10 F250 Crew Cab Lariat 4x4, Auto, Navi, Sunroof,aftermarket Wheels & Tires! on 2040-cars
Austin, Texas, United States
Ford F-250 for Sale
- 2013 ford f-250 lariat crew fx4 4x4 diesel sunroof nav texas direct auto(US $50,980.00)
- 2012 ford f-250 lariat crew cab 4x4 diesel leather 54k texas direct auto(US $42,780.00)
- 2012 navigation 20s aluminum leather heated cooled diesel we finance 36k miles
- Turbo diesel fx4 off road! navigation ! parking sensors !long bed !no reserve!06
- 2012 ford f-250 crew 6.2l fx4 4x4 6-pass side steps 19k texas direct auto(US $36,480.00)
- 2000 ford f-250 super duty lariat extended cab pickup 4-door 5.4l(US $3,750.00)
Auto Services in Texas
Wolfe Automotive ★★★★★
Williams Transmissions ★★★★★
White And Company ★★★★★
West End Transmissions ★★★★★
Wallisville Auto Repair ★★★★★
VW Of Temple ★★★★★
Auto blog
2015 Ford F-150 to get 2.7-liter EcoBoost?
Mon, 30 Dec 2013As we prepare for the arrival of the all-new, next-generation Ford F-150, rumors about the new truck are picking up steam. Naturally, many of said rumors aren't just related to the way the truck will look (it's expected to take design cues from the Atlas concept shown above), they're tied to what's going to motivate the Blue Oval mainstay, with Ford's EcoBoost range likely to play an increasingly key role. While we're still expecting the current 3.5-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 to retain its position as a premium alternative to Ford's naturally aspirated V6 and V8, a Canadian automotive news site is proposing that the Dearborn automaker is also preparing a new, more fuel-efficient downsized EcoBoost option.
Autos.ca is reporting that a new, 2.7-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 could find its way into the lighter, aluminum-intensive truck. The new engine supposedly makes use of asymmetrical turbos to generate 320 horsepower and 370 pound-feet of torque - substantially more impressive numbers than the current 3.7-liter base engine's 302 ponies and 278 lb-ft - while offering improved fuel economy and emissions. The new 2.7 EcoBoost (internally dubbed "Nano") isn't expected to supplant the naturally aspirated V6 as the F-150's base engine, it's expected to slot in above directly it.
Naturally, we're prescribing more than a few grains of salt to go with these rumors, at least until Ford debuts the next F-150 at the 2014 Detroit Auto Show, a reveal we'll be covering in a mere two weeks.
Which is more fuel efficient, driving with a pickup's tailgate up or down?
Tue, 26 Aug 2014
Thanks to the smoke wand in the wind tunnel, you can actually see the difference in our video.
Should you drive with your pickup truck's tailgate up or down? It's an age-old controversy that's divided drivers for decades. Traditionalists will swear you should leave the tailgate down. Makes sense, right? It would seem to let the air flow more cleanly over the body and through the bed. But there's also a school of thought that argues trucks are designed to look and operate in a specific manner, and modern design techniques can help channel the airflow properly. So don't mess with all of that: Leave the tailgate up.
American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings
Fri, 10 May 2013Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.