madlock

Yep. GPS. The Magellan 1700 isn't overly feature-rich, but it's a knockout of a unit for placing where the rear-view mirror used to be. Everything is super-sized, and Magellan has a really innovative "one touch' interface that makes use particularly easy. The only drawbacks are its relatively limited (but not "lacking") feature set and its lower-resolution display compared to say a Nuvi 5000 which is a high resolution 5" unit that also supports video input. I'm going to test the 5000 tomorrow. I know I'm not going to like the smaller screen, but it's certainly more elegant. All connections are concealed behind the unit rather than sticking out from the bottom. It's a real toss-up, but at first blush, I think I'm likely to stick with the Magellan for its better-suited form factor and damn-easy interface. I also prefer how it displays maps. I just wish Navigon was still in the business and made a compatible product. The paint I used is a piss-poor match from Duplicolor. The Frozen White is en route from Ford Europe. I'm hoping a local body shop that's supposed to fix the broken door catch which will require painting won't mind just spraying the assembly I've cobbled together for me. Thanks, and you're welcome. I hope it provides some food for thought. As I wrote, the only really questionable aspect of the implementation is that the camera angle is a bit high and the trade-off between this camera that's so well-suited for installation in this manner and one that has infrared or better low light performance but might not accommodate the mounting as is (which might require some custom fabrication) or give such a broad field of view. It's really amazing to let a car pass on either side; and because the camera angle is so wide, the car almost instantaneously disappears from the pseudo-mirror and appears out the driver's window. I suppose it has already met the Gold Standard in that even in its current form, mounted temporarily and with a suboptimal angle, I found myself having driven as if I simply had a regular rear view mirror without giving it a thought until much later, especially when I had to merge or turn onto a thoroughfare at an obtuse angle that would have normally rendered me blind, even to my side mirrors, but was almost like driving a convertible today instead. It's certainly usable as is, but I just have to bite the bullet and resort to the Dremel and a little filler putty to get the camera orientation exactly as I want it to be. Even if I have to build another from scratch, I'm only in for about $100 so far; and given that this is my first attempt ever at such a thing, I figure it's not too bad a price of admission to get it the way I want. I'm just particularly happy to have been able to tie it into the "fog lamp" switch. I'll keep everyone posted. P.S. The camera image still has its protective film over the lens, so I'm hoping the image will be even-better, no matter how nominally, once it's been clear coated and I can remove the clear protective film.

I've made pretty considerable progress toward providing my TC with some rearward visibility. I've been wanting two types of rearward view, one that effectively provides the visibility to overcome the Cargo Van's horrendous blind spots and a second that functions as a conventional backup camera. They're two different views from two different perspectives that serve two different purposes. For example the "rearview mirror" camera should be able to operate all the time while the backup camera would activate when the vehicle is shifted into reverse and provide a conventional "bumper view" with superimposed distance markers. TC poses some challenges for both of these. First, there's no way to mount a camera on the centerline without drilling into the bumper. However, it does feature a plastic blanking panel in place of the European supplemental brake light which also makes a convenient place to mount a camera from a higher perspective that more closely mimics a rear view mirror, and the part can be bought for a mere $30, meaning it can be drilled, mutilated, and indulge any manner of "do overs" and the original can always be reinstalled to leave "no harm no foul". The backup camera is another matter. The two obvious solutions are to drill the bumper or mount a license plate bracket camera. I'm no fan of the license plate camera because it's so far off-center; but others have tried it and seem to be relatively satisfied. There's no "great" solution as far as I'm concerned, but I figure I can buy myself some time using the rear view mirror camera until I can come up with something more elegant, both inside the vehicle and out, as so much of the overall challenge could have been resolved by Ford offering any sort of decent and reasonably-functional integrated touch screen to display all this wonderful content. So, I went after the lowest hanging fruit first. I found the Audiovox CMOS2 camera, a very wide angle (170 degree diagonal field of view) that I would mount in the blanking panel. What makes the CMOS2 so good for this application is that it also comes with a series of flexible mounting hardware to accommodate just about any implementation ranging from suspending it below the bumper to drilling and mounting it inside the bumper or even angling the camera from an embedded mount (the option I chose). I ordered the camera and a spare blanking panel; and with a 15/16" bit and my Dremel, I went to work mounting it in the blanking panel, using the included angled collars to overcome the fact that the blanking panel isn't exactly vertical or perpendicular to the vehicle centerline. (Please bear in-mind that I've yet to apply clear coat to the painted parts) Because my Frozen White aerosol paint has yet to arrive from the UK, I used the closest Duplicolor match I could find. Frozen White is a very blue shade of white, and while Duplicolor's "Super White" is about as close as I could come. The finish will be much closer once a clear coat is applied; but for a first attempt, I was pretty pleased with the overall fit and finish. It's important to note that the angled mounting collar doesn't entirely overcome the pitch of the blanking panel and the camera points somewhat "up". Fortunately, the camera is of such a wide angle that it's not nearly as prominent on the display as it would seem at first. Even so, I'm wrestling with the notion of sculpting the hole I drilled in the blanking panel to allow the camera to tilt down just a bit more, making the bottom edge of the lens collar flush touch the blanking panel surface. We'll see. For viewing the image, I could have gone several routes. The first would have been to route it to an in-dash LCD as part of a "Carputer" set-up or aftermarket navigation head unit, but I'm not yet settled on the head unit I want an I'd prefer to have the display appear where the rear-view mirror would otherwise be in a van with rear windows. I purchased an OEM Ford Mirror that's used in Mustang, Fusion, and other vehicles that features a small integrated LCD monitor. While this would have been ideal if there was any useful purpose for an actual mirror, it's otherwise a very expensive way to display a very small image. Instead, I settled on the Magellan 1700T GPS unit which I mounted to the windshield where the rear view mirror would otherwise normally be. It's a whopper of a unit with a 7" display that's perfect for use in van. It's display and touch screen controls are relatively huge and as easy to use as anyone could imagine. Best of all, it includes a n 1/8" video input that automatically switches to display a video signal when it detects one. The result is about as close to a digital rear view mirror as I could imagine. Keep in mind that the cables are only temporary. The left cable will be replaced with a right angle plug an the wires will be run straight up to the headliner by the dome/map light. Even so, it's possible to see just how wide a field becomes visible. One drawback of the Audiovox CMOS2 is that it's low light (nighttime) visibility is marginal. It's certainly usable, but it's hardly as ideal as a fully infrared capable camera. The challenge is to find a camera that's wide angle, infrared, and mountable in a fashion that allows it to be installed so it looks OEM. Even if I choose to upgrade the camera in the future, I'm very happy with the improvement it provides over no rear view at all. To give an idea of the kind of wide angle perspective it actually provides, here's a photograph of the vehicle relative to the buildings. The distance is actually less than 3 feet, yet it's easy to see how wide the field of view happens to be. The only issue I continue to wrestle with is whether it's worth the time and trouble to lower the angle of view a bit by remounting the camera and all of the Dremeling, puttying, sanding, and repainting it would require. I'll have to think about it over time. When driving, I was taken aback by how "ordinary" it felt. It was just like a rear view mirror, and I immediately enjoyed a degree of driving confidence I'd not experienced since buying my Cargo Van. One of the biggest differences from a conventional rear camera, even one capable of displaying such a wide angle, is that the perspective point is at the rear of the vehicle rather than the center of the windshield. The result is that every reasonably close item looks a bit like Jimmy Durante; and any vehicle that appears reasonably close is actually dramatically closer than it appears. Nevertheless, it's the kind of thing to which I'll quickly become accustomed and it's already a quantum improvement of what existed (or didn't exist) before. Because I want this to be "always on", or at least have the option of it being "always on", I've finally found a useful implementation of the reverse fog lamp switch. Rather than wiring the camera into the reverse light, I wired it to the supplementary tail lights that are activated when the rearward fog lamp knob is pulled-out. I can now power the camera whenever I choose. All-in-all, for a 2/3 complete home brew solution, I'm very happy with how it both works and looks. The reverse camera remains an open issue, but it's something I'll continue to work on as I ultimately decide on a touch screen head unit. At least I can now cast a wider net and perhaps use a system that doesn't require an integrated navigation unit since I already have navigation on the rear view mirror GPS. Of course, all of this would be solved for by Ford offering even the most basic of SYNC compatible navigation solutions. With two other vehicles that are SYNC/navigation equipped, it's a void I feel particularly keenly when driving the TC. I'll continue to update the thread as I continue to complete the project after wiring items permanently and adding a proper reverse-only backup camera.

Although the primary benefit of community web forums is that they allow the sharing of information publicly. Perhaps you'd find it more useful to subscribe to the thread and post and reply through it so information may be shared with all. Best of luck.

Thanks for the link. I'm referring to the steering wheel controls that are added at the factory for the so-called "Nokia Bluetooth" system.

Thanks for all the information. With the understanding that Scosche now offers a Transit Connect kit, could you please provide the vendor/part information for the items you sourced from the UK? Also, were you able to preserve any functionality from the steering column controls? Many thanks!

You greatly misunderstand. The majority of my dissatisfaction with my first TC resulted from the dealer experience, not the vehicle. And while I believe TC to be the best product available of its kind, in addition to being one of Ford's staunchest advocates, it certainly doesn't mean there are aspects of the model that were poorly-considered and ham-fisted in implementation, including the rear fog lamp which despite some folks' serindipitous affinity would otherwise be meaningless in any other North American vehicle. The two aren't mutually exclusive beliefs. With my present vehicle, issues of workmanship exist, including visible damage whose poor factory repair compunded the problem in addition to surface rust that has developed. These are matters of production standards and entirely separate again from the others, but related in the singular aspect that they simply shouldn't exist. As for certain product content like an auto lamp setting, this us hardy a criticism of Transit Connect, rather it's an example of despite how far car makers have come, and Ford most notably of them, they could and should do better by, in many cases, simply thinking differently (i.e. like the rest of the product developing business world). Anyway, I'm glad to own my TC, both for the vehicle it is and the support it demonstrates for Ford. But, like I wrote, it's not to the exclusion of the aspects that were ill-conceived or badly executed, both as a model and with respect to the particular vehicle I happen to own.

I agree about the Western PA drivers. It's not so much an "aggressive" but seems to be just a lack of general awareness. On the other hand, given the resentment I still feel over my first TC buying experience at the Western PA dealer where I actually flew to buy the particular vehicle I want, my opinion may be a bit biased. As for the all-the-time use of fog lamps, conventions are changing. On Ford vehicles with HID headlamps where DTRL is a feature controlled by progamming the SJB ("Smart Junction Box"), the fog lamps actually serve the purpose of DTRL's when the headlamp selector is set to "Auto". In fact, "Auto" headlamps is a perfect example of one of those $20 (or less) features that could and should be simply built into EVERY Ford vehicle, even if it meant passing the cost straight through just to raise the baseline standard for brand content. For as much as Ford is beginning to get the "make good car" part right, the moment they finally divorce themselves from the insular way of thinking that seems to cause auto makers to believe a unique set of physics, gravity, and other laws apply to the auto industry and the auto industry alone, in terms of pricing features and content and building a brand, they will have finally cracked the code. Wouldn't it be grand if, rather than customers having to scratch their heads and grouse about all the great things Ford offers on Vehicle A but not B (and for no apparent reason or rationale), "buying a Ford" meant your vehicle would have X, Y, and Z by default as simple core defining elements of the brand? Rather than sending off to the accountants a justification for each and every component a vehicle will contain, wouldn't it be much better if, with every vehicle Ford makes, and baseline feature or core component would require chapter and verse justification before it could be omitted? Sorry, but I have to stop for now. I just fell off my soapbox.

