EGFP

Exactly. Sometimes you buy too high, when your emotions are involved, other times you buy low, when you're thinking rationally and on top of the game. Either way, the transaction was a "fair price" at that moment in time.

I can say that they owners here seem to be doing pretty well. The employees are doing okay too, talking with some of them. If a few less efficient dealers go out of business, so be it. Where I live, there are a huge number. There'd still be competition. I don't know what fair profit is. Fair profit is entirely subjective. 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? What is it, and how do we know what fair profit is? The system is opaque. Invoice prices are not really what dealer's pay. If we can't define and agree on what a fair profit is, then how can we define and say what a good deal is? The dealer is trying to get the highest price possible, and we should try to get the lowest price possible. That's how it works. And that's what makes the system healthy. Dealers make a decision to sell a car at a "low price." They are not generally suicidal. If they didn't get something out of it, they wouldn't sell at that price at all. So the fact they will sell at a "low price" means they are getting something out of it. It's the flip side of us agreeing to buy at a certain price. That's barter, and the automotive sales are a barter system. Ultimately, the fact that both sides agree on a price, high or low, means that both sides are happy. Maybe the buyer will buy at a "high price" out of ignorance, but the dealer won't sell at a low price out of ignorance. They know what they are making for each sale, and if they sell, they are doing it because it is in their benefit to do so, no matter what the price. If the dealer is someone who is selling at a loss consistently and they go out of business, then that is good. They should go out of business. But it's their fault for selling too low, and not the consumers, who was just doing "their job" to get the best price, just as it's the dealer's job to sell at the highest price. With hybrids, in particular, dealers and the Ford company itself must accept short-term losses. The market is still not solid enough. Either that, or lobby the Gov't for extended tax rebates, which makes sense too, if the Gov't is serious about being green, even if with a transitional technology like hybrids. At any rate, it is irresponsible of the consumer to not try to get the best deal possible, just as much as it is irresponsible of the seller to not try to get the highest price. If either side doesn't try their best, the system doesn't work, competitiveness suffers. That's capitalism, baby. It works when everyone tries to "cheat" the other person, and then they meet in the middle. A sale itself, no matter what the price, is proof that for that sale, they did meet in the middle in that case to both parties' satisfaction. I love it!

I don't completely agree with those who think one should accept a higher price so the dealer can make some real money. I am not a dealer, and I am sure it's often a razor-thin margin on some cars, but they make huge margins on other cars. Moreover, dealers can get rebates on vehicles (with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge) from FoMoCo easily, if you put their feet to the fire and tell them about a quote from another dealer (even if far away). If you drag it out and have a price from another dealer, again even if it's farther away than you'd like to go, the local dealer will probably go for the sale at the competitive price. That is capitalism. As a consumer, you are not in it to help FoMoCo but to get the best price possible. The other thing is, there is nothing wrong ethically with demanding a good deal on a hybrid. If they want to grow their hybrid share, they need to accept a lower margin in hopes of future better margins if economies of scale and increased demand kicks in. They are taking a risk, but so are you. Let's face it. Unless you are in a southern climate where you'll get great mileage consistently throughout the year or unless gas prices go upward of $5/gallon, you will not make back the extra money on the hybrid unless you hold the vehicle for a decade. The exception is at the high end with the Lincoln MKZ, where the base non-hybrid model is a V6 FWD, so the base ICE-only MKZ model is way up from the base FF. It's still great that the prices are equivalent for the V6 FWD MKZ and the hybrid MKZ, but if you make a similar V6 FF comparison to the FFH, it's not that big a gap. Bottom line is, as a consumer, you should get the best price you can. If your conscience bugs you about this, then - dammit all to hell - Toyota gained the lion's share of hybrid market share by subsidizing the vehicles. If Ford wants to be a competitor, it should too. To be a player in this sector, the onus is on the automaker, not you. If they want green PR but are not willing to do what it takes to increase their market share, then that's either a miscalculation about the future profits to increased market share or else an indication that they think hybrids will never be a great money maker. Either way, you should get the best price you can. That's ultimately good for you and for capitalism.

