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

Warranty Crew Cab Pre-owned Tow Package Excellent Condition Certified Low Miles on 2040-cars

Year:2012 Mileage:11193 Color: Blue /
 Gray
Location:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Advertising:
Body Type:Pickup Truck
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
VIN: 1FTFX1CTXCFA34708 Year: 2012
Make: Ford
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Extended Cab
Model: F-150
Warranty: Unspecified
Mileage: 11,193
Sub Model: 2WD SuperCab
Options: CD Player
Exterior Color: Blue
Power Options: Power Locks
Interior Color: Gray
Number of Cylinders: 6
Vehicle Inspection: Inspected (include details in your description)
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. ... 

Auto Services in Louisiana

Wiggins Auto Collision ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Towing
Address: Fullerton
Phone: (318) 443-6016

Veteran Windshield Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Windshield Repair
Address: 24 Shady Oaks Dr, Saint-Benedict
Phone: (985) 237-4082

Speed Tires & Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers, Tire Recap, Retread & Repair
Address: 9139 Mansfield Rd, Keithville
Phone: (318) 828-1751

Siegen Car Care ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Accessories
Address: 6888 Siegen Ln, Sorrento
Phone: (225) 234-0532

Sams Audio ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Home Theater Systems, Audio-Visual Creative Services
Address: 6770 W Park Ave, Gray
Phone: (985) 851-3838

Safelite AutoGlass - Bossier City ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Windshield Repair, Glass-Wholesale & Manufacturers
Address: 2048 E Texas St, Barksdale-Afb
Phone: (318) 742-1585

Auto blog

Ford won't be releasing GT500 lap times for the 'Ring, or any other car

Wed, 27 Nov 2013

Trucks have towing capacity, EVs have driving range and performance cars have Nürburgring lap times. What do all three have in common? They should all be taken with a grain of salt. Currently, there is no sanctioned way to record lap times or verify production-spec cars - a lesson we recently learned with the 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo - and until there is a way to do so (and there probably never will be), we'll never officially know the actual time it took for Ford to lap the 'Ring with its ultra-powerful Shelby GT500.
After posting a Ford-made video of a 2013 GT500 running around the 'Ring, the guys over at SVTPerformance.com (an enthusiasts forum not affiliated with Ford or SVT) wanted more answers. They got in touch with Ford's Global Performance Vehicle Chief Engineer Jamal Hameedi, who said until there is a way to verify the times and inspect the cars, Ford will not get involved with lap-time wars. In the email, Hameedi pointed out that the 'Ring is a useful tool in that it allows a wide spectrum of track conditions, but until there is a governed way to record times, there is no way to accurately compare cars head-to-head.
And as much as some may not like it, Hameedi speaks the truth. It really isn't possible to compare times from one car to another, unless those cars were lapping the same track at the same time with the same driver. Not that any of this means there won't be continuous wars by fans and manufacturers alike... in other words, feel free to voice your opinions in the Comments below.

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

Mon, Jan 2 2017

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.

Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

Tue, Oct 25 2016

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video: