madlock

"bhp" is an acronym for "brake horsepower" which, like "whp" (wheel horsepower) for all intents and purposes is the same as the generic term "horsepower".

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if Ford were to offer even these simplest of alternatives for "freshening up" the interior? I'm particularly interested in the wholesale different back-end. The same could be said of the wheel covers Ford UK offers. They're very simple, no fancier than the plastic snap-in jobbies available here, but they're just a whole lot nicer. Considering that not even touch-up paint is yet available, I'm seriously thinking of doing a quick roundtrip to Frankfurt or London to take a look at first-hand and perhaps pick-up a small compliment of individual accessories. By the time shipping and time are taken into account, the New York brief roundtrip wouldn't be any more expensive.

(according to Ford anyway) Despite all the exciting good news, I personally find it a bit underwhelming that I happen to personally comprise 1/6,500th of Transit Connect's North American sales traffic.

I don't s'pose you could beat your Parts rep over the head until he comes-up with an answer....?

Well, I've managed to locate the replacement part to order a set of replacement trim panels, but in my search I seem to have stumbled across a parts diagram that either includes some European bleed over from Tourneo Connect or perhaps some items that may be in-store for 2011. 45220A is the panel that exists in today's North American Transit Connect. 45220B, although there's no direct part entry in the vehicle-specific menu, seems to be a trim cover of some sort (hallelujah). 45220C appears to be something entirely different, perhaps a recessed storage "cubby hole". Then, we seem to have an entirely different one-piece liftgate assembly detailed below. Anyone have any insight as to what this might be? Thanks.

I'm certain it's just a matter of personal stupidity, but I'm having a bugger of a time removing the rear door particle board panels. It can't possibly be as tough as I'm experiencing, so I hope someone can perhaps share the deep dark secret of removing them. Oh, and of course, this would happen to be the ONE time when my impulsiveness managed to overcome my anal retentiveness, so I did the dumbest thing possible and used a metal blade and gouging one of the panels. Any line on a replacement or anyone with an undamaged donor to contribute in exchange for enough cash to make it worth your while would be greatly appreciated, presuming wiring the back-up camera through the doors doesn't just kill me first. Many thanks.

Yip.

Here's a nice little tip on the warranty. Visit www.fordwarrantys.com. It's a CT dealership that will be happy to sell you a warranty for your vehicle with price quotes in advance. Be sure to indicate you want their bonus pricing, it will save you another $180 or so. You then have a couple of options. You can simply buy it from them (they only collect sales tax on CT sales... reporting to your own state is entirely your responsibility), or present the number as a "meet or beat" price to your own local dealer. It will cost you $75 plus whatever proration may apply, but given that I purchased an 84/100/0 deductible warranty for FAR less, I'm sure there's the opportunity for you to save more than a little money if you want the business. Heck, Ed should be referring him to his own F&I rep. As for the "gap" insurance, it ALWAYS sounds SO good, doesn't it? And with a vehicle that seems to depreciate like a rock, it sounds even better. The downside is that it doesn't go away once you're no-longer upside down on the car like PMI can go away when you hit 20% equity in a mortgage. I hope this can save you a shekel or two.

While you may not have been offered the best deal ever, the dealer's $22,038 price certainly wasn't unreasonable. Because California taxes can vary from one county and town to another, it's almost impossible to be exact; but basing registration and sales tax fees upon a new vehicle registered in Aliso Viejo in Orange County and presuming you'd be entitled to a $500 rebate and nothing more, the dealer seems to have offered the car to you at "dealer invoice". The calculations reconcile almost to the dollar. "Out the door" offers (made either way) are really counterproductive because they obfuscate both the legitimately variable costs that are purchase price-dependent (and especially in California with variable sales/use tax rates) and can allow rebates and incentives to be discretely diverted away. It presumes both parties know every relevant fact without first requiring full disclosure from either party. It can also require a good deal of reverse engineering to ultimately determine whether or not an offer that may not seem attractive should be, and one that may seem to be isn't. Because taxes and regulatory fees are mandated and are usually dependent upon the agreed purchase price they're just not relevant to the negotiation and should be based upon, rather than combined with, the vehicle purchase itself. Note: The 300A has experienced a mid-year price increase of $660 (from $20,780 to $21,440) that will cause most online pricing guides to be in error. Because the U.S. inventory is so large, virtually all vehicles available today were built before the price increase. With that in mind, I'll rebuild the transaction from the bottom-up. (I welcome Ed jumping in to correct any misconceptions I may have or errors I may make). Dealer invoice for Transit Connect is dirt simple. There's a 7% margin on the base vehicle and 17% on options (rounded down) plus a $400 local advertising fee Ford levies upon dealers and $695 to transport the vehicle from Otosan to Yourtown, USA. That's the dealer's gross vehicle cost in a nutshell. Once the dealer sells the vehicle, it will receive 3% of the sticker price (excluding destination fees). Beyond that is the dealer's holdback which, in addition to any manufacturer-to-dealer bonus cash or "marketing support" money Ford may be offering at any given time (which you may or may not know about, and which the dealer may choose to keep for itself or throw into the deal as an additional pricing incentive). The "holdback" rebated to each dealer upon selling each Transit Connect is 6% of the base vehicle cost (the gross cost less local advertising and destination fees). In this case, it's indeed $640. Your vehicle's dealer invoice price is: 93% of Base Vehicle Price + Local Advertising Fee + Destination Charge = Dealer Invoice or $19,329 + $400 + 695 = $20,424 Because rebates and incentives are money the manufacturer contributes toward the down-payment, (they do NOT reduce the purchase price, must be verified in Smart VINCENT and can vary from person to person and location to location) and are usually taxable, they have no place among the contributors that constitute the purchase price. Plugging-in the relevant factors to determine California DMV fees and Sales and Use Tax (using Aliso Viejo in Orange County as a hypothetical registration location), the total fees and taxes due came to $324 in registration fees and $1,787 in sales/use tax for a total of $2,111. So, the net purchase price would come to $20,424 plus $2,111, or $22,535. Presuming you'd be entitled to receive a $500 rebate (and also that you're also not entitled to any further rebates or incentives), the "out the door" price would come to $22,035, a scant $3 difference from what you were offered, and close enough for me to wager I've nailed the numbers upon which they based their offer and any variance can be written-off to rounding. Could you do better? Maybe. Just as Ford is seeking to preserve its margins, dealers have to be particularly long on Transit Connect and short on cash with payroll coming due to start kicking-in their holdback. Waiting until the end of the month may buy you a bit more negotiating leverage, especially as March is the end of the first quarter. Even so, the particular vehicle you want happens to be the cheapest Transit Connect possible which makes it a very readily-saleable vehicle and one that's likely to command a great deal of interests from other dealers who may search on behalf on their own customers. I suspect you would run a larger risk of losing the vehicle to another buyer, even at the relatively low sales rate, than negotiating an appreciably-better price. It's also important to be pragmatic about the dealer itself. Dealers are fighting for survival. The marketplace is 40% smaller than 3 years ago and skyrocketing reliability has meant plummeting service revenues. While average transaction prices continue to rise in response to pent-up demand and a larger portion of buyers consisting of those who are well-qualified and sufficiently-financed, the simple fact is that too many dealers are fighting for too little business; and it's becoming the responsibility of each customer to ensure the deal he drives is sustainable in all respects as the new reality includes the very real potential of bargaining someone out of business altogether. I don't know your circumstances, nor would I begrudge anyone the opportunity to keep food on his own table. But after weighing the available factors (at least those I could determine or reasonably estimate), including the likelihood of someone else buying that vehicle (especially as it seems to be a relatively rare combination, as I only found 1 within an hour's flight of L.A. so-configured), I would accept the dealer's offer as allowing it a reasonable margin to fund its operations and move forward, especially as the numbers seem to mean they were also straight with you in terms of reasonable documentation fees and so forth. So, Ed.... How'd I do?

Great news as I prepare mine for trade, yet again. Fog lamps are also purported to be coming as they are on the EU "Trend" and "Limited" trim. I've seen the L&P cladding in-person and it's very nice. It's much better than Sortimo's Sowaflex. I also saw it in white, which looked dynamite, but was contractually prohibited from bein sold to any retail customer. I don't know whether to cheer-on substantial interior improvements or take the "misery loves company" tack.

I dunno. I never got the impression that Ford was going to launch TC in North America as anything but what they've ultimately provided. The 3-row sibling was always delineated as the Tourneo connect; and while there's been some "Auto Show Glitz", I don't ever recall it being touted as anything but future potential and design spit-balling. In Europe, Tourneo has a decidedly more passenger-centric interior design feel, but it's not of any particularly higher materials quality or even a step "above" Transit, just "different". As for being a "sport truck", I don't recall ever seeing anything even remotely "sporty" about Transit Connect no matter which market it happens to serve. And given the 1.8 TDCi being offered in Europe, the little 2.0 L 4-banger petrol for North America is downright spritely by comparison, the various axle ratios offered in Europe notwithstanding. While there are indeed many different offerings in terms of a short wheel base, and "Crew" versions, about the only enhcancements Europe has North America doesn't are for the "Limited" trim level with some accessories like color keyed mirror and handle caps and grille, a leather steering wheel, and some interior trim accents. I've seen scads of wheels available from 3rd parties all the way up to 18". Ford Europe offers Aluminum wheels for Transit Connect on the Trend and Limited trim or as accessory items, but I suspect the lack of other options is far more likely to result from wheel makers not updating their compatibility reference indexes to include Transit Connect rather than Transit Connect being an altogether unique dimension or bolt pattern. If you're really in the hunt for wheels, I'm sure you can do your own cross-compatibility investigation. What cheeses me off most are the little things that seem disingenuous. What's marketed as a "Nokia Bluetooth" system here, seems to be nothing more than the steering wheel audio controls that are standard in Europe and the deliberate "dumbing down" of certain things like the side mirrors and deleting fog lamps altogether. Even so, I never got the impression by Ford or saw any marketing materials that led me to believe that North American Transit Connect would be something it ultimately wasn't. A lot of this will get better when stateside production begins, and there are even some improvements that will be here for 2011. I do know Ford was surprised at how well the XLT Wagon was received, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the passenger-oriented features become available in 2011.

Actually, that's a pretty standard price for a reasonably-equipped XLT of any variety presuming a garden variety sales tax rate. My first one stickered well OVER $25K by virtue of having been a Wagon and the FWS computer; and even then, the gross vehicle price was in the $23's when bought below invoice. Many dealers caught long are throwing-in part or all of their holldback to get inventories to a more reasonable level. But even with so many available, many dealers flocked to a relatively limited number of option configurations hyped to them at the ordering stage, so the oversupply doesn't necessarily translate int exceptional variety.

Well, let's hope the new features Toyota includes for 2011 include reliable accelerator and braking and a newfound-candor for addressing potential safety matters and resisting the urge to suppress them within a super-secret vault somewhere in Toyota City. I'm personally looking forward to a going forward marketplace in which Toyota will likely have to compete amid a more "eyes open" public rather than historical lore extolling Toyota vehicles as devices based upon the mystical principles of quicksilver inspired by the philosopher's stone. It's a whole new world out there; and few phenomenon have illustrated this fact better than the decline in value Toyota has delivered to customers in each passing year's Camry as Fusion has improved to the point of surpassing it in virtually every respect. When Fiesta arrives this year and European Focus arrives in 2011, Toyota had better hope it budgeted sufficient development capital for its own products as far back as 2008 to remain competitive. Hopefully for the sake of Ford, it can begin making more hay out of marketing its own virtues and the fact that virtually any American brand, vehicle regardless of where it's made, contributes several times the amount to America's economy than a foreign-brand vehicle assembled here.

