Rear fog light........discovered

[bilgewiper]

After driving our Transit for over 17,000 miles my wife calls me on the cell and said "what is this weird light on the dash". I said I have no idea and told her if it isn't red keep driving. Had to look it up in the owners manual. Sure enough there is away to light up the extra red lower tailights. Had no clue of such a option or even heard of any other car that can do that. Preety cool! Just pull the light switch knob out while in the the on posistion to make work. What will those Turkish people think of next?

[Willie]

I found the switch thing on my own, but didn't know it actually did anything. Are you saying it turns on additional tailights?

Hmmm. Maybe I could use that to signal the highbeam morons following me. High beams are brutal in the TC side mirror.

[madlock]

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!

[REC]

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!

Stop readin' my mind would'ya?

We'll start from ... where else? the Start!

Rear foglamps for the same reason there are wipers on the rear windows... I can now back up REALLY fast, and even in the fog!! Oh yeah, and the twine thing explains a little about the factory radio speaker hookups...

The phone call between Otosan and Detroit - "Uh, hello..... hello..... can you hear me now?"

OK... I got the A/C vents in the front cover, but I don't see where the hoses from the evap housing were supposed to be inserted. (Or maybe it's that pea sized intellect thing...)

The back-up camera thing would be kind of useful. The European mirrors - GET BACK ON THAT DAMN SOAPBOX!!! I'm all for that, and have been having some conversation regarding finding a way to get a pair. There was a posting here somewhere about part numbers and a cooperative UK dealer...

I go along with the Econoliner comparison. Something on the order of a trim panel for the rear inside panels would be nice for us "Non-Commercial" types....

Thanks for the funny stuff (and it was. I don't care who ya are, that stuff was funny!)

Roland C

Happily Transiting

Edited February 12, 2010 by REC

[madlock]

Stop readin' my mind would'ya?

The back-up camera thing would be kind of useful. The European mirrors - GET BACK ON THAT DAMN SOAPBOX!!! I'm all for that, and have been having some conversation regarding finding a way to get a pair. There was a posting here somewhere about part numbers and a cooperative UK dealer...

Happily Transiting

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.

[isellford]

In defense of the rear fog lights. i spent 10 days in Great britain and 10 days in Ireland mostly driving the countryside while touring the countries. A person who thinks that they know what fog is, gets a real awakening while driving the vast countryside on narrow roads in the fog. It is more imnportant to be able to see the vehicle in front of you than the little bit that the front fog lights illumnate. The brighter rear lights are a necessity. Fog is a fact of life over there; not infrequent like over here.

I have only used them twice here and both time when an overly aggressive driver got literally right on my rear end and I pulled out the switch so he would think that I was braking.

[madlock]

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.

[Willie]

But returning to the topic for a moment, that switch doesn't do anything on a US model does it? I can't see anything happening to my tailights.

[bilgewiper]

But returning to the topic for a moment, that switch doesn't do anything on a US model does it? I can't see anything happening to my tailights.

The bottom red lighst turn on. They arn't used for anything else

[Willie]

Oh yes, I see. But only witht he ignition switch on. Well, redundant tailights might be useful!

[PetrosA]

I'm going to agree with Ed on this topic. I think rear fog lights make sense, even here in the US. Front fog lights of any color are only a marginal help at best, and that's only to avoid running off the road. If a driver of anything other than an emergency vehicle needs that much more light at night, then perhaps they should avoid night driving. Rear fog lights are used rarely in Europe, but when visibility is low, they really help to spot cars in time. EU laws forbid their use when visibility is greater than 50 meters, or about 150 feet. At 45 mph in wet conditions, you'll probably need about 115 feet to stop if you have excellent tires. That leaves 35 feet of buffer or about 1 second for reacting. On snow or ice the coefficient of friction will be even lower, even with great tires and you'll need about 170 feet to stop. So if they car in front of you has regular rear lights on and is coasting forward in traffic at just a few miles per hour, your chances of seeing the vehicle in time may be non-existent.

US (or at least PA) drivers have a really nasty tendency to tailgate, even in bad weather. Other drivers and police tolerate it and the dangerous driving conditions it creates. If rear fog lights give me one more tool to fight it, then teşekkür ederim Ford!

[madlock]

The bottom red lighst turn on. They arn't used for anything else

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.

[Willie]

Hi Petros

I also live in PA and I agree that drivers do follow far too closely. I think it is a bit regional though. Western Pennsylvania seems much worse thatn central PA.

The way I figure it, there is only one reasonable course of action when someone is right on my bumper and that is to slow down. So the closer they get, the slower I go.

The other thing that seems to be popular in PA is to drive around all the time with the fog lights on. We should also prohibit, as you mention, their use on clear evenings. But then it is already illegal to use high beams full time, and that is quite widely ignored.

[madlock]

Hi Petros

I also live in PA and I agree that drivers do follow far too closely. I think it is a bit regional though. Western Pennsylvania seems much worse thatn central PA.

The way I figure it, there is only one reasonable course of action when someone is right on my bumper and that is to slow down. So the closer they get, the slower I go.

The other thing that seems to be popular in PA is to drive around all the time with the fog lights on. We should also prohibit, as you mention, their use on clear evenings. But then it is already illegal to use high beams full time, and that is quite widely ignored.

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.

[scottacus1100]

I use mine for added light when backing into tight spots at night.

Also I turn them on and use my rear window washers when I get tailgaters. It seems to work

[Willie]

Madlock, you are absolutely correct about following too closely being an act of ignorance rather than aggression. I have ridden with drivers who do this and are not even aware of it.

As far as automatic lights go, the only automatic feature I’d like is automatic dimming when they are following or approaching me.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I just have to ask. You seem so dissatisfied with your TC. Why on earth did you not replace your wrecked TC with something else providing more of the techno-gadgets you desire so much? I’m guessing that there are at least a few features you do like.

[madlock]

Madlock, you are absolutely correct about following too closely being an act of ignorance rather than aggression. I have ridden with drivers who do this and are not even aware of it.

As far as automatic lights go, the only automatic feature I’d like is automatic dimming when they are following or approaching me.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I just have to ask. You seem so dissatisfied with your TC. Why on earth did you not replace your wrecked TC with something else providing more of the techno-gadgets you desire so much? I’m guessing that there are at least a few features you do like.

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.

[humitex]

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?

I love finding out new things about my truck....It's hilarious! We should have a class for Ford dealers

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!

[PetrosA]

Hi Petros

I also live in PA and I agree that drivers do follow far too closely. I think it is a bit regional though. Western Pennsylvania seems much worse thatn central PA.

The way I figure it, there is only one reasonable course of action when someone is right on my bumper and that is to slow down. So the closer they get, the slower I go.

The other thing that seems to be popular in PA is to drive around all the time with the fog lights on. We should also prohibit, as you mention, their use on clear evenings. But then it is already illegal to use high beams full time, and that is quite widely ignored.

Interestingly, here in Eastern PA they don't tailgate on secondary roads nearly as much as they do on highways where the speeds are above 65 mph. We don't spend anywhere near enough time teaching driving theory here as we need to. The only reason I can think of why people would drive 40-50 feet apart when doing 75mph is ignorance (notice the two cars next to the red truck).

If you're referring to rear fog lights, I think part of the problem is that they're probably not addressed in the PA Traffic Code. Police can't do anything to punish drivers for using them if there's no law against it. The other part of the problem is that dealers and sales staff don't educate the buyers about them. They're on a large number of imports but if people don't know what they're turning on, they just ignore the light on the dash.

My little wish in life is for people to understand driving better than they do. It wouldn't prevent all accidents, since even in Germany, where they probably have one of the best driver training systems in the world, they have accidents, but it sure would be nice to see other drivers who know which car should go next at an intersection when they get there at the same time...

[Willie]

Yes, I’ve noticed the same about Eastern PA. drivers.

I completely concur with the need for more driver education. Most of us have had no new information since high school, and very little even then. In fact, I’ve often considered that the state could do well to replace annual vehicle inspection with a mandatory two-hour training session on a yearly basis. Far more accidents are caused by driver error than by equipment failure.

In your film clip (what a horrible accident): Could that be a Transit Connect flipping over on the near shoulder? Kind of looks like one!

[PetrosA]

Yes, I’ve noticed the same about Eastern PA. drivers.

I completely concur with the need for more driver education. Most of us have had no new information since high school, and very little even then. In fact, I’ve often considered that the state could do well to replace annual vehicle inspection with a mandatory two-hour training session on a yearly basis. Far more accidents are caused by driver error than by equipment failure.

In your film clip (what a horrible accident): Could that be a Transit Connect flipping over on the near shoulder? Kind of looks like one!

It could be a Transit or one of the other Euro vans like a transit..

I'm even surprised at the PA driver handbook. One of the things it says is that you should move over to the left lane when coming up on an on ramp to let merging drivers in. In reality, they have a yield sign, but now expect you to move over (and to do the yielding). I've lost track of how many times I've gotten the finger for not moving over, even if I had cars to my left and couldn't move over. It's crazy.

[Willie]

Thats easy in Pittsburgh. Nobody ever yields at an on-ramp. They don't care iif you move over or not. They just barge right in, regardless.

[bikehauler]

Thats easy in Pittsburgh. Nobody ever yields at an on-ramp. They don't care iif you move over or not. They just barge right in, regardless.

That probably because we have the shortest on-ramps in the country. Many other places have ramps that are long enough to give you time to match the speed of the moving traffic before merging which makes merging, well . . . merging, rather than barging. We even have on-ramps with stop signs, which IMO is not an on-ramp.

Edited June 3, 2010 by bikehauler

[Willie]

Well I use those same on-ramps, but I take a different approach. I yield to oncoming traffic.

[bikehauler]

Well I use those same on-ramps, but I take a different approach. I yield to oncoming traffic.

Oncoming traffic? :o Well, there's your problem!

Hey, just kidding.