If you shop around and play hard to get, and get a quote from a dealer willing to sell at the X plan price, you should get the price for a FFH w/ the 502A spec down to mid $29K, at least as of 4 months ago.

Lots of Fusions in the northeast but not that many Fusion Hybrids. Priuses are quite common, though.

The vehicle handles very well in the winter. It is quite heavy (at almost 4,000 lbs.) for a hybrid. It has a low center of gravity. The only thing is that there is a big drop in mileage when it is very cold.

Congratulations, man! Sorry about your loss but hope you're happy with the new beast. It's the best no-compromise hybrid out there now. I don't see anything within a year or two rivaling it.

Reliable and also safest. The FFH and its cousins, the MMH and now the MKZ hybrid, are the safest hybrids out there by all measures. The rollover rating for the FFH was actually improved in mid-2010, when the cabin roof was strengthened. It was not widely publicized, but it led to an additional star in ratings for rollover resistance. This is simply the safest hybrid on the market. Very good reliability and safety work for me. I looked at the Prius, Camry Hybrid, Lexus HS 250h, Civic Hybrid and diesels from VW/Audi before my purchase of an MMH. I am really happy I went with the MMH. It makes the most sense now to me as it did in my pre-purchase research and test-driving. Ford rocks!

Thanks. Very interesting and nice benchmark. I'd say I am seeing the same performance, though I've had the car for a much shorter period. One thing I've noticed is that turning on the cabin heat does show up in ACC as a noticeable blip, especially until the ICE is warmed up, and then it goes down. Also, until the ICE is warmed, with cabin heat on, even at a stop, the ICE is running. But if I turn off the cabin heat and just run the seat warmer, even at the first stop, the car idles in EV only. It all makes sense. Winter takes a bigger hit than just on ACC, though, obviously. Any ICE in winter doesn't run as fuel efficiently until it is warmed up, since the oil in the engine is colder and more viscous, so more gas to move the pistons. Also, with cooler denser air, there is more wind resistance. The air in the tires also is less expanded, so slightly inflating the tires may help. That's true of all cars. With a hybrid, there's also the decreased efficiency of battery under the rear seat when it's very cold.

In over two months of ownership, I have refueled three times. I refuel shortly after the Great and Powerful Oz tells me to do so. It works out to 15 1/4 to 15 1/2 gallons. So with a 17.5 gallon tank, the computer tells me to refuel with about two gallons left. That works for me. I don't want to push it. I like a nice safety margin. Who wants to run out of gas? Listen to Oz. A propos: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/04/ford-hybrid-goes-1445-miles-on-one-tank/

Of course, all cars take a hit in cold weather, but it's more noticeable with a hybrid, since you are more focused on gas mileage and also since it's compounded by all the cold-weather inefficiencies ICE and EV adding up. Heated seats rock, though. You don't need the ICE to heat the cabin, since the electrically warmed seats keep you warm. But this will only last so long, and I'll be heating the cabin. I wonder, though, it may be counterproductive to not heat the cabin. The cabin heat warms the batteries, so that they start operating more efficiently. Maybe better to just warm and take the early hit. If you have a short commute, you are screwed with an ICE-only vehicle and doubly screwed with a hybrid, but even so you'll get better winter mileage with the hybrid. I just think the differential will be greater and more noticeable with the feedback with the hybrid. Thus, the conventional "wisdom" that hybrids are not for cold weather. No cars are, even if the difference is a bit more pronounced on the ground and perception-wise with a hybrid, but you're still doing better in absolute terms than with an ICE-only vehicle. Damn cold weather.

