 2nd generation FFV's, the fuel sensor to determine the ratio of gas to E85 was eliminated. That work is now one of the Oxygen Sensor's functions. E85 contains more oxygen; the sensor detects this in the exhaust gas, causing the ECU to enrichen the mixture.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate your point or put words in your mouth. Maybe its just me bemoaning the fact that technology is moving so slowly to resolve the shortcomings of E-85. Yes, I believe most of the shortcomings can be overcome to make E85 competitive. I guess its the optimist in me. Next step after this one: start using something better than feed corn to make ethanol. A fuel producer in the Chicago area used spoiled (outdated) candy to make their ethanol. Unfortunately they got out of the petrolium business. Coincidently, the Brach's candy plant in Chicago closed around the same time. hmmm.

Since there isn't any testing method, they don't have government supported numbers. "Around 30%" is not exact and is more of a CYA estimate to set expectations based on the performance of other vehciles in the market. On the other hand, here is an article that says "While fuel economy in city and mixed driving conditions is unlikely to show an improvement [with E85], preliminary testing indicates that up to a 15 percent gain can be expected at cruising speeds because of better combustion with higher efficiency." http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/press/041203.html Here are other articles with the same theme: http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1946 (more of a post than an article, but explains all the points clearly) http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8703 http://www.saabscene.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31633560 (real-life comparison between petrol and E85 - results show a 14% difference in fuel economy.) I like Dyoct's "wait and see" openmindedness. Who knows what will happen with US emissions regulations and technology by the time the car arrives here.

What you say shows that you don't understand turbocharging. Your comment is only true if you falsely assume the turbo is either "on" or "off". The wastegate and other controls allow variable levels of boost to the point of effectively disconnecting the turbo, if necessary. Saab is doing exactly what you "seriously doubt" in production cars sold in Europe for the past 2 years. In that time, it became the most popular FFV engine in Europe. Even if the MKR is a concept vehicle, it doesn't necessarily follow that the engine is only for that concept. The link I provided was for a site that had this engine as one of the choices for a possible 2009 Taurus SHO. It also shows that the technology is there to do what you doubt can be accomplished, even if Ford isn't yet putting it in production models. I'm glad to see that Ford is joining other manufacturers to innovate in this area. If you are wondering why I keep talking about future product, it means you didn't read my first post. A poster bemoaned the inefficiencies of E-85, pointing out that "it needs major revamping." I agreed that the current technology is not very efficient and provided information about future technology "revamping" in the works to exactly address that problem. You came back looking at past results to dispute my information about future technology. Continue to be closed minded if you want; deny that the technology is possible even when it is currently available to others and availability for us is a year or two down the road. My mission was to provide information, enlighten and highlight future benefits.

Sorry to respond twice to the same post, but I thought this required a separate answer. Did you read any of my previous postings, all of which mentioned a turbocharged engine? What you say is only true if you pretend turbocharging (or supercharging) doesn't exist. While advancing or retarding the ignition timing can accomodate minor variations in octane, changing the compression through a range (for example) less than 9:1 to effectively 12:1 or more on the fly can take advantage of a large octane range. I won't insult your intelligence explaining what is needed to do this.

With a turbocharged engine you can generate a very wide range of compression ratios. I just read an article about the Ford TwinForce engine where they are doing exactly what I explained earlier. http://www.bringbackthesho.com/phpnuke/mod...l-newshoengines "Ford’s new Duratec 35 all-aluminum V-6, named a 10 Best Engine by Ward’s, is the foundation for the TwinForce technology found in the Lincoln MKR concept. The Lincoln MKR’s engine is flex-fuel capable, providing the driver with the flexibility to switch back and forth between gasoline and E-85 ethanol. At Ford, flexible fuel is an important step toward development of more efficient, renewable biofuels that can provide energy security as well as environmental benefits. Combining the high octane found in E-85 or premium gasoline with TwinForce technology allows the Lincoln MKR’s V-6 to deliver 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque – an impressive 118 horsepower per liter." We still need to wait for the fuel economy numbers, but it looks like the end of the decade will bring new, innovative engine improvements. I hope your comment about "Diesel maybe" was just a random thought that fell out. I'm sure you know that fuel designed for a compression engine doesn't work well in a spark ignition engine and vice-versa.

Have you tried a Mazda dealer? I believe that the 2.3L i4 in the Mazda 3 and Mazda 6 is the same engine.

