2006 Xls Used 2.3l I4 16v Automatic Suv One Owner Needs Work! on 2040-cars
Norwood, Pennsylvania, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:2.3L 140Cu. In. l4 GAS DOHC Naturally Aspirated
For Sale By:Private Seller
Body Type:Sport Utility
Fuel Type:GAS
Interior Color: Gray
Make: Ford
Model: Escape
Warranty: No
Trim: XLS Sport Utility 4-Door
Drive Type: FWD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 75,086
Sub Model: XLS One Owner Clean Needs work!
Number of Cylinders: 4
Exterior Color: Red
Ford Escape for Sale
2012 ford escape xlt 4x4
2008 ford escape xlt sport utility 4-door 3.0l(US $11,995.00)
Fwd 4dr xlt low miles suv automatic gasoline 2.5l i4 duratec engine
Front wheel drive cloth suv hatchback automatic transmission a/c cd bluetooth(US $20,867.00)
Hybrid premium pkg only 53k miles auto a/c 6cd full power super nice(US $14,995.00)
2006 ford escape xlt sports utility 4wd fwd white 4 door automatic
Auto Services in Pennsylvania
Wyoming Valley Kia - New & Used Cars ★★★★★
Thomas Honda of Johnstown ★★★★★
Suder`s Automotive ★★★★★
Stehm`s Auto Repair ★★★★★
Stash Tire & Auto Service ★★★★★
Select Exhaust Inc ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford Police Interceptors dominate Michigan State Police testing
Tue, Nov 1 2016Once again, Ford Motor Company builds the fastest police vehicles. The Blue Oval touted the news in an official release following Michigan State Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department testing. Ford did very well. Except for one acceleration metric – zero to 10 miles per hour – the Blue Oval's Taurus and Explorer-based cop cars were the quickest, with particular praise coming for the EcoBoost-powered models, which bested Chevrolet and Dodge's V8-powered variants. Dearborn's products also posted the fastest average times around MSP's vehicle dynamics course. But it wasn't all positive for Ford. The only four-cylinder in the contest, the 2.0-liter, EcoBoost Ford SSP Sedan, had both the lowest top speed, 120 mph, and the slowest acceleration figures. It was also the slