I'manedgeowner

snmjim, My mistake. Not an excuse here but an explanation. I read what you wrote as saying, as a custom shop your customers are buying attention to detail and a level of quality the dealers of mass produced or bulk part quantities can't or don't offer. I didn't realize the mass you were referring to was your own. The dislike I have with Summit has to do exactly with this. Most recently with a JDM lowering kit. What I needed was out of stock and I almost had a long wait ahead because when they place an order the quantity is large and doesn't ship to Summit until it's finished. Fortunately this time I was able to get a drop shipment because what I needed was ready but the entire order was weeks away from getting shipped. Sometimes because of their size Summit can be a frustrating place to deal with but the customer service is top shelf.

akirby, There's a lot of validity to what you wrote but because of how the money is spent more than the amount. Our infrastructure isn't falling apart because of over spending on it. There are also many good arguments on both sides about our balance between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. My opinion on this is that the adverse effects on both sides is really about state of being or mind and not the money itself. Also, social welfare doesn't have anything on corporate welfare because much of social welfare is corporate welfare. Walmart is a good example of what I mean. They have gotten better but just a few years ago more than half of their full time employees were eligible for social welfare. Walmart is a private corporation and each family member makes a million a day--last I saw--from Walmart's retail sales alone. I have no problem with the family making as much as they can and more power to them but not at our expense. Again, we subsidize Walmart with corporate welfare as a pass through to social welfare for half of their full time employees. Employees they would not have without the support of social welfare to keep them above water. Unfortunately there are many that place a blame on those full time employees for needing the welfare. Equally unfortunate, I know some of those people that blame the employees but they are at Walmart every weekend. They don't see the relationship involved. If the members of the Walton family could find a way to survive on the paupers sum of half a million a day and paid their employees a living wage those employees on welfare wouldn't have a need for it. What I don't understand about our politicians is why they allow this? The tax code is full of penalties for people and corporations that make decisions that are determined to be detrimental to the balance of the economy but not on this one. We subsidize Walmart or the Walton's through the social welfare systems because without it they wouldn't have those employees that are making that million a day for them. The politicians have looked at the greater pool of taxpayers and determined that from that pool we sill subsidize Walmart by covering for them the shortcomings of their wage policies. That's our tax dollars that are going to Walmart employees instead of roads, bridges, airports, military, research, etc. I have to say I don't blame the Walton's or anyone else in this position for taking advantage of the rules as they exist. Even if the rules exist because of Walton or anyone's supported lobbying efforts, that doesn't stop the politicians from saying "no." All things being equal though, it's easy to blame the politicians but ultimately we put them their. As of 2012 there are 3 working welfare recipients for every none working recipient. Remove minors that are recipients from the ratio and there are 6 working for every non-worker. Remove seniors and it goes to 7 to 1. I couldn't find statistics for other exemptions like the infirmed. These numbers represented a steady 20 year trend. Just my opinion but I'm against all welfare except for the truly needy. I have an equal disdain for both corporate and social versions but an honest discussion needs to take place about what is really social and what is really corporate welfare. The Wizard, I agree with everything you wrote. In "The Wealth of Nations," the first text on economics, Adam Smith devoted a good amount of the text to the hidden and obscure influences we are usually unaware of but highly impact the decisions we make about our wealth and how we use it. By beginning to understand the basics we get a better understanding of what we do and why. And just as important we begin to understand why others do what they do and why. At that point, criticism whether positive and\or negative begins to lose its appeal in favor of participation.

