Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
2007 Ford Edge
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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...
Wrong again.
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
:P
:P
Google for either, steer and stear are now used interchangably as a verb. On our MT ranch we raise Steers.
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.
Check this out: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=stear
tidester, host
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?
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.
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.
The Freestyle is dead, but the Taurus X will get the 3.5L engine in April.
"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?
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....
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
Just trying to figure out why you think you know more than automotive engineers.
And most modern day owners manuals will provide you with a decription of ABS that co-insides with my own.
Now you're just messing with us.
Whatever.
He needs to no enuff to sine the reseats!
okay - back to topic!
tidester, host
"When you don't like the message, attack the messenger"('s spelling.
Fine.
Of course, it could just be conceding the argument -- or, more likely, an attempt at humor.
tidester, host
Oh well. Maybe they will rename it the Taurus E. That oughtta do it!
That would be abbreviated T-E which kinda sounds like Tee-Hee!
tidester, host
Tee-hee.
Regards -
M. J. McCloskey
It shows that the new has already worn off. After only one and 1/2 months there should be enough to pull through interest to move the lower models without rebates...
It was some excellent spin though. Do you guys work in politics?
Of course you can interpret the above info any way you wish. Ford miscalculated the model mix (among many other recent miscalculations) and are taking the action noted in the article. I'm not interested in buying an Edge (I am the very happy owner of a Freestyle), but if I were, I would want a very well equipped one.
Regards -
M. J. McCloskey
I see a thread with the Santa Fe. I was very impressed with this one. Have been a major avoider of the Korean maker, but if I had to buy today, that would likely be the one. Have a Focus bought on the A plan and will not be buying another Ford. A good deal on a bad product is still a bad deal.
It's a simple matter for a Ford basher to insert an object in a trim joint, twist, and cause a gross misalignment.
To some degree, style is a personal matter. I actually like the color scheme. It makes the vehicle look modern and different to me. The seats also look very good. Take a look in a Land Rover (Range or RR Sport) and you'll something a little familiar with the Edge. The only part of the interior I do not care for is the center stack. It's livable, just not as nice as I'd like it.
The Santa Fe looks beautiful in pictures but sitting in the interior, there are many areas where you see the cost cutting.
By the way, I own a Mazda6, and am thinking about of buying a VW Passat (the reliability frightens me though) or a used STS so I am not a Ford Fanboy. I do love the Edge and Fusion. I hate the Taurus and Taurus X. Anyway back to topic.
Friends bought a lime green one (talk about hitting the poor step daughter with an ugly stick - a lime green 07 Camry - blech) way back when they first came out. It's a hybrid. Added to their Prius in the garage. Yeah, they're real greenies. I'll tell ya though, gas is stll $3.00 a gallon here (premium) and I'm getting real tired of paying that much. To get a hybrid now is to screw back at the oil companies and I'm beginning to think that's a good thing. And now, Priuses are starting to become deals - 0%, maybe even rebates. Believe it or not, USED priuses are more expensive than new ones in some cases because there are no more car pool lane stickers for Prii so commuters will pay more for a used one with the sticker.
This has got to embarrassing for Ford. I am in Ford's corner, but gosh they had better get a handle on this.