Which I would think should make the case for simply leaving all red panels illuminated by default rather than using half of them only to make the "fog lamps" stand out when they're turned on. It's like bringing an ugly girl along so your date doesn't look so bad after all.

That's very true. So, for the rest of the world that doesn't live in the Hebrides or Seattle... I certainly can't believe it was a deliberate feature add for North America. I think it's an odd decision, given the other choices like deleting the conventional fog lamps, to not delete the rear version that would otherwise have not existed in any other North American vehicle under any pretense. As for being useful, well... it didn't save my first TC from being rear-ended. Then again, rather than reaching for a fog lamp switch, when it comes time to advise someone in NJ they're tailgating, we tend to do so at the next traffic signal by rock.

You have to be careful there, Roland. UK mirrors will NOT work on North American vehicles. They'll likely physically and functionally mate, but the multi-pane mirrors on UKTC are oriented for line-of-sight from the right-hand seat. To get the appropriate visibility and sight angles, mirrors from a continental TC are required, i.e. Germany, Turkey, etc. I've been in contact with both a German Ford dealer and a North American retrofitter that happens to have a European-spec Transit Connect on premises. Before I start passing out part numbers, prices and contact information, I want to ensure nobody would be left holding the bag if they won't physically mate or the manual or electric positioning or heating connectivity isn't compatible. With respect to the backup camera, I'm adamant for three reasons. First, it's damn necessary. Basic line-of-sight to oncoming traffic in many circumstances simply isn't available without it; and since the technology exists to provide the vehicle with safety it's otherwise lacking, especially since it's a very rudimentary addition for which Ford already has any number of off-the-shelf bins from which to pull components, not only do I believe it to be poor design stewardship, I also believe it's inconsistent with the many very real safety improvements Ford has achieved, especially throughout its North American lineup. I think Ford is actually remiss by not offering it. Second, Ford may have a headstart-to-market, but not by much; and the Doblo is effectively in the same situation Transit Connect was a year ago before coming to America. Unless I completely overestimate ol' Sergio, FIAT's not going to sit on their hands. A feature like a backup camera, I believe, could be a very real differentiation point and decision criterion for single-unit buyers and perhaps even for fleet customers. I'm amazed a commensurate insurance incentive isn't offered for vehicles that happen to offer it. Finally, now that Ford is well down the path to rehabilitating its public perception (and it's done so in legitimate fashion by developing improved product that Ford has let speak for itself), Ford has raised its own bar. People have seen what Ford can do and the standards and values they tout. With backup cameras available on just about every vehicle segment from microboxes to the largest trucks, it's a feature many consumers have come to expect; and as customers have come to expect more from Ford as a company, overlooking the conspicuous absence of features people know damn-well could have been offered undermines much of what Ford has achieved thus far. And to your point, even in the XLT wagon, people have become accustomed to a certain baseline set of creature comforts and a backup camera has become one of them. As there's no "Limited" trim level offered, I think Ford would really be well-served by offering a version that's actually passenger-oriented first, rather than "passenger allowed". I do think 2011 will bring improved product, but I hope it's as improved as it can reasonably be rather than the ethos of days past which would be as little as they feel they could get away with. Of course, the flip-side of the two-edged sword is that TC resale values are already murder, and I doubt the novelty of a first model year version would be enough from it getting hammered even further.

Unfortunately, "may" remains the operative word. With about a 180-day supply of vehicles on dealer lots, and monthly sales in the single thousands, it's yet to really establish itself. :(

Yep. It's a rearward facing fog lamp. This, of course, on a vehicle with a front end that contains molded plastic orange juicers instead of the actual fog lamps that do any good whatsoever, which happen to exist on European Transit Connect. Perhaps it just doesn't register with my pea-sized intellect, but the rearward-facing fog lamp is about the most useless endeavor since Darwin, MN decided to host the world's largest ball of twine. If a big white van isn't enough to keep from being rear-ended in and of itself... Ford actually removed fully-functioning standard fog lamps from the vehicle from which North American Transit Connect was derived and create molded plugs in their place. I want to hear the phone call between Dearborn and Otosan that resulted in that decision. Oy vey. The good news for future Transit Connect owners is that foglamps will indeed be back for 2011. I can't believe the cost of creating a non-fog lamp variant. Apparently someone from "Team Ka" was in on the call, because it appears the tooling for Ka's dashboard vents were co-opted for the effort: Transit Connect fog lamp inserts from Ka vents, or Ka vents from Transit Connect fog lamps... Chicken or Egg? Of course, much of the decision-making about what North American TC (NATC) would be was made through the lens of a financial crisis and $25B in debt, so the impetus was on getting the product to market as quickly and inexpensively as possible. The same phenomenon is evident throughout the FLM lineup with feature and option inconsistencies throughout the product hierarchy (i.e. BLIS on Taurus but not MKS, no backup camera on non-SHO Taurus despite Ford having a badge-embedded camera used on Flex and F-150 etc.); and Ford can fortunately benefit from actual customer feedback and better-than-expected revenues to correct them as new product is introduced and/or refreshes occur. What NATC needs, more than anything is an integrated backup camera, especially for the windowless Cargo variants. The blind spots are simply dangerous, especially after Ford also robbed TC of its superior multi-pane European mirrors. It needs this safety feature more than any other single feature option, even fog lamps. Other niceties that would go a long way toward broadening appeal and furthering brand consistency would be a SYNC-based audio/bluetooth system and making FWS a SYNC-compatible platform. Hell, I'd settle for FWS running stably. Fortunately, I've heard that Ford is aware of many of the inherent FWS deficiencies and is working to resolve them. Nobody expects TC to offer the same content, fit and finish as MKT; but as it's intended to create a whole new fleet market, especially given that the cost of a well-equipped XLT is hardly dramatically less than a base-level E-Series when all is said and done, TC needs to be less of the "stripped down" vehicle it currently is and better in all the ways Ford is terrific, which means superior technology and interior fit and finish from its North American team, underpinnings and suspension from Europe, and a best practices approach to everything else, even at the expense of additional cost. While I fully appreciate the business need to earn a certain profit margin percentage, I've never understood why, once certain gross margin dollars are established, if directly passing-along an additional $200 in improvements directly to the customer would offer a dramatically more compelling vehicle, makers seem so averse. $200 buys an AMAZING amount of content in terms of manufacturing cost. Anyway, I'm off my soapbox now. Enjoy your foglamps!

Ford has chosen this week's Chicago Auto Show to reveal some of its plans for the future of TC in North America http://www.autonews.com/article/20100209/OEM04/100209862/1156 It includes a Taxi variant and the $60,000 all-electric model with 75-mile range.

You bet I have. A T50 Torx bit and six bolts (plus the one "nut" doing it is all it takes. Had mine out in 10 minutes. Even better, you can remove either section independently. In fact, when I traded in my XLT Wagon, the seats, brackets, and belt mechanisms stayed with me. Most dealers know so little about TC, they didn't even notice. I now pop them in/out of my XLT Cargo at will, but usually leave the right-hand single seat in-place. The other fittings require a T40. It's a shame none of the many upfitters make an aftermaket floor extension plate. It's a $40 piece of steel Ford marks up to $750, and I'm sure that even the right reinforced plastic would suffice. I bet even a reasonable carpenter could fasion something passable.