akirby, For what it's worth my 2 cents. I'm on a HP Omen graphics laptop and I'll never own another HP. I admit my opinion may not be rational to others but HP has pi---d me off. Support is non-existent unless a support plan is bought. The other option is an HP managed support forum that is hit or miss with the information. What bothers me the most about HP though is they equal and maybe exceed Micro Soft in their disregard to the reality that this is my computer, not theirs. Anywhere from the first 5 to 10 minutes and at sometimes more that I'm on the computer it's a waste of time trying to do anything on the computer. They apparently think that whatever they want to do with my computer is more important than any use I have for it. They audit and update daily and they will take as much bandwidth they want to do it. Trying to stop them is useless because they don't allow it. Attempts at using the firewall to stop them doesn't work because access to the necessary buttons is greyed out. When the buttons aren't greyed out attempts to use them results in the "administrator access required," even though this computer only has one account on it, administrator. I did the online chat thing with Micro Soft for help with this--the HP forum was useless--and they couldn't stop it. The MS tech went in to the registry and tried to change what was there so I could be the administrator of my machine but they couldn't do it. Whatever they did, when they were done and they saved the work, the machine would do a self initiated refresh and all the changes in the registry were undone. There are also problems with the software they put on the machine. This machine has 3 different choices for controlling the graphics; Microsoft, Intel and HP. I can turn off the Micro Soft or Intel in favor of one of the other controllers but if I choose Microsoft or Intel they work but I can't shut off the HP. To look at what's going on, the resource monitor in the task manager shows HP hogging all the bandwidth. But, if I choose HP to control the graphics only a fraction of the bandwidth is used by HP. To view what they're doing, a look at the Firewall logs shows they are not doing anything more than when they are picked to be the controller. They are just again hogging bandwidth with a continuous test and verification of the connection. Their bandwidth use goes from 15 to 25% to well over 100% when they are not controlling the graphics. I can't explain what the in excess of 100% of the resources means but that's what the real time graph shows. For all I know every computer brand may operate like this now but HP is all I know and has my ire right now. And like I said, you want help? Get the credit card out and that shouldn't be necessary of problems like this. EDIT: I've had to dells and the hinges went out on both. They couldn't take sitting on the passenger seat and being opened and closed as needed so they could be read in different sun light with one hand while driving with the other. The dells both had by far the strongest WiFi on any machine I've owned. A couple of hundred feet was nothing. I use a Panasonic power book for my IDS connection now and it's a tank but the WiFi is iffy after about 75 feet. I can't offer any explanations to what this is all about. Some people have told me that this about the antenna in the machine and not directly related to the WiFi itself. I don't know though.

snmjim, As much as I dislike dealing with Summit I have to defend them over your comment. There have been a number of times I wanted something custom on a part and got no where with companies. A call to Summit to have them make the request and it got done. Most recently, custom runner lengths on an Edelbrock intake. I support your comment on the time needed for "custom." I use to build with custom, tubular frames and they're not something built while waiting on a customer. 6 to 9 months was a common waiting time.

Yup, my thoughts exactly. No response is a loud opinion voiced. I'm not going to do it. I really do fear problems that are black holes. Especially when I've created them myself.

dolsen, For the most part I agree with you. I expected to be done with this but apparently not. Also, the original post was a comment on economics and how individuals effect economies. As far as the economics go, when anything I wrote was an opinion I said so. I didn't put much opinion in to my comments. Wizard and akirby. I have to question your comments on tax cuts based on rates. All a tax rate means in this country is "potential maximum." The aggregate federal income tax paid by energy utilities, natural gas and electric, from 2008 to 2017 was 3.1%. It's obviously even less now. En masse the corporate tax rate over the same time period was 21.2% for half of the fortune 500 not the legislated 35%. All the 35% tax rate businesses as a whole paid between 17 and 18% based on taxes collected. This is due to tax strategies and loopholes. 18 of this countries biggest corporations paid no taxes over that time period. Most of those companies provide gas or electricity but it also includes General Electric and Priceline. Those that paid but at a drastically discounted rate isn't even addressed here with this information. 5 to 10% is common. Also consider this, China and Mexico have top rates of 25% and 30% respectively with no where near as many legislated loopholes. Most of the countries our economy competes with have no where near as many loopholes as we do and most also have specific legislation about how loopholes can be designed and most also have a maximum allowable discounted rate. The are some that even have flat rates. They have no loopholes at all. That 10 or 12% rate now isn't really as attractive as it appears. In actuality the US had a very competitive effective tax rate. What isn't competitive about our tax system has nothing to do with other countries. It's with those businesses that have been locked out of the loophole legislative process because they don't have the resources to buy loopholes through our lobbying industry. Any politician that uses the often used phrase, so and so, "is using tax law to pick winners and losers," is disingenuous, hypocritical or outright lying because they all do. It can't be avoided by the process that our politicians have created. Again, I'm not anti-tax cut. I'm anti-tax cut without a well thought out and developed plan to go with it. There is nothing planned or thought out about the recent tax cut. Let me say it again, it takes X amount of tax dollars to run this country and with the recent cuts the only way to meet the need of the X dollars is with more debt. All debt for tax cuts is, is a declaration by our legislatures that they are ineffectual and incompetent at developing legislation that holds us all responsible now for what we do rather than passing the buck to our kids and grandkids to clean up and pay for our popular but bad legislation. Dolsen, you can label this as a mix of common sense and opinion. An extended perspective. There is plenty of evidence that tax cuts better serves us all when they go to companies that are the "real" small companies. Our tax code defines small as 1,500, or less employees. The person that opens a plumbing or electrical company with 7 employees is what comes to mind for me with "small company." This is an arbitrary example to highlight my opinion of, I don't think of a company with 1,500 employees when I hear small business. Will some jobs be created? Of course but it won't be many and the cuts will cost many more as evidenced by the vast majority of the windfall from the cuts going to buying back stocks. Using the windfall to look inward instead of outward is a fairly safe historical indication that the money will go more for innovation that costs jobs than creating jobs. And again, there is only so much demand for every industry. Using cars as an example, if Ford needs to add 1,000 new employees it means their market share has grown. More cars aren't being sold. What changes is who is selling them. This also means the market share of the rest of the industry has gone down which leads to layoffs at those companies. It's a lateral move of employees. No new employees are created and all that changes is where people work. As far as jobs go, it's a wash.

