No Reserve 2001 Ford F-150 Xlt 4 Door Crew Cab Auto 4.2l V6 Very Nice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.

IIHS Crash-tests Expose American Muscle Cars' Weaknesses | Autoblog Minute

Turns out American muscle cars aren?t that strong according to IIHS crash tests. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put three iconic American sports cars through a range of performance crash tests. Chevrolet Dodge Ford Autoblog Minute Videos Original Video crash test camaro challenger

Ford shares falling on news of lower-than-expected profits next year

Ford has released projections for its 2013 profits, along with predictions of its 2014 earnings, and the news has forced the company's stock to stumble, falling over seven percent as of this writing. The Blue Oval is expecting earnings of $8.34 billion for 2013, although the bulk of that is coming largely from its North American operations, as troubles abroad continue to take a toll.
Calling 2013 an "outstanding" year, Ford expects its revenue to be up about 10 percent, thanks to gains in market share everywhere but Europe. But it's 2014 predictions that are causing stock prices to fall, as the Dearborn-based manufacturer expects pre-tax profits to fall to $7 to $8 billion, because of troubles in both Europe and South America, according to a report from Reuters. This is despite an expansion plan that will see it open an additional factory in the southern hemisphere, as well as two plants in China, all in a bid to launch 23 new or refreshed products next year.
The issues in South America aren't so much related to a fall in sales - Ford expects improved profits in Brazil and Argentina - but because of currency devaluations in Venezuela that are projected to cost it around $350 million. While that would still allow it to break even with 2013, Ford cites continued economic risks that could push losses even higher.