How is the image quality over Bluetooth? Is it comparable to the quality of a good wired camera? Also, does it have a mode that allows it to be always on, like rear view mirror, in addition to sensing when the vehicle is in reverse? Also, does the offset created by the license plate not being center-mounted make it seem unusual in any way? I'm in a bit of a quandry with mine. Being solid-doored all the way around, I not only have no reverse visibility (other than the sensors), but the blind spots are damn near lethal for all but perpendicular or parallel merging. For the additional security they provide, I sure wish I'd stuck with windowed rear doors (and my offer stands to swap mine with any owner of a rear-windowed TC with 255 swing doors who'd prefer solid ones), but I digress. That leaves me in need of both a solution for a backup camera AND something that can function as an always-on rear view mirror replacement (which I intend to route to an LCD that substitutes for the rear-view mirror). Rather than using a license plate bracket embedded camera with an offset of 14 5/8" from the centerline, I've decided to pursue mounting a camera in the blanking panel on the left rear door whose offset from the centerline is just shy of 6 1/8". It's where European TC's have the third brake light that North American vehicles have affixed atop the vehicle instead. If it's going to function as both backup camera and rear view mirror surrogate, I want its perspective to be as close a conventional rear-view mirror as possible. I've already obtained a replacement blanking panel (which cost approximately $30 and comes as grey primed plastic) so I can drill and epoxy as necessary without concern over irreversible (bad pun, I know) effects. The primary alternative would be drilling, and embedding, a camera in the bumper proper. While this provides some very attractive properties, like being the only place where a camera could be located precisely on the centerline and also at the rearmost point of the vehicle which gives the safest perspective for judging parking distances, its low placement just may not be absolutely ideal for serving as a rear-view mirror substitute. It also creates the additional task of routing the wiring through the body itself, something I'm not entirely opposed to doing, but it's nevertheless always best avoided when possible. The other challenge of using a proprietary paired Bluetooth camera/monitor solutions is that it restricts use of the camera with the accompanying display rather than an LCD whose properties are best-suited for whatever particular placement and purpose it a given configuration. This is another reason why I've resisted them thus far. So, if you wouldn't mind, could you please give some feedback with respect to your configuration? If it works well, it may save me (and others) from needlessly over-thinking the matter. What brand and model bluetooth camera/display did you choose? Does the offset placement create an perspective that's notably distorted from one otherwise on the centerline? Is the bluetooth image quality and refresh rate comparable to a wired camera? Does the camera support an "always on" mode? How else would you summarize this particular product's performance and properties compared a "clean sheet" or factory-integrated solution (for better and/or worse)? Many thanks, in advance, for any guidance you may be able to share.

The fact of the matter is that the transmission is now such an integral element of a vehicle's performance and economy specifications, and they've been able to refine the technology so highly, even in a 4 speed, that the once-inherent disadvantages to fuel economy no longer exist and, all but the rarest of cases with the most expert drivers, they're almost invariably MORE efficient without most of the performance and behavioral compromises that once existed. Manual transmissions are being relegated to all but nostalgic performance vehicles and econoboxes looking to cut component costs.

Thanks for the update. TMPS and cruse are indeed not interdependent. My presumption was based upon TPMS having been active and the cruise control not working, presumably since delivery. Ironically, once I properly inflated the tires, the cruise worked, but only intermittently. It was both presumptive and coincidence. I had the TC serviced and the cruise problem fortunately manifested itself during the first test drive. One of the two brake stage sensor switches was faulty and was replaced. It's worked fine since.