akirby, You're basically right about governments don't create jobs but in return, businesses don't create the conditions necessary for businesses to succeed. Governments do that. First, businesses don't exist in a vacuum like many conservatives, which I am BTW, want to believe. As I said, "If you build it they will come" only works in the movies. Understand this, creating jobs does not create wealth. This is where many conservatives fall off the rail. Creating jobs redistributes wealth, not create it. The value or worth of an economy or by extension, all economies is pretty well fixed. It takes major upsets to change the aggregate worth of an economy(s). Recent upsets have been the industrial revolution, the great depression, the computer-information-digital age and unfortunately, war. Creating money only results in inflation and restricting it results in deflation. But, both are proportional in the up and down in value. That doesn't mean access and control is proportional. Giving business or anyone money does not create jobs. The only way to create jobs in a free market economy is by taking an action to meet a demand. A common example of this in the study of economics is the buggy whip. It doesn't matter how many people you hire to make them it's a waste if nobody wants them. You can give a company every penny in an economy to make buggy whips isn't going to create a demand for buggy whips. Economies run on demand, not production. There's also the limit to growth known as competition to individual companies. If Ford, GM, Chrysler or Nissan had any inkling that putting up 5 more factories would increase sales to support them they wouldn't sit around waiting for tax cuts or local tax deals. If they believed that if they made enough cars to put 12 in every driveway they would be doing it. The reality is only so many cars are going to be sold every year and how many are sold has nothing to do with how many are made unless not enough are made. The annual year end sales identify that, that's not the case. The belief that just giving businesses money will create jobs is just wrong and untrue. Competition doesn't create jobs. It creates lateral moves. The amount of market share a company has determines their workforce. Shifts in market share means one company will create jobs but it's at the expense of layoffs at another. Can you give me any example of how giving a car company tax breaks will create jobs? I can give you any number of examples though of how they costs jobs. Usually by the companies that reinvest the money back in the company, which too few do, they invest in innovation. Innovation is usually in the form of robotics and automation which doesn't require a weekly paycheck, lunch breaks or benefits. Your comment about liberals being anti-business, anti-jobs and pro-government is untrue. I know there are sources that like to repeat for this nonsense to fulfill their agendas but it's not true. I will accept that liberals and conservatives disagree with how economies should proceed but just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they are naturally anti or pro anything. For cars a reality is the future of the carbon based, liquid fuel vehicles are coming to an end. The next upheaval in the economy is going to be with energy and liberals want to support growth their now while conservatives want to support it's last grasp. That's not my opinion either. That's the opinion of Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. In the 80's when all the manufacturing in this country was leaving it was leaving with a "good riddance" attitude but along the way that attitude has morphed in to something else and it's liberals that are anti-government over the change in attitude. I suggest you're not seeing the forest for the trees on your liberals comment. Both conservatives and liberals are equally pro and anti when it comes to business and government. The difference is in the focus of the pro and anti attitudes. Liberals want to use the economy to invest in overcoming the well known problems with alternative energy while conservatives think the resources of the economy are better spent on supporting the time honored energy sources of the past. Please don't read in to what I'm writing. I have no clue about who is right or wrong in this and I'm not suggesting I support one side or the other by challenging your perspectives. I'm just commenting on what I've read and what I've observed and giving both sides equal deference. What I will say though is that the latest tax cuts are hurting this economy and will soon be negatively effecting people. Bottom line, the tax cuts will create very few jobs and cost many more. We would have been better served by taking all that money and rebuilding our infrastructure which would have created more jobs than could be filled and left everyone better off. Finally, have you ever heard the expression, "What the market will bare?" It's often erroneously explained to be about what price can be put on a good or service. It's actually about the resources of an economy and how much can be put in to A before it becomes detrimental to B and C. Often explain with an arbitrary example called "guns and butter." What happened to Russia is often used to explain this example. In an attempt to keep up with our military build up in the 80's, Russia diverted so much of their economy to military spending that their economy collapsed. The total of their non-military spending couldn't survive with the resources leftover in their economy after the military spending. The tax cuts aren't going to be this hard on our economy but it's going to hurt. Answer this, if the tax cuts were to have the results you believe they will, why weren't they enacted with a plan for the expected result and made them contingent on working towards that goal? The tax code is full of contingencies but not this time. There is only room for one faith in an economy and that is the value of a paper dollar, or whatever, is actually worth a dollar when the value of the actual piece of paper (cloth) isn't even one cent. Now back to my original question, why should anyone else subsidize the price of a car you or I buy? Because they are.

