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

2005 Ford F350 Crew Dually 4x4 Diesel Will Be A Bargain on 2040-cars

Year:2005 Mileage:206000
Location:

Hagerstown, Maryland, United States

Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
Advertising:

Ford F-350 for Sale

Auto Services in Maryland

Walter Jays Collision Ctr ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 3826 N Point Blvd, Halethorpe
Phone: (866) 595-6470

Tire Hall,Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Brake Repair, Car Wash
Address: 6127 central ave, Landover-Hills
Phone: (301) 333-8473

Tire CITI ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tires-Wholesale & Manufacturers, Tire Recap, Retread & Repair-Equipment & Supplies
Address: 8391 Washington Blvd, Fort-Meade
Phone: (301) 617-2500

The Body Works of VA INC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: Brunswick
Phone: (703) 777-5727

TCI Towing LLC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Towing
Address: Odenton
Phone: (301) 699-5200

Sterling Transmission ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Clutches, Transmissions-Other
Address: 45759-A Elmwood Ct, Germantown
Phone: (703) 263-2011

Auto blog

Ford Q1 profits dragged down by warranty costs

Fri, 25 Apr 2014

General Motors isn't the only Detroit automaker posting falling profits in the first quarter. Ford just released its Q1 2014 financial data, and it reported a net income of $989 million, down $622 million from Q1 2013. The drop is partially blamed on higher warranty and recall expenses than the company had anticipated.
Financially, Ford suffered a rough quarter almost across the board. Its pre-tax profit of $1.4 billion was also down $765 million from a year ago. Things were even worse in the North American market where operating profit fell significantly to $1.5 billion, down from $2.392 billion in Q1 2013. However, its global revenue ticked up slightly to $35.9 billion, from $35.6 billion in this period in 2013.
Ford admitted that it spent about $900 million on expenses that it hadn't planned for during this quarter. According to Reuters, the company paid about $400 million in additional warranty and recall costs in North America. The automaker didn't explain why the costs were so much higher than expected. However, in the last three months, Ford has had several recalls, including on the 2001-2004 Escape for rust, Explorer for its steering, Edge for its fuel line and others.

Ford blamed in drug mule lawsuit

Tue, 30 Jul 2013

If a college student is caught smuggling drugs across the border, one might think the kid got what was coming to him. But when a Mexican student at the University of Texas in El Paso was caught by Border Patrol agents with duffel bags filled with marijuana in his trunk, the man used a classic excuse: He claimed they weren't his.
While a claim like that is almost unbelievable, Ricardo Magallanes, the student, is now suing Ford for handling its vehicles' key codes negligently enough to allow drug smugglers to break into his Ford Focus and stash the drugs, The Daily Caller reports. The twist here is that four other people who lived in Juarez and worked in El Paso were involved in the same type of scheme - allegedly unwittingly, just like Magallanes - and all the cars were Fords except one model from General Motors. FBI agents also found an employee at a Dallas Ford dealership that had accessed the key codes to all four of the cannabis-stuffed Fords.
While we all may not own Fords, the case still causes us slight paranoia. We'll definitely be checking our trunks before we cross any more international borders.

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Fri, Jan 3 2014

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.