Yeah, I've had pretty crappy dealer luck, though to be fair, the dealer where I took it this time was my local dealer, not the selling dealer. Unfortunately, although it shouldn't make a difference, it does in terms of service. I DID call the selling dealer however, in response to the door stop bracket, as the broken bracket was only a symptom, NOT the actual problem. The actual problem is that one of the two bolts (which seems to be electro-welded to the door frame during manufacture), seems to have been knocked-off during manufacture and was tack-welded VERY sloppily into place. The resulting bead and build-up caused the bracket to not rest flush against the body which both caused the stop to not function properly AND for it to fracture at the stress point when the nut was tightened. I only discovered this when the replacement was installed and didn't function properly. The local dealer offered to send it to a body shop (they don't have one on-site), but said the fix would be to drill the frame and attach a bolt from the back. Granted, it would be a functional fix, but it pisses me off to have them drilling holes to rig-up an alternative to what should have been done properly at the factory. I then called the selling dealer (who happens to have a body shop on-site). They're 60 miles away, so I wanted to make sure one trip would be all I'd have to make to get it looked at and dropped-off. They wouldn't even commit to a loaner car despite both problems being "30-day" items. This was in addition to the failed cruise control unit (which was successfully repaired and thankfully manifested itself during the first technician test drive), and the shorn seat frame. I swear, the guys at Otosan must have held a wrestling match inside mine as it went down the line. Atop having picked the wrong upfit package, I really kick myself in the ass for not having bought the otherwise-identical unit parked next to it. Stupid f-ing me. :(

I noticed something troubling the other day and am wondering how (if?) normal it may happen to be and/or if it's something I need to be concerned about. Along the lower track for the driver's side door, I noticed a considerable amount of rust specks all over the place. It was especially heavily deposited atop the black bracket that connects the sliding door to the lower door track. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of wiping clean (for the most part) the bracket, although a considerable amount of residue remains on the frame that I left in place to show my local dealer (not the selling dealer). To my great surprise, I was told by the servicing dealer, "That kind of rust's not covered. We'd be happy to clean it for you, but we'd have to charge you for it." I pressed to know why they wouldn't look into why a brand new vehicle would be rusting or why, given the vehicle's corrosion warranty, inspecting, cleaning, and properly coating any parts that may not have been during manufacture. I was told that the corrosion warranty only covers parts that actually "fail" due to corrosion, and a matter like this would simply be considered a "finishing defect" and, for all intents and purposes, "too bad", 300 miles and 3 weeks old notwithstanding. I asked the Service Manager whether he had seen this kind of thing on new vehicles and he said he hadn't. I suspect I'll have better luck at the selling dealer that's more motivated by their potential CSI results; but I remain puzzled as to both whether or not this is a common phenomenon, whether or not anyone else has noticed something similar, and what, if anything, I can expect from Ford if the dealer won't respond. I'm perfectly content to wipe away the corrosion, provided it's not simply ignoring a potentially much bigger problem. On an unrelated note, I had also noticed that the same sliding door wouldn't stay open at its fully-open position. I compared the bracket that serves as a "stop" with its mate on the other side, and noticed that it didn't seem to have the same curve to the metal and wasn't coming in contact with the door. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that it was mounted to the vehicle by two simple bolts that I could easily adjust myself. When I looked closer, it became obvious that the bracket was fractured at one of its bolt holes. The replacement part is on its way, but I was surprised to learn that Ford normally WOULD NOT have covered this. The Service Coordinator explained that Ford WOULD cover the issue of the door not remaining open, but because "new cars aren't built broken", any broken piece like this, no matter how new or unreasonable it would be to expect the problem to have been owner or use-related, would not normally be covered. So much for the difference between "malfunctioning" and "broken". Anyway, the dealer ordered the replacement part and the repair will ultimately be pushed through, but I have to say that this has been quite the learning experience. If anyone has seen anything similar pertaining to the rust, I'd greatly appreciate any insight or recommendations. Thanks in advance.