Hmmm? I'm confused now if you want knockoffs or OEM wheels. For a 2018 I'm guessing OEM wheels will only be available from Ford, a selvedge yard or a selvedge parts broker. All you will probably find at Summit are wheels that look the same and for that do a search by vehicle.

akirby, You said in a post, "Corporations don't pay taxes, we do." Then you discussed how taxes suppress their profitability. Look at this way, It costs x amount of dollars to run the country. The needed x amount is collected through taxes. When tax cuts are given they are paid for in one of two ways. 1.) Somebody else pays more or 2.) debt, which is just a delayed 2.) with interest. As you said about cars costing more without corporations getting the tax cuts. You put it as "Add $10k to every car sold and the price will go up $10k." That makes sense so when that $10k cost is removed as a financial burden, the price of a car goes down but the need for the money doesn't go away. Is it better for the person buying the car to pay that money or is it better that everyone else covers that cost now or in the case of debt, your kids or grandkids? As an aside the evidence is also overwhelming that an arbitrary example $10k per vehicle tax break will result in an arbitrary example $8k reduction in the price of the vehicle. That's 10k windfall results in an arbitrary example $12k total loss to be made up for. The $10k loss in tax revenue we cover and an additional $2k removed from the expected sources to use that money. To an individual a dollar is a dollar. To an economy, every time that dollar gets used or turned over it's value is increased by a dollar. A multiplier effect. If a dollar bill is spent 1,000 times before it is destroyed because it's worn out, the value of that dollar bill is $1,000 dollars. That has to be factored in to the loss to the economy and the tax base also when considering tax cuts. I'm not trying to impress the idea that all tax cuts are bad because they certainly are not. When they are arbitrary like the recent tax cut than they are not serving the economy or more directly, the people living under that economy. They become destructive to the economy because they disrupt the balance designed in to the system but also because the philosophy of, "If you build it they will come," only works in the movies. Money if not exchanged in an economy because of production. Money is exchanged because of need and demand. These tax cuts undermine "need and demand." Giving corporations tax cuts so they can buy back their stock does not create need or demand. Just the opposite. Tax cuts shrink the pool of money available to for someone to realize a fulfilled demand or need. This is why the originators of Laffer Curve or supply side economics, The Chicago School of Economics, now say the experiment in it were a failure. It disregarded human nature and assumed people would act as benevolent players with their role in the economy. IMO, common sense should have made this obvious. Tax cuts are fine when they are targeted, thought out and planned to prop up a weakness in an economy but cuts for cuts sake doesn't do that. That's unneeded corporate welfare that we pay for.

Look at summit racing. They sell most of what you will find anywhere else, will beat any price and shipping should be free. You will also get a free ballcap for spending that much.

I've been working on a 97 F150 and was asked today about putting a biometric ignition into it. I know nothing about these things. Searched the internet and they seem simple enough to install but there is very little beyond "possible problems" on how they interface with the ECU. Anyone have any experience or opinions about this one?

The booster has a check valve and look there first.

