2014 Ford Escape Se on 2040-cars
308 N Outer Rd, St James, Missouri, United States
Engine:2.0L I4 16V GDI DOHC Turbo
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FMCU0G94EUD43976
Stock Num: 14206
Make: Ford
Model: Escape SE
Year: 2014
Exterior Color: Ingot Silver Metallic
Interior Color: Medium Light Stone
Options: Drive Type: FWD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 3
Rear Sensors, Ford SYNC Infotainment System, Tow Package, and MORE! Turbocharged! It's time for HUTCHESON FORD SALES INC.! You won't find a better SUV than this charming 2014 Ford Escape. This Escape is nicely equipped. It will save you cash at the pumps with its fuel efficient 2L powerplant. It's Not What We Do, It's How We Do It! 888-710-2906. F: Family. You're it! Check out our $9.99 Oil Change Special! Just click "Check for Specials" below! O: Outrageous Customer Service- over 120 5-Star Reviews? Yes, please! R: Really in it for the customer. D: Drop by! Come for the great deals, free snacks, drinks, and WIFI..but stay for the best FORD experience in over 200 miles. At Hutcheson Ford, It's Not What We Do, It's How We Do It!
Ford Escape for Sale
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $30,390.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $36,205.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $36,800.00)
- 2011 ford escape limited(US $18,944.00)
- 2013 ford escape sel
- 2007 ford escape xlt(US $13,000.00)
Auto Services in Missouri
Western Tire & Auto ★★★★★
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
St Louis Car & Credit ★★★★★
St Louis Auto Parts Co ★★★★★
Specialty Automotive ★★★★★
SL Services Inc ★★★★★
Auto blog
Tier 1 suppliers call GM the worst OEM to work with
Mon, 12 May 2014Among automakers with a big US presence, General Motors is the worst to work for, according to a new survey from Tier 1 automotive suppliers, conducted by Planning Perspectives, Inc.
The Detroit-based manufacturer, which has been under fire following the ignition switch recall and its accompanying scandal, finished behind six other automakers with big US manufacturing operations. Suppliers had issues with trust and communications, as well as intellectual property protection. GM was also the least likely to allow suppliers to raise their prices in the face of unexpected increases in material cost, all of which contributed to 55 percent of suppliers saying their relationship with GM was "poor to very poor."
GM's cross-town competitors didn't fare much better. Chrysler finished in fifth place, ahead of GM and behind Dearborn-based Ford, which was passed for third place this year by Nissan. Toyota took the top marks, while Honda captured second place.
2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost
Fri, 09 May 2014I'll be honest; when Ford first unveiled its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, I was skeptical. Past attempts at building turbocharged American cars were almost universally awful, I reasoned, so why would Ford's latest effort be any different? This may seem foolish today, considering the success that the growing EcoBoost range has achieved - particularly the 2.0-liter and 1.6-liter mills. Yet I once again found myself questioning Ford.
It's the makeup of the 1.0-liter, turbocharged three-cylinder slotted into the compact engine bay of this Fiesta that has a way of breeding doubt. Three-cylinder engines remain an extreme rarity in the US. What's more, they earned a less-than-desirable reputation for applications in the 1980s and 1990s, and my trepidation about this latest three-pot as a result.
As I found out, though, history is a poor informant of modern technology. The thrust available in other cars with the EcoBoost badge on the back has not gone missing here; something the International Engine of the Year committee has lauded. That august body named the 1.0-liter Ecoboost the best engine of 2012 and 2013. After a week of driving, it didn't take long for my fear of threes to get turned into something like that line of thinking.
EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate
Mon, 26 Aug 2013
The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.