Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2007 Ford Edge

1333436383946

Comments

  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    I basically like the Edge. I think it would be a great fit for the type of vehicle that I want. I think it is packaged well, but a little too pricy in my opinion for what it is. If I could get one at 2k off MSPR I would probably be willing to buy one. However, the braking performance is a deal breaker for me. Even if you have to cut corners on cost, you SHOULD NOT compramise the brakes...

    If Ford would fix the brakes, I would go ahead and buy one. I am just not willing to pay $3x,000 for a vehicle with questionable braking. I suspect that it would cost up to $2,000 in aftermarket parts to upgrade the brakes to a level where I would feel comfortable... ( more if you have to replace the tires ) However, I doubt Ford is going to be willing to knock 4K off of MSRP for me to justify buying one and fix the brakes myself....

    And for you guys who defend Ford on this issue, you will be happy to know that this will by my last post on the brakes... :)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    What we're saying is that while we may be slightly disappointed and the braking should be better, it's not a deal breaker for most of us. Now remember that promise....
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    "It is there SOLELY to help you maintain directional control, allow you to provide stearing inputs if needed, and/or prevent under/overstearing during severe or hard braking where otherwise you might lose control due to brake induced lockup."

    Wrong again.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Hmm... do I believe the guy who has an engineering degree and who made his living working on brake systems or the guy who can't spell "steering"?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    or the guy who can't spell "steering"?

    I'd go with the engineer - but only if he can spell the word "competitive."

    The import lovers just can't bring themselves to believe (or admit) that the domestics have competetive vehicles now. ( akirby, "2007 Ford Edge" #1090, 6 Feb 2007 10:38 am )

    Sorry - I just could not resist. ;)

    tidester, host
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    I can take it as well as I can dish it out. Touche!
    :P
  • It brakes my heart to hear this.

    :P
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Back when I was in grade school, 47-55, steer was an animal and stear was a verb.

    Google for either, steer and stear are now used interchangably as a verb. On our MT ranch we raise Steers.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "..you SHOULD NOT compramise (compromise) the brakes.."

    Sorry, the adoption of anti-lock braking is and always has been a compromise, compromising the braking capability versus the ability to stear, maintain directional control of the vehicle.

    Prior to ABS it behooved the driver to practice and learn how to apply hard or severe braking without actually bringing the wheels into lockup and thereby having the potential for loss of control.

    But being able to do that takes lots of practice. Additionally all that practice becomes needless if the roadbed in slippery, ice, snow, oil-slicked, etc.

    So no one questions, or should question, that like VSC and TC, ABS is a damn good aspect to have in many modern day vehicles.

    While braking hard or severely, if you could look out there ahead and see that upcoming patch of black ice, wouldn't you release some of that brake pressure as you reached that slippery area.

    But, neither you, nor the anti-lock system, can "see" that upcoming patch of black ice. But the anti-lock system can react quickly enough to release the brakes intermittently once the black ice patch starts affecting the rate at which the brakes are slowing the wheels.

    So, which would you rather rely upon, your own eyesight, your reaction time once the vehicle hits the ice and starts to wonder from your chosen "path", or an anti-lock system that almost instantly "unbrakes" the tires once they starting reaching the point of lock-up, REGARDLESS of traction conditions.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    One last try, then I'm done with my attempts to counter the dangerous fiction presented in this thread.

    First, ABS came on the scene in the late 1970's, well before stability control & its relatives. The insurance companies provided reduced rates for vehicles so-equipped.

    Now, let's design a brake system. We need a few reasonable assumptions to work with. Here they are:

    1) "Our" vehicle, with 300# of driver & passenger in the front seats, has a static weight distribution of 60%F, 40%R.

    2) During a panic stop on an average dry road, the dynamic weight distribution becomes 70%F and 30% rear.

    3) Given the above, we apportion the braking power to 70%F and 30%R.

    Now we go on vacation, adding a rear seat passenger load of 300#, and 300# of "stuff" way back in the rear. Our static weight distribution now becomes ~50%F and 50%R.

    During a panic stop on the same average road, our dyanamic weight distribution becomes ~60%F and 40%R. At this point our design decision doesn't work very well. It's applying 70% of the braking power to the front wheels that can only handle 60% without locking up.

    Result: The front wheels lock up and we can't steer (stear?). So we let up on the brake pedal & soon realize that we're not going to stop in time. So we hit the pedal again, only to have them lock up again. We continue to do this "pumping" until the crash.

    Meanwhile, the rear brakes are loafing, doing nowhere near their share of the braking.

    I will wager every penny I have that the ABS-equipped vacation vehicle will have a significantly shorter stopping distance than the vehicle without ABS.

    One can argue with my weight distribution assumptions, and I don't care because the essence is correct.

    One could argue that a human could pump the brakes at a rate that would duplicate ABS. At this arguement, I would shake my head in disbelief.

    I ask anyone reading this: Would you disable the ABS on a car your wife, child, grandchild, eic. was about to drive in rainy, snowy, icy, or even dry condition?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    lateralg,

    Tell you what, I'll match you dollar for dollar at any level you wish to bet, you choose the 2007 vehicle with ABS, tires (no studs, no chains) of your choice, and find the ice skating rink, or a solidly frozen pond/lake, that will allow us to test your theory, and I'll be there to collect your money.

    PS: If you browse around the internet just a bit you will find the results of this test, already available.