IWRBB, I said primary and secondary roads. Beyond that it's usually just a local issue except for maybe some issues like culverts or an alternative for watershed requirements. I have a degree in natural resource economics and had to do a paper on culverts in the logging industry. Great alternative to the sleeping pill.

akirby, I understand your point but let me explain why it's misguided. The cost of doing business or capital outlays are not taxed in this country. Granted, sometimes it is deferred so it becomes a time value issue but still, ultimately not taxed. Also with Ford for example, Ford Motor Credit makes more for the company than the production of vehicles. Profits here comes from interest which is a highly competitive business but consider this, who is paying that interest? People that sought them out whereas with tax cuts, everybody pays should you use the service or not? What is fair about that? Similarly, the gas tax and fees tied to vehicle plates that goes to road maintenance. Well over 70% of the money collected comes from cars well more than 90% of road maintenance is necessary because of trucks. You can easily look this up. Trucks should be paying that 90% and that cost should be passed along to their customers. That way the people causing the damage are the ones paying for it and further, they can pass that added cost to their customers. Instead we have a tax policy that is geared toward the "power in numbers." We take a dime from a thousand people instead of $100 from the one instigating the damage. Start adding this up and you are looking at 10 to 20% of your income a dime at a time going to support others. This is just a simple example for explanation and not specific about dimes. Last example, We have many mining companies on federal land (our land) that pay nothing more than a couple of hundred dollars a year for permits to access the land and we get nothing for it. This is all about commodities so no one is getting a price break because of the lack of an underlying cost involved. Even worse, the rules to access prohibit you or me from getting a chance at that access. You have to have a demonstrated ability, usually financially, to access the resource. The thing about that is you have to be able to do that whether you pay a fair market price or not. You're not wrong about pass through costs but let's have those that get the benefit of the goods or services pay for it. I know people that have never owned a new car in their life so why should they subsidize you or me getting one? IWRBB, I'm sorry to say, but you don't get it. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Politicians are nothing more than the people we asked for. Furthermore, a country is not some geopolitical area, it's the people. Michigan didn't make any cars. Henry Ford's ideas and his employees did. Also, you conflate monetary and fiscal policy in such I way I can only quote The Wizard, "over simplification." You falsely lay blame on problems you see. I'll repeat what I said earlier, the unions didn't make bad cars, the car companies did. Furthermore, while unions tried to save jobs in this country, they were shut down by those now complaining about job loses. Go figure. And no, I'm not angry with the government, I'm angry with those who can't see the obvious BS, rationalize with "Mulligans" and can't see that America has always been great regardless of the current mania running it.

The Wizard is spot on. American auto companies starting in the 60's only saw their customers as dollar signs so they came up with the marketing strategy of "planned obsolescence." Cars were designed to reinforce the need for the public to buy a new car every 2 years. Imports blew up the American auto industry with better gas mileage, cars that lasted and the pursuit of innovations that the American companies viewed as a waste of time, money and resources. This isn't an opinion either. There are plenty of books written by those responsible for this describing the production and marketing philosophies of the time. To make matters even worse they pulled off one of biggest slight of hands in history with successfully placing the blame on unions for the decisions they made. Unions were nothing more than people who went to work and did what they were told just like everyone else. Unfortunately it's a strategy that has been adopted and expanded to blame any convenient group for anyone's lot in lot which they usually brought upon themselves in the first place. If you like a car that is made to see an odometer with a reading over 100,000 miles you owe nothing to the US auto industry for that. IWRBB, As a disabled vet MAGA is an insult and I don't know any others that don't feel the same way. All the promises to vets were just another lie. I can't express enough how much I appreciate organizations like Wounded Warriors but why in the hell are they necessary? I've been fortunate but too many haven't been so why in the f___ is the care and standard of living of disabled vets left in the hands of donations and benevolence of others? MAGA is really MMGA, Make "ME" great again for a bunch of whiners feeling sorry for themselves. Even worse, most MAGAers support those that put in place the policies that they're feeling sorry for themselves over. Remember, "A rising tide raises all boats?" Tell me, how many tides come from below the boats and how many come from rain trickled down on the boats? I can tell you what's really trickling down on you. Henry Ford learned this the hard way. When he finally raised wages to $5 a day, the sales of Fords soared faster than at any other time in Ford's history. Also, the location of a companies home office is irrelevant. Corporate profits are realized in 2 ways. First is in operations. Bankrolling the cash needed for current and future plans. Second, the rest is realized through the distribution of stock dividends. That's a generic short cut because there are also bonds and different types of stocks but it still comes down to profits to those that have invested in the companies. THERE ARE NO BORDERS TO STOCK OWNERSHIP. Your statement is a statement of the lack of understanding you have of how cash flows through an economy. You're ire should be focused on the recent, massive corporate welfare enacted as a tax cut. The hope that any of the giveaway is going to trickle down to you is a big, so big, probably the biggest ever pipedream laid on this country. The money that would have been another car or two in your future has been given away and you will never recover it. My apologies if I've overstepped some forum boundaries with this but honestly I think I've already paid for the right to speak my mind. I didn't and would never let someone else take my place because I believed I was better and I deserved it. IWRBB, I'm fine with you being angry over this as long as you at least think about it. Edit: 2014 was handy. 2014 Ford made 2 billion in sale profits. Ford Credit made 1.9 billion in North America alone. Where you get the idea that Ford is making billions off the raptor needs explaining.