The 50 SE issue is indeed ab odd one as there seems to be no difference whatsoever in dealer cost, economics, performance, or indeed, even the emissions themselves. FL vehicles I've seen are not 50, yet those sold here in NJ and PA seem to be. You can check individual vehicles yourself by supplying VINs to Ford's online Window Sticker tool. I'd advise contacting the fleet ordering manager at a dealer in various states to determine the whats and wherefores. Given the regrettably low resale values seen thus far, yours may be a wise path given the huge inventories Ford is going to have to start incentivizing soon to clear.

If there's no set screw on the handle stem, it may simply be held in-place by friction and require even, consistent pressure to extract.

It's difficult to know. One of the most compelling reasons to buy was the ARRA tax incentive that literally allowed certain buyers to write-off the entire vehicle depreciation in year 1. That means, I bought mine in November, and I get about 1/2 of it paid back to me in April. I'm sure a great many people bought them and then are now selling them after pocketing the tax incentive. One thing's certain; resale values are NOT impressive, something that's very uncommon for a new vehicle that hasn't been highly incentivized. With about 180 days' worth of TC's on dealer lots, I sense some deep discounting to make room for the 2011's once they arrive. This marketplace must be playing with Ford and TC. It's universally praised, unique in its class, yet conditions seem to be such that early adopters are hard to come by.

Much agreed. The Doblo is much more akin to a bloated HHR than TC

The timing of bringing Grand C-Max (only the 7-passenger version will be coming to North America) is more to do with logistics than potential market reception. It's one of the many vehicles based on the global Focus platform; and North American production will coincide with the bringing-online of North American production and tooling for the core Focus platform which will help Ford to rapidly develop flexible production of the many variants and sustain them profitably even at relatively low volumes if need be. Ford is leaving North American 5-passenger hauling to its traditional vehicles. Grand C-Max allows them to fit the piece of the puzzle they deliberately forwent with Flex by making it a crossover devoid of any "minivan" features. Ford was seeking to accomplish two things; it wanted to firmly establish itself in the large crossover space and divorce itself from its weak history it left itself with its "Star" family of vans. It works very well that Grand C-Max can now be simultaneously introduced as a new vehicle (rather than being perceived as the evolution of a weak category) and in the very cost effective manner of the global Focus platform's wholesale North American introduction.

Actually, one must google search "Grand C-Max", as it's the 7-passenger version coming to North America. The C-Max is a 5-passenger standard wheelbase version that will be available outside North America.

I certainly think it's possible, but this may be one of the areas where the North American market simply differs too greatly from Europe. With Grand C-Max on its way (and presumably a non-Grand C-Max potentially easily made thereafter), it would probably make better sense for Ford to focus its passenger-carrying attention on those vehicles with inherent passenger-carrying traits rather than further derivations of Transit Connect for the retail market, at least in the short term. On the other hand, Ford has recently shown its Transit Connect Taxi Concept, which is essentially the Tourneo Connect painted yellow. Any decisions Ford makes will likely be relatively conservative and very deliberate given their relative cash position and the fact that there' no real expansion of the marketspace expected for the foreseeable future. Unless a new product is likely win additional sales from competitors, Ford is likely to avoid any endeavor that's likely to cannibalize its own sales, only at greater expense.

Mine is working dandily; and in addition to functioning as a backup camera, wiring it to the rear fog lamps provides me with an on-demand rear view display that all but eliminates blind spots; and mounted in the left rear door blanking panel, it's about as unobtrusive as an installation can be. Plus, it also adds a top tier navigation. Only a license plate mount might be more concealed, but it's also farther off-center. Project cost: $65 Audiovox CMOS2 Camera $200 Magellan 1700 7" GPS/Video display $17 12' Shielded Coax Video Cable $32 Ford Blanking Panel for Transit Connect $25 Paint, Clear Coat, Filler, and Drill Bit $7 1/8" to RCA video cable

