Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

08 F350 Xl 6.4l Power-stroke Turbo Diesel Crew 4x4 Flat Bed on 2040-cars

US $16,995.00
Year:2008 Mileage:180000 Color: White
Location:

Houston, Texas, United States

Houston, Texas, United States
Advertising:

Auto Services in Texas

Zeke`s Inspections Plus ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Battery Storage, Battery Supplies
Address: 1006 S Frazier St, Hufsmith
Phone: (936) 441-3500

Value Import ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers
Address: 1210 N Wayside Dr, Winchester
Phone: (866) 595-6470

USA Car Care ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Body Parts
Address: 202 Cypresswood Dr, Klein
Phone: (281) 355-5800

USA Auto ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 12113 Garland Rd, Rowlett
Phone: (972) 247-4098

Uresti Jesse Camper Sales ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Truck Accessories, Transport Trailers
Address: 13070 Interstate 35 S, Atascosa
Phone: (210) 623-2411

Universal Village Auto Inc ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 6223 Richmond Ave, West-University-Place
Phone: (832) 320-9600

Auto blog

RWD Lincolns are coming, fate depends partly on MKZ success

Tue, 04 Dec 2012

The product portfolio at Lincoln may seem a bit sparse at the moment, but if a report is to be believed, new products are on the way. TheDetroitBureau.com spoke with sources at Lincoln and Ford, who claimed the American premium brand is working on, perhaps more than one, rear-wheel-drive vehicle.
Lincoln would likely platform-share with the next-generation Ford Mustang to develop those RWD offerings in the early going. Moving forward, the report indicates that Lincoln could take the lead on other rear-drive projects in the future. As the RWD architecture continues to take shape, "most or all" of the front-wheel-drive portfolio will also be offered with all-wheel drive as an option, ala Audi.
But wait, there's more! The report also suggests that a replacement for the full-size MKS is on the way, as well as a new Navigator and a luxury crossover based on the current Ford Escape.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Tue, Dec 13 2022

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

Tue, Jun 17 2014

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.