Bleeding and flushing\replacing brake fluid are not the same thing.

Chipster, I brought up hijacking the topic but a moderator said the topic was already exhausted. Go for it.

I would think the first thing done was replace the brake fluid. Next, pressure test your brake lines. You'd probably be amazed at how big a brake line can get without leaking or blowing out. They can look like balloons. Ford is a bit notorious for the feel of the brake pedal and the pedal going to the floor but the brakes still working. I'm not sure what you mean by "bleed the ABS brake box?" I'm also not familiar with what type of ABS control your car has. Whether your brake proportioning valve is part of your ABS module or separate, it needs to be checked along with the fluid reservoir your system uses. That's the separate ABS reservoir. I would also guess that your throttle problems are from the booster work. Was the booster check valve tested before replacing the booster? Was throttle vacuum tested to make sure it's not getting back to the booster? This could be your throttle problem. Not being familiar with your car I'm just guessing by the symptoms you've described by the brake systems I'm familiar with..

IWRBB, I have to assume you're enjoying a sweet spot right now between growth and existing development. In Ohio it takes at least 2 years of permitting process to build a primary or secondary road. If a bridge is involved it's 3 to 5 years. All this is before the first road building machine moves. My best friend is the principal partner in one of the largest civil engineering firms in the upper Midwest. He's venting about this stuff all the time. According to him Ohio is one of the worst for permitting because the permitting process involves a lot of contingency planning for things like weather and the hauling of oversized loads just to name two. These things are on top of the usual projected growth and traffic patterns, emergency services or EPA approval. I'd go nuts if I had his job. His firm has legal and actuarial offices that contract out to other firms on top of the engineering they do because of permits. If you're not enjoying a sweet spot then count your blessings. Most counties aren't managed with the forward thinking needed for seamless growth. Until 2 years ago we went through maybe 5 years of the county trying to figure out trash collection because of growth and neighboring counties didn't want our trash. The only thing they've gotten close to right in 20 years is the county jail. The only reason they got that one right was because they planned it as a profit center where we house inmates from other counties and for the feds. But even this upsets a good part of the population. They don't like the idea of housing someone else's criminals.

My 2 cents for tires. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/bdg-118312/overview/

2015 edge, 3.5L, shock specs: Extended length, 26" - 27" Collapsed length, 15" - 16" Stroke length, 10.5" - 11" Bilstein Rear Shocks (Universal): Series B8 5125, Part Numbers; 33-230351, 33-230368, You may need to reuse a lower eye mount insert? These are not for an 2017 AWD Eco Boost Sport or are they? You should remove a shock and get the above information and most manufacturers will have shocks for you. 5/8 ths lower mount bolt size is usually standard for Ford light truck, utility vehicle aftermarket shocks and the OEM Motorcraft shock is probably metric. Again, Bilstein makes popular off road shocks but for the street? Not so popular. For what it's worth, I strongly recommend anyone find a different brand shock for the street.

I appreciate that. I'm more familiar with catch cans which really aren't needed for the street. Yet, they seem to be more popular than air-oil separators? I didn't realize Ford had addressed this. Thanks again.

Thanks. As posted in another topic I was given information on this. Also, my Ford access expired at the end of June and I need to get that taken care of. Edit: I also need to get the manuals for this engine. At least the Powertrain\Emissions diagnosis manual for 2008.

WWWPerfA_ZN0W, Nice catch. Someone else also corrected me on jumping the shark over this. I'm use to Ford Performance and Ford Europe primarily with the B-Max Eco Boost (not sold in the US) engines which uses MAF. I was given this link with respect to testing a MAF sensor which led to me getting corrected over this. Not an excuse for my error but my experience is with chassis\suspensions and I need to remember that. http://pmmonline.co.uk/technical/ford-b-max-ecoboost-maf-sensor/

WWWPerfA_ZN0W, Do you have any suggestions on how I should do this with a stand alone sensor? I have a power probe but I have no idea of what to test. BTW, I thought I'd answered this before? Maybe I wrote but didn't post?