Interim Update: I decided the view orientation was definitely too high and lowering it to both permit a shorter minimum viewable distance to road level and keep traffic more centered in the image which helps avoid the exaggerated "fisheye" effect of such a wide angle lens. I've been able to shorten the minimum viewable ground distance to 5' and, at knee-height, I can see almost 2' behind the vehicle, making it function well enough to serve dual duty as both rear view mirror replacement and backup camera. Instead of using the provided angled lens barrels, I had to Dremel the already-drilled hole to accommodate the standard barrel positioned at my own angle. which is just barely perceptibly lower then true horizontal. Of course, relative to the panel, the camera appears to point downward to an even-more exaggerated degree. A little hot melt glue holds the barrel in place just fine. The finishing work has really posed a challenge. Because angling the barrel downward meant I had to drill-out an ellipse-shaped hole by sight, I knew I'd have a little filler work to do. I was going to reach for conventional body filler which I knew could be sanded, primed and painted relatively easily, but I made the mistake of letting myself be talked into the equivalent of "Mighty Putty" which, despite fashioning into the thinnest "snake" I could to embed in the gap between the lens barrel and the blanking plate, just doesn't cotton well to being sanded with anything but the roughest grains, which is counter to what's required when finishing such small areas. After trying to fix it until I happened to screw it up by gouging the plastic after trying to use a Dremel to do some detailed sanding instead of leaving well enough alone. I should have used a filler primer in the first place, and that's where things stand right now. I've shot one coat of regular primer and will be heading to AutoZone for some filler primer when they open. I will then resand the filled areas down using 400 and proceed to spray a final coat of standard primer before letting it dry in a curing cabinet and a final sanding with 600 grit before the first coat of paint. I'm planning to finally have the body work done tomorrow to have the door check repaired. In the meantime, I'll spray a couple coats of a very close shade of white to Frozen White (I found a better match than before) and wet sand it before taking it with me to the body shop with the hope that they'll just spray the damn thing for me for a few extra bucks since the paint will already be matched for the warranty repair. I'll post some pictures and an abbreviated recipe for others when the final job is done. Presuming I don't manage to screw it up any further by attempting to fix it some more, I'm really going to enjoy the lower angle and believe it will make the TC both easier and safer to operate.

Thanks, but it ain't over yet. I'm indeed going to have to adjust the angle. The closest point of visibility on the road is 10 feet, so it really needs to be pointed lower. That means having to Dremel and fill instead of just drilling a simple hole. The GPS displays are just as challenging. I just tried the NUVI 5000 today, and I'm really in a quandry. The NUVI is only a 5" display, and though it has far more features, I prefer the Magellan's 7" size and very straightforward interface. The NUVI is light on navigation features (like junction view etc), but it has some nice features like an Audio Book reader, etc. And despite being considerably smaller, the cable connection points on the mount are MUCH nicer. To make matters even more conflicted, the NUVI is much higher resolution and it showed immediately with the image. Seeing the camera image through a different display also made me aware of something I hadn't noticed with respect to the Magellan. The camera is a standard 4:3 NTSC camera. The Magellan is a full (albeit lower resolution) wide-screen device. The device stretches and pinches the image to fit to the full area of the screen. While this makes for a very nice looking installation, everything in the image is squat and distorted, something the fisheye lens angle only compounds. So, enter the NUVI. Not only is it 5" rather than 7", so it's only about 70% of the physical size to begin with, it too is a widescreen perspective; but rather than stretching the image, it only fills about 80% of the screen. The result is an image that's only about 55% of the size of as it appears on the Magellan. And while the image itself is crystal clear (in daylight), the overall sensation is of a camera image being displayed on a monitor rather than a surrogate rearview mirror. It seems that both devices are equally lacking, just in very different ways. What's ludicrous is that the kinds of things that would make either device terrific would cost about $2 more to manufacture, or they're features that exist in each makers' other products. I'm going to give some consideration to using a 7" Lilliput display unit that may be the best overall, albeit without navigation. I would then add a navigation-capable head unit. So, as of this point, I have the two challenges to solve of remounting the camera (while it's perfectly usable now, it could be SO much better if properly oriented) and continuing my search for the best display solution. More to come as it develops.