Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
Ordered from Peninsula Ford in Palo Alto, CA. I tried their Menlo Park outlet too but couldn't get a clear answer right then & there about whether they wanted to charge a markup, so went down the street to their cousin.
Plan is to remove the stock stereo and replace it w/a Nakamichi in-dash changer, decent speakers, and an amp. Will cost a little more than factory sound but ought to sound much better.
I'm paying MSRP for the car -- $18390 i believe.
twj
That said, those numbers are fairly worthless as an indicator of sound quality.
I appreciate silver_bullet's reminder to live with the stock unit for a while before tossing it aside; my point is simply that, since I'm likely to upgrade anyway, spending extra money on the factory stereo upgrade isn't really necessary.
twj
twj
I was in Peninsula Ford yesterday (getting my zx3 windscreen wiper recall fixed; they botched up the windscreen seal when doing the recall....)
Usually, they're pretty good with maintenance work, free loners etc.
Anyway, whilst waiting, I asked the everpresent salesman there about the SVT. He mentioned the SVT's are due to arrive in February and gave me the speech that "as they're Northern California's biggest Ford dealer yada yada" they'd get the biggest selection in. We'll see, but I'd just like to get inside one in a showroom and for a test drive asap. May trade my May2000 model in. We'll see.
treva
They give very high marks to the $675.00 six-disk Audiophile stereo system, saying 'the clarity is awesome' and the best of the rest.The drivers seat has power adjustment and lumbar adjustable support.
The coin storage slot on the dash has been replaced with oil and temperature guages.
Due in February.
Wow! My Pain in the A** Zx3 has grown up.
cheers,
twj
Cheers,
twj
Enjoy the weekend.
a lever
SRT-4 is the second-quickest car in the Dodge lineup, accelerating from 0-60 miles per hour in 5.9 seconds, trailing only the Dodge Viper SRT-10.
It has a 2.4-liter, turbocharged, 205-horsepower engine. Appropriately, "SRT" is an acronym for street, road and track.
The car is priced at $19,995.
Would anyone wait for the SRT that is planning on buying a Focus SVT?
thanks
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
twj
Back in '88 I was looking at the Acura Integra, had driven it and was ready to buy it, when the dealer offered up the following bit of curious information... He claimed that the Integra had a V6. I guffawed and said, uhh, NO, it has a four. He smiled the smile of the omniscient and repeated his claim. I even popped the hood and counted off the spark plug wires for him, and neither that nor the WINDOW STICKER, which claimed it had four cylinders, was enough to deter him.
I never did buy that car.
Beware of Ford dealers claiming the SVT Focus has a W-12.
-SHOV6
Hey, don't dispair about seeing a new T-Bird. I live in LA and just saw my first one (black) on the road yesterday!
"Every 2001 SVT vehicle will be a part of this enhancement to the SVT ownership experience. SVT Premium Service provides SVT owners with subtle touches that give them the special ownership experience they expect and deserve.
The program provides 2001 SVT vehicle owners with a loaner vehicle while their Cobra or Lightning is in their certified SVT dealer’s service department. The loaner is available from the time the vehicle is dropped off until it is picked up, and the cost will be covered as a part of the overall SVT experience. In addition, the customer’s 2001 Cobra or Lightning will be returned washed and vacuumed as a part of the SVT Premium Service enhancement."
By the way I know the article states 2001, but the plan is suppose to carry over to 2002 and include the SVT Focus.
As for the SVT Focus, if it ever gets built, it probably will be a pretty decent car. There's not too much else right in the same target area as the Focus is aimed at. Mazda's Protege5 (which I own and love) has less power, the Subaru WRX has more power and AWD but costs more...I suppose there's probably a Civic or Integra model that is fairly comparable to what the SVT Focus aims to be, but it is a pretty narrow market segment. While I have a hard time understanding why someone would buy this model instead of a different car when shopping for something new, I can easily understand how current Focus owners would lust after more power...sometimes the 130 horses in my Protege5 feel like they're out to pasture too
I too like the MP5, particularly the interior. Too bad they had to include those couple of hidden bags of cement.
-SHOV6
I think Automobile may not have made a big deal out of their starting to include "real numbers" in their reviews so to not draw attention to the fact that they finally realized they needed to join the rest of the car mags.
I have a three-day weekend coming up. I think I may wander over to Downey Ford and see if I can talk to the guy who e-mailed me and said he'd sell me an SVT Focus at 2% over invoice and see if he's serious. Time to either resolve myself to buying premium 91 octane stuff (it was listed at 1.43.9 this morning at a Chevron dealer next to where I board the bus) or rely on a little common sense (never a strong point of mine) and continue to put the low priced 87 stuff (it was 1.19.9 at the same station this morning) in my ZX3. Time to get off the pot.
Shov6, I hope Bin Laden doesn't keep you down too long. Sounds like you have sense enough to know that e-mail is cheaper than car payments. Good for you.
When I test-drove the M3 last week, we went to the full-serve because of how long the lines were for self-serve (and the thing was running on fumes)... And realized only when it was too late that the overcharge for the full-serve was FORTY-FIVE CENTS PER GALLON. He ended up spending an additional $8.50 for the privilege!
And Bin Laden can kiss my [non-permissible content removed], I have three job interviews in the next two weeks. Hope I get one of them!
BTW, six months ago, jet fuel was running as cheap as 44 cents/gallon. No idea how much it is NOW, but probably cheaper, just as gasoline is cheaper.
-SHOV6
I love the smell of jet fuel... In the morning, evening, whenever, it always smells of... Kerosene.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've always marveled at the the cost of full serve. Forty plus cents extra sounds about right. What's really puzzled me is that they charge more to pump premium than regular. The stuff must be heavier or something and require more electricity to lift out of the underground tank. Can't think of what else it could be.
Left a call with the fleet manager at Downey Ford yesterday about seeing him to discuss the aquisition of an SVT Focus but never heard back. I hope we can work something out before he realizes he may have a hot seller and starts thinking about "markup!"
A bit of trivia for owners of SE and ZTS Focii. This doesn't apply to ZX3s. Has anyone noticed that some SEs and ZTSs have only one bulb in their tail lights that does "everything" as in the ZX3, while others have a second bulb in the upper corner of the unit that's used strictly as a turn signal? You notice such things when you don't have much else on your mind. Keep your eyes open and you'll eventually notice this.
Shov6. Good luck on your interviews.
*sigh* Wouldn't it be great if we could put jet fuel in our cars??
-SHOV6
-Very, very (and did I say VERY?) expensive to build and maintain. Most turbines can't go over a few thousand hours without probihitively expensive (for automotive use) rebuilds, and that is with regular maintenance and inspection. Do you think the average driver is going to take as good care of their engine as an airline would?
-Poor throttle response. Not a big deal in airplanes, but horrible in an automotive application. Furthermore, the torque output of these engines is very low until you gear it down dramatically.
-Noise. Even the quitest gas turbine is very loud relative to the average piston engine found in a car.
-Heat. One of the problems with the Chrysler cars was the scalding exhaust... Nothing like what comes out of the pipe of your car. Routing it around only exposes more of the car to the high temperatures, and standing in front of the exhaust can lead to burns. I know it wasn't as bad in those cars as it would be in the case of, say, a typical turboprop airplane, but it is a concern nonetheless.
-Gearing. Small turbines spin amazingly quickly (the engine on the Beech 1900D airliner spins its' compressor section at 39,000 rpm), and they need elaborate gearboxes to gear it down to usable ratios for automotive use. I don't know if it is feasible to have a manual transmission hooked up to a turbine, so you would probably be limited to automatics or CVT's. Not a bother to the vast majority of drivers, but you can count ME out.
-Infrastructure. Jet fuel is not readily available, and the amount of investment that would be necessary to have it at your local gas station would be HUGE. They could design the turbines to run on diesel, I imagine, but that engine would run much hotter than it would on jet fuel and shorten its' life, or would make the engine more expensive to produce, or both. Basically all turbines designed to run on jet fuel can use almost any petroleum-based fuel, at least for a while, but it does increase the frequency of overhauls as they will ultimately damage the engines (as mentioned before, jet fuel is nothing more than glorified lamp oil, and gasoline or other fuels will run MUCH hotter in the engine).
Basically, turbines are ill-suited to automotive use because they run best in a narrow range of RPM's. The new CVT transmissions could make good use of turbines, I think, but the other issues still remain. Keep in mind how unbelievably efficient turbines are... A SMALL turbine, like the one in the Beech 1900D, weighs about 500lbs, with the gearbox, and can crank out an honest, continuous 1279hp. Even more is available for emergency use, probably in excess of 1500hp. After proper gearing, the thing cranks out a max-continuous torque rating of 3750 lb-ft. YOW!! A gas turbine for a small econcomy car could easily weigh in at under a hundred and fifty pounds... But I reckon we'll never see such a thing.
For those of you who remember, a turbine-powered car nearly won the Indy 500 back in '67 (??), only to have a five-cent bolt break in the suspension and take the car out of the running two laps from the end. THAT automotive application was ideally suited to turbines because of the long stretches of running at high, nearly unchanging speed (relative to your trip to the 7-11, that is). NOT a good indicator of how well such an installation would work for us, the regular driver.
Sorry that went on for so long...
-SHOV6
Now the exhaust is another matter. I would presume that the car supplied for the test was in its' final specification, and it's indicative of what one will see on the final iteration of the car.
Count me as very, VERY surprised that there is such a big jump in skidpad grip with the SVT. Usually this is down to the tires, and it is amazing that such a big difference over the standard car (or at least the standard car with the optional wheel/tire set) is evident. Didn't last month's test of the ZX-5 ring up a .77 (also surprising LOW since prior tests of the ZX-3 showed a .81)? Going from .77 (or .81) to .91 is almost unbelievable. Must've switched from all-season tires to "dry" tires... But still! HUGE!
-SHOV6