Hybrids are definitely ideal for warmer climes, but the hit so far in the Northeast has not been as bad as thought (first winter with the hybrid), although cold weather is just beginning. With temps now in low 40s or even high 30s in the morning, the car is in EV mode as normal at start, unless I turn on climate control. Without any heating, I have seen about a 1-2 mpg hit overall. The hit is mostly in the first 5 minutes and with acceleration. The vehicle is designed to get the batteries warmed up (again, without considering heating in the cabin, which takes a hit until the ICE warms up), so there is a hit even without heating. But it's not very bad overall. I can still get super high per-trip mileage, but the hills I have to climb within the first few minutes of my commute take a toll on the overall. We don't get much below freezing here in the winter, but it will get a bit colder. I am interested in seeing how it pans out. I am mostly driving without heat to get a baseline. With a coat on it's not too bad. The fogging up of the windows is the only thing, but a second of climate control on takes care of that (I'd prop the windows a bit, but it's already too brrrrr). Once I get sick of all this, I'll just drive it like a normal car with heating and take the winter hit. I'll still get better than I got with any other car. I just want to see what the mechanical side of it does in the winter without any heating. The heated seats don't hit the gas mileage at all, and that is about all I need most of the time anyway. I'll see what happens as it gets colder.

When the car doesn't move anymore. That means your gas and corn liquor has gone out.

Here we go: http://www.autoanything.com/cargo-liners/79A4823A0A0.aspx?VehicleYearID=2011&VehicleMakeID=27&VehicleModelID=478&uniqueID=4275 Thanks!

The problem is not Ford or Mercury (RIP) but the luxury brand: Lincoln. It used to be "Ford is for the workers, Mercury for the managers and Lincoln for the executives." Ford may have been adrift as the Japanese tidal wave took over, but they've clearly found their way in the last few years. And now they seek to emulate the Japanese and German model of one mainstream brand and one luxury brand. Fine. But luxury brands mean every detail needs to be perfect. That comes first, and then the name. Lincoln lost its name as a luxury brand, except to the old fuddy duddies. Now Ford wants Lincoln to compete with Lexus, Audi, Infiniti, etc. Well, if they don't get every detail right on the outside and the inside, people won't buy it (figuratively and literally). We don't know how it will play out, because Mercury and Lincoln vehicles have been reskinned Fords. Now, Ford has signaled that with a narrower focus on Ford and Lincoln only, Lincolns may become more than candy-coated Fords. But we'll see. The Lincoln designers need to get into a different state of mind first. Actually, Ford does internal stuff really well, arguably as well now as the best. They just make silly and incomprehensible mistakes when they try to just refit a Ford as a Lincoln. In terms of luxury, Fords offer great value with high tech gizmos and options that would cost more on most other makes. But when they try to make something really higher end, they make these little mistakes. For the price of a Lincoln, you can get a Lexus or Audi or Infiniti or BMW. The latter are a lot more associated with luxury and quality in the present day. So if Lincoln wants to attack that market, they'd better get stupid things like aligned trunks right. It's elementary. We're not even talking Bentley here. We're talking basic outward displays of craftmanship and attention to detail that even shite Hyundai can manage. Hyundais are crap, though, while Fords are much better engineered. But at least Hyundai understands with the Sonata and their better vehicles that people want everything to look right when they buy. And Lincoln is positioning itself as more than that. So get the looks/outside right, Ford/Lincoln, because you've got the insides right. Then you've got to offer the refinement of a BMW. 3 Series BMWs aren't even that expensive or very exclusive - you can get one for less than most Lincolns - but they still look and handle like something much more refined. Moreover, BMWs and most of the other mid-$30-ish-starting price entry level luxury car makers suck when it comes to hybrids (and most of the German diesel offerings aren't that impressive either). Ford is probably the most experienced car maker after Toyota and Honda in hybrids and probably does it better than at least Honda. So Lincoln could grab the fuel-efficient luxury market easily, but only when the vehicles look refined and don't have stupid little mistakes like misaligned trunks to turn people off. So go for it, Ford/Lincoln.