As I said, I'm not an expert on this stuff, but when I google it, the first thing that comes up is "A typical diesel car emits around 10 times more nitrogen oxides than an equivalent gasoline car. " So not sure where you're getting the idea that diesel engines emit less NOx. Maybe you're looking at the numbers VWs put out when they run emissions certification, but not what they actually produce in the real world. And while particulate filters are relatively effective, they are EXPENSIVE!! To the point where getting a diesel to emit particulates in the range of a gasoline car adds as much or more cost as an entire hybrid system. So basically the story is there are far more cost effective solutions to get the CO2 reductions than diesels, which is why they don't make sense and the whole world is moving away from them.

Yea, the FFH uses an Atkinson cycle engine, not GDI, so I don' think the issues that those types of cleaners are meant for really exist. Seems likely to do more harm than good IMHO.

I'm still on the original 12V battery in my 2014 at about 50K miles. It is at the end of it's life though, being parked through most of COVID has completely drained it a couple times. But 7 years is about average or better for any car battery in this part of the world.

It only makes sense if you ignore the particulates and NOx emissions. You know, that stuff that kills people because they can't breath.

I don't understand any of what you just posted. I've been working inside the auto industry for over 25 years and I just feel the need to make sure the way things actually work in the real world are portrayed, and not these extreme conspiracy theories.

There is a tremendous amount of information on this forum about putting a spare tire into your FFH if you just search a bit. Here are a couple:

If I did admit to this disorder, then that would mean I'm agreeing and not arguing with you, which would mean I don't argue about everything, which means I don't have a disorder... Like I said I'm not an expert on diesel, I just can't rationalize the argument that in the US, big industry has leveraged the government to squash a more environmentally friendly system (biodiesel), while over in Europe, the environmentalists have leveraged the government to push down big industry and eliminate this same system. So either one of the US or the EU has to be incredibly wrong, or the truth has to be that diesel solutions are not as environmentally friendly as some people claim.

I'm not sure what's so exciting about this, the Mondeo hatchback with all it's different diesel engines has been available in Europe for over 20 years. It's being discontinued in Europe because even Europeans are now into the "SUV craze" and they are all buying Kugas (Escapes) instead, just like in North America. The Kuga/Escape is also available in a hybrid and the battery is packaged nicely under the floor, just like the new Explorer hybrid. Those have been on the market for about 2 years now, so we really don't need to talk about this "why is Ford so stupid and fills the trunk with a battery" anymore. Now I don't know a whole lot about diesels, but what I do know is that in Europe they used to be strongly supported by the governments and popular with customers, but in the last couple years the market has completely cratered and new diesel sales are virtually non-existent. So I don't think it's fair to assume there's some kind of US government "racket", when the EU has come to the same conclusion - that diesels just can't be clean enough at an economically practical level. That article you link to only talks about CO2 emissions, it completely ignores all the real pollution (particulates and NOx) issues with diesels. https://e360.yale.edu/features/end-of-the-road-are-diesel-cars-on-the-way-out-in-europe The rapid adoption of diesel engines at the end of the 1990s was a well-intentioned response to climate change. Diesel cars are propelled by an internal combustion process marginally different from that of gasoline engines. They’re more efficient, however, and thus expel significantly less carbon dioxide. But experts underestimated the degree to which diesel fuel produces exhaust gases thick with microscopic soot particles that enable carcinogens in the form of nitrogen dioxides to penetrate respiratory systems.

I'm really curious where you're getting this data that shows that battery performance trails off at 170K. There are plenty of reports of the 2010-12 FFH having degraded performance, but that's due to the "clock" in the software, and when the TSB is applied, the battery performance returns back to just-like-new. I really think you're worrying about nothing, you're not going to kill your battery by letting the car cycle between engine on and engine off while cruising around at 30mph. This isn't like a battery on your phone or laptop, Ford has put a lot of safeguards into the system to conserve battery life, including the temperature management systems, controlling the rate of charge/discharge and managing the SOC. BTW, just because the speedo is off, doesn't mean the vehicle speed signal is off. The signal comes from a sensor on the transmission shaft and is then interpreted by the PCM. It's then sent out to all kinds of various modules over the network including the speedo. Those modules then do what they want with the signal - the speedo is generally calibrated to have a fudge factor to make sure it's always a bit optimistic. One way to confirm this is to set your cruise control. Note how the set speed displayed from the cruise is always a bit lower than what the speedo is reading. The cruise control uses the actual vehicle speed signal, not the fudged speedo signal. So when you change tire size, you might "correct" the speedo, but it means the rest of the modules will all be receiving incorrect signals. The PCM and HPCM will be doing their calculations based on a signal that's indicating a lower vehicle speed than actual and their calculations of load/torque output won't be as accurate. The stability control/ABS systems won't be as accurate since the wheel speed signals won't match the vehicle speed signal. It may be so small that it won't make much difference, but just beware of what you're getting into.

That's all you get. The other stuff is for fire extinguishers and emergency things that are required in foreign markets.

What is the build date on your car? The fact that it wasn't on the original battery when you got it is either because it sat on the dealer's lot too long or because it had a battery drain problem previously. If it sat a long time on the dealer lot, at least you can generally assume that your problem is new and not recurring. That can somewhat help to track it down.

There's a difference between roll-over crashes and head on crashes. In a head on crash with another vehicle, the heavier vehicle is always going to win. Momentum, inertia, all that stuff means the heavier vehicle deccelerates slower and thus is safer for it's occupants. Rollover crashes are different and yes heavier is worse, but my point is that while any particular vehicle might be better for a particular type of crash than another, it will likely be better at a different type of crash. You're trying to argue with data that says that somehow the vehicles that have the highest number of sales are somehow also the vehicles that have the highest number of fatalities. Imagine that!? Funny how you didn't mention that 5 of the vehicles on that top 10 list are sedans. You really need to try to use sources with legitimate analysis and not just click-bait headlines. If we go look at some useful data like on this site: https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model, you'll notice that if you compare the OVERALL death RATES of mid-size sedans to the OVERALL death Rates of SUVs, the SUVs are in fact substantially less dangerous. You are far more likely to die driving around in a sedan than you are in an SUV. Period. The Bronco was recalled because it had an incorrect suspension part installed on up to 50 vehicles. That does not imply that the other tens of thousands of Broncos that were properly built have any particular issue with rollovers. You could even also imply that the suspension design is important in preventing rollovers, and thus good suspension design can help overcome the "far too dangerous" physics.

Imagine that, injury lawyers trying to exploit a weakness and make it look far more serious than it really is. If all your sources come from these lawyers, don't you think there might be some bias there? Modern SUVs are not nearly as dangerous as you seem to think they are. If an F150 crosses over the yellow line right in front of you, would you rather be in a low small car, or a big heavy SUV? I'll take the big heavy SUV every time.

You mean like the Fusion Energi has?

1. Money. It costs a lot of money to make changes, especially the major ones you're talking about. Like hundreds of millions of dollars. And for a car that didn't make any profit, why would any business do that?? Plus not all the things you consider "weaknesses" are problems for everyone else. 2. Polar moment of inertia. Google it. Some guy wrote a book about it, I think his name was Nader. 3. If you remove the spare wheel well, what will crumple in a crash? The battery certainly won't. BTW my spare wheel well has a spare wheel in it (didn't come from the factory like that though). Also it would cost millions and millions of dollars to make the floor different on a hybrid Fusion compared with the regular gas Fusion. 4. I'm not talking about the electric implications of the battery entering the cabin, I'm taking about the physical mass of the battery being pushed forward and causing the cabin to crumple. Basically there will be nothing to absorb the energy of a rear impact and thus that energy gets passed directly to the occupants, increasing injuries.

Ford's will never turn off if they lose contact with the keyfob. You can start your car in New York, leave the keyfob in your garage, and drive all the way to California, as long as you don't turn the car off yourself.

Not sure why you think Ford engineers would care about comments made on an 8 year old design. Although your Fusion is a 2019, the stuff you're talking about hasn't changed since the vehicle was first released in 2013 - over 8 years ago! Add in the design cycle time and the decisions you're talking about decisions that were likely made about 11 or 12 years ago. In those 12 years, Ford's engineers have learned a lot and made a lot of changes. To put that in perspective, at the time Ford engineers were putting the final touches on the FFH, they wouldn't likely have even ever seen a Tesla Model S. But your point about putting the battery in the spare tire well is ridiculous. First of all there's only about 1/4 the amount of space available in that well, so why are you asking for more battery power in a smaller space? But secondly, putting any significant weight behind the rear axle is a very bad idea for vehicle dynamics. While technically it does "balance" the weight distribution, the moment of inertia it creates would completely ruin the handling balance. Think early Porsche 911 or Chevy Corvair. But lastly, the idea that a battery in the spare well would be safer makes me laugh. The area behind the rear wheels is a crush zone. It's designed to absorb the energy in a rear crash before it gets to the critical components like the fuel tank and battery. So even if the battery doesn't explode in a rear crash (which would be far, far more likely), the fact that it would just directly pass all that energy through to the main structure of the vehicle and then the occupants means you'd have significantly higher rates of injuries.

It's not nearly as black and white as you'd have us believe. The first article you quote, while it is dated 2019, is actually referring to data from a NHTSA report from 2004. Back when automakers weren't really worried about roll-overs. These days, automakers put a lot more thought and effort into roll-over prevention. Things like stability control, suspension tuning and even tire compounding all go into the designs. As such, modern SUVs (especially the unibody-based ones) are much less likely to roll over than those of 20 years ago and in fact aren't really that far away from "cars". The 2020 Ford Escape has a 4-star NHTSA rating for rollover prevention. The 2020 Ford Fusion also has a 4-start rating while the Mustang has a 5 star. So in fact based on real data and testing, the difference in rollover risk between a Mustang and a Fusion is bigger than that between a Fusion and an Escape. I'm not going to suggest that the Escape is really equally likely to roll as a Fusion, but what I'm saying is the difference is really negligible and not worth basing your entire vehicle purchase decision over. If you really are stuck on this concept, then why aren''t you driving a Mustang? That would be far safer than your Fusion.

SUVs from 20 years ago were tippy and dangerous. As with everything, technology and engineering evolves to solve problems. Besides, it's all relative. I've got an older Miata in my garage so compared to that, a Fusion is tippy and dangerous.

Sounds exactly like the new Escape Hybrid!

I think the point is the risk of the driver's airbag sending out shrapnel is much, much less than the risk that the passenger airbag would have sent shrapnel. Ford has obviously decided that the difference in that risk warrants a difference in their recommendation. Whether or not you trust Ford's risk assessment is another story, but understand there's a LOT more that goes into it than just arbitrarily deciding if you should drive your car or not.

Yep, sounds exactly like how a hybrid powertrain works. Except that there is no torque converter, and it's really not a CVT either, at least not in the same way as your Subaru is. It's not designed to be a sports car nor drive at top speed, it's designed for people to drive around every day and get great fuel economy without having to do anything different then they have been all their lives in normal cars. There are many, many factors which a manufacturer considers when setting the top speed of the vehicle. "Preserving the engine" is usually way down on the list - after all, at those high speeds there's plenty of airflow to keep the engine cool. Most of the time the top speed is limited by the OEM tires chosen (and OEMs use a factor of safety on top of the speed ratings). Another one is drivetrain, usually things like the CV joints or input shafts on transmission have a lower limit than anything in the engine. Other factors include aerodynamic stability, brake sizing and even Carbon Monoxide intrusion. Unless you actually know which one of those factors is the limiter, trying to go any faster than the OEM set limit introduces a lot of risk (beyond the obvious risk of driving fast).

Where are you coming up with this? You're suggesting that turning off the engine for longer periods of time will allow it to stay hotter? Once the engine is up to temperature, it pretty much stays there. That's what the thermostat is for. Again, remember that the energy required to charge a battery is not linear. It takes much more energy to charge the battery the last bit than it does to charge it in the middle bit. That's why it's most efficient to operate the battery in the middle of it's range.

It's all about managing risk. The passenger side airbag was much more dangerous than the driver's side airbag. Now I guess they figure the issue with the driver's airbag is far less risky, but still worth replacing. It is possible that one is much more dangerous than the other, even if the root of the issue is the same.

Yes, there is a charger and a procedure that the dealerships can do. They use this: https://www.midtronics.com/ev-solutions/grx-5100/