    PSII: And what's this deal with the rear brakes? The fact that the rear brakes cannot be made to handle a higher level of braking is a matter of the laws of physics, the HARD laws of physics. The number I typically use is that ~80% of braking, especially hard or severe braking, occurs on the front brakes.

    " 3) Given the above, we apportion the braking power to 70%F and 30%R..."

    "We apportion..." ???

    NOT

    Brake apportioning will be primarily a result of the laws of physics. During a rapid stop inertia, momentum, results in the unloading of the rear tires and loading of the front tires. In the olden days we used a brake fluid proportioning valve to limit the brake fluid flow/pressure to the rear because absent doing so, sending equal brake pressure to both front and rear, would oftentimes result in rear lockup and skidding.

    These days we use EBD, Electronic Brakeforce Distribution, first. Dynamically allocating brake forces based on happenstance vehicle loading, tire wear, etc. If EBD still cannot prevent lockup that's when ABS activates.
  • Well, is time for Freestyle to upgrade the engine than. The Edge (Fusion wagon) have better engine than the Freestyle(500 wagon). What is FORD thinking ???
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    "..you SHOULD NOT compramise (compromise) the brakes.."


    The quote that you took from my post was taken out of context. I was simply replying to another post were it was implied that Ford tried to save money by using an underpowered braking system. I did not say that I though this was statement was true. My Point was that the brakes should be one of the last systems on a car where any manufacture should try to save money.

    As for the rest of your post, all I can say is that it is some interesting fiction. I am not sure where you got you information, but you should really do a little more research on the subject.

    P.S. I ran this post through the spell checker to appease all of the spelling police.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Well, is time for Freestyle to upgrade the engine than.

    The Freestyle is dead, but the Taurus X will get the 3.5L engine in April.
  • NOT dead.. just improved for '08.
  • April? Ford is saying late Summer availability
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    The author of the following has demonstrated in previous posts an impressive knowledge of physics and electronics.

    "We apportion..." ???

    NOT

    Brake apportioning will be primarily a result of the laws of physics."

    The post also indicates the need for a refresher in brake design. Here is a simplified example of how nominal front to rear brake apportionment is accomplished in the design of the vehicle.

    * Assume we need 60%F, 40%R nominal brake apportionment.
    * Assume that during a panic stop, the master cylinder & booster produce 1,000 PSI hydraulic pressure.

    To achieve ~ 60-40 apportionment:

    The front caliper piston would have a diameter of ~3.5", resulting in an area of ~ 9.6 Sq. In. >> 9.6 sq. in * 1,000 PSI = 9,600# of force applied to the front brake pads, and in turn to the rotors.

    The rear caliper piston would have a diameter of ~2.8", resulting in an area of ~ 6.2 Sq. in. >> 6.2 sq. in * 1,000 PSI = 6,200# applied to the rear brake pads, and in turn to the rotors.

    We now have a total of 9,600 + 6,200 = 15,800# applied to the combined front and rear rotors. 9,600/15,800 = ~.61

    This accomplishes a 61%F 39%R brake apportionment.

    There are other ways of doing it, and none violate any laws of physics.

    Now two direct questions asking for yes or no answers:
    1) Would you disable the ABS on a vehicle that a loved one was driving in inclement weather?
    2) If you owned a recent model F-150 and occasionally drove it fully loaded, and occasionally empty, would you disable the ABS system?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    I meant the name was dead. The 08 Taurus/Five Hundred is due out in April - I just assumed the Freest...err...Taurus X would debut at the same time. Maybe not.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    1) No.

    I'm already on record several places on the internet having said that I would always disable ABS on my 85 and then my 92 Jeeps during the summer months.

    But to meet your question "head-on", yes, if there were a method wherein ABS could be easily disabled unless VSC detected that stearing input was required, skid, over/understear, then absolutely.

    2) As it happens I own a '93 Ford Ranger and just a few weeks ago during our ice storm I put 4 bags of rocks in the bed to improve rear "motive" traction, with nary a thought about the rear weight effect on braking. If I wanted to improve braking traction or capability I have enough common sense to know that should be addressed at the front first and foremost.

    Now I'm going to go off and start a discussion with this wall to the left of me....
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    Now I'm going to go off and start an argument with this wall to the left of me....

    So if you start sliding down wall are you better off with or without your antilock socks? (Sorry - I couldn't resist!) :P

    tidester, host
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Do you have an engineering background or experience with brake systems engineering or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

    Just trying to figure out why you think you know more than automotive engineers.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I've NEVER pretented nor proposed that I know more than any automotive engineers with regard to ABS. And keep in mind that beancounters likely have more to do with implementation of state of the art automotive systems than do the engineers. Engineers only design these systems, beancounters, and in the end John/Jane Q Public, decide if they are cost effective.

    And most modern day owners manuals will provide you with a decription of ABS that co-insides with my own.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,929
    "co-insides with my own"

    Now you're just messing with us. :D

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • heyjewelheyjewel Posts: 1,046
    How much engineering and spelling knowledge does a stear rancher need?
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    Sigh...

    Whatever.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    How much engineering and spelling knowledge does a stear rancher need?

    He needs to no enuff to sine the reseats! ;)

    okay - back to topic!

    tidester, host
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    No, I just sign the checks for those that do the actual ranching. At the moment I'm sitting here in Waikea enjoying the sunsets and ocean breezes.

    "When you don't like the message, attack the messenger"('s spelling.

    Fine.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    When you don't like the message ...

    Of course, it could just be conceding the argument -- or, more likely, an attempt at humor. :)

    tidester, host
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Or both...
This discussion has been closed.