Will do. BTW, I was also talking about FFV's. If automakers can make cars that work equally well on regular as premium, they should also be able to make cars that work well on E-85 and premium gasoline. It will just take some time before customer interest makes it a worthwhile priority for automakers. While we are waiting for 2009 information, please consider the relationship between regular and premium gasoline. Premium contains less energy than regular gasoline, so - to continue your logic - cars that recommend premium gas always get worse gas mileage than when fueled with regular. Does this actually hold true? Maybe, but not often; and you usually get more horsepower in with premium than with regular for those cars. Cars designed to run on premium take advantage of premium's additional octane (usually with higher compression engines) to more than offset the potential loss in fuel economy and increase horsepower in the process. On the other hand, if you use premium in a car designed for regular, you are just wasting money - and may end up with worse fuel economy. The same holds true with E-85 which has far more octane (105 to 110) than premium (91 to 94, depending on your region). How do you increase the compression enough to take advantage of that much octane? Use a turbocharger! Sure, you will still take an MPG hit, but that can be kept to a minimum, and you can substantially increase horsepower in the process. One of the problems with current FFV engines is that they are low compression. The potential energy available in E-85 is wasted even more than if you fueled the car with premium gasoline.

From the Service Bulletins section of the NHTSA website:"The data does not contain all the service bulletins generated by a manufacturer. Bulletins for safety recalls in general are not included, and also bulletins which may not pertain to a defect may not be included." I usually only look at the recalls and didn't realize they had a separate section for other issues.

You seem to be missing my point entirely. You are also assuming that performance cannot be better optimized or improved and will never get better than it is for vehicles currently in the EPA ratings. The EPA ratings aren't yet available for 2009 model year cars, and are never available for models only sold outside the US. So all you can prove by referencing EPA ratings is that old technology isn't as good as what is proposed for the future. If you read my original post, I was talking about a future model for the US. Current reports have it available for the 2009 model year. It is already sold in Europe. Past performance is not an indication of future results - particularly when technology advances.

The seat cover issue only applies to cars with side-impact airbags in the seats. Fusion didn't get those until part way into the 2007 model year. Thanks to the other poster for suggestions on removing the headrest. I plan on getting seat covers too.

"E-85 loses more than 5% fuel economy" is an inaccurate statement that is true for past vehicles/old designs. If a vehicle is tuned for E-85 use, it can actually get better gas mileage than with gasoline. If you read more carefully, you will see I was talking about an upcoming vehicle. The updated information says it is a 2009 model available late 2008. I don't know where you have looked for E-85 prices, but only the ripoff stations sell E-85 for 20 to 30 cents cheaper in my neighborhood. 50 cents less is regularly available by me. Also, just because something is new and costs more now doesn't mean that the price can't come down later. In my opinion, the benefit of FFV is that you have a choice in the type of fuel you can use - more than just between premium and regular. I lived through the gas shortages of the early 1970's and consider a secondary fuel source to be a great benefit even if the details aren't currently all worked out.

That is a GM marketing ploy. I don't think anyone else is supplying YELLOW gas caps. Even GM only started doing that a year or two ago. Before that E-85 cars got the same, black gas cap as everyone else.

My Dad's 1966 Chevy Biscayne 283 CID 8cyl. also had this type of filter - only about 5 times larger. IIRC, it was an AC/Delco PF-141. The filter cover was all metal and held on by a giant bolt running through the center of the filter. There was no filter drain, so oil dripped everywhere when removing the filter. It also had a gasket that required changing every time.

I had a whistle in my Fusion that I could make go away if I pressed on the top/rear part of the glass. I reported it to my dealer as a warranty defect and he fixed it in an hour by "realigning the door seals". It was fixed completely the first time and I haven't had a problem since. In fact, that is the only warranty issue with the car since I bought it a year ago.

Same here; 2.3L Turbo is the thing. Maybe I should see what I can come up with from the Mazda parts department ;-)

On a different note: How do you get a 1990 MTX SHO with a 3.2 engine? It didn't come that way from the factory. The 3.2 was only teamed with an automatic and only manuals were available until 1993.

Major revamping is on the way - from Saab. They are currintly selling E-85 "BioPower" engines in Europe and plan to start in North America for 2008. The major difference in their E-85 implementation is that the engine control system takes advantage of the extra octane (at least 105 AKI) of ethanol. Horsepower goes up by about 30 points, with about a 5% loss in fuel economy. If you can't find E-85, just fuel up with lower octane Premium or Regular and the car will run fine, minus the extra horsepower.

Amazon's price for the Fram is now $10.42 (CH9641) and a couple dollars cheaper from partner resellers. You can get two Puralator L15505 filters at Amazon for $9.98. I find Fram quality questionable and would rather have the Purolator. If you want something better - PL15505 PureONE Oil Filter (Pack of 2) - $15.58. Even the Motorcraft FL2017B Filter is cheaper than Fram at Amazon, currently $6.43 ea from a dealer. Unfortunately, the shipping costs make this unattractive. My dealer sells the Motorcraft filter for about $8.50. You can try a Mazda dealer too.