I appreciate all the information and guidance. I've yet to make any sense of the "TP" traffic information whatsoever, but I at least now know it's something that could potentially be useful. How? I have no idea. Thanks, Ford. The AST band is very nice, I suppose. Like many, I've defaulted to using AUX input more than anything, listening to stored or streaming content from my iPhone. Ironically, for any broadcast station, the digital audio provided through my iPhone is MUCH better than any broadcast signal. I was actually amazed the first time I heard an AM station crystal clear. I also piggy-backed my Sirius/XM subscription from my Flex and MKS onto my iPhone, so I have about 80% of the standard satellite channel content available to me in the Transit Connect via iPhone. Even so, I dearly miss an integrated audio/navigation/satellite solution; but not so much that I'd opt back for the FWS computer. I just wouldn't. I'm hoping to find a good double DIN touch screen that I can drive from a Car PC which is about the only way to get what I want, absent an integrated product capable of everything I want. I'd ideally love to install a full-blown in-dash SYNC navigation system from another vehicle; but the fact that Ford has integrated so many other features like climate into the unit make mating it to the TC a pretty tough proposition, I suppose. What really cheeses me is that the Nokia Bluetooth system apparently really isn't one. It's an add-on module specific to the 6000 CD that pretty much adds the steering wheel controls and a microphone. Had Ford marketed it for what it really is, a bluetooth enhanced head unit, I probably would have chosen differently and saved myself the $200 bucks. In the meantime, my TC is in the shop for a slew of work. A failed sensor is causing the Crusie Control to evaporate, the left sliding door retention bracket was fractured at installation, and the armrest popped out of the seat along with some shrapnel that turned out to be shorn from the driver's seat. I apparently got a real "winner" this time too. :( Nevertheless, the info and help is much appreciated!

Can anyone smarter than me help? I've noticed that there seems to be an additional band in addition to the multiple FM and AM bands. When the band is selected (by cycling the AM/FM button), the display reads "AST" toward the center, and an additional "TP" indicator seems to activate next to it. With these stations, there seems to be streaming text information that includes "VISTEON". Does anyone know if there's any significance to this or what it happens to be? I've Googled the hell out of both AST and "TP", and nothing seems to show. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. (And if anyone knows why my windowless cargo van happens to have a rear working rear defroster switch (in image), I'd just LOVE to know why!

I'm rather fortunate. I'm having my vehicle retrofitted in the next week or so, including a headliner and cargo mat swap, so I'm going to have a ready-made opportunity to lay-in wiring and insulation for just about conceivable future use. I couldn't ask for a more convenient opportunity. One thing I've noticed is that the 110A Cargo seems to be CONSIDERABLY inherently quieter than the 510A Wagon. Perhaps it's just the additional presence of the rubberized mat atop the cargo floor rather than the molded vinyl piece; but the difference is indisputable. I'm really looking forward to enhancing the rest of the suppression with added insulation under the cargo mat and above the headliner. I'll be doing the rear, sliding, and front doors separately as time allows, probably when I swap-out the front door speakers. It only recently struck me that my pending upfit to include the Masterack steel bulkhead pretty-much excludes me from adding rear speakers (unless I want them to be relatively useless). That means any speaker-based audio improvements will be limited to whatever I an eke out of the front door speakers; and from what others have mentioned, the Alpines others have used are likely to be my first choice. I also have to admit that driving the windowless cargo van is a MUCH different experience than I had expected. Even without a partition (for the moment), the lack of any sort of rear view mirror, even to be able to see the load I'm carrying, is a bit disconcerting. I know it's more perception than reality, but it's still a very different experience from what I had expected. Oh, how I would love Ford to have come-up with a flexible configuration option that would allow window glass and plugs to be freely interchangeable. Damn it, it shouldn't be that hard. Maybe it's something I should have tried to do myself before leaping wholesale into the trade I made. Any advise would be well appreciated.

The plate you describe is actually where the EU supplementary brake light is positioned. EU Transit Connect's don't have the centerline brake light atop the vehicle, so there aren't likely to be any EU aftermarket cameras made specifically for that fitment. If you've added a backup camera, I'd appreciate any information about your configuration. Thanks!

Does anyone know if any detailed, comprehensive instructions exist for the 6000 CD audio system? None of the documentation that came with the vehicle offer anything more than the most cursory overview; and I've already discovered several items that appear on the LCD display to which there's no reference whatsoever in the documentation. For example, a "TP" symbol sometimes appears; and a "1" (or a highlighted, "white on black" "1") sometimes appears, along with other behavior that's just not described. Any help or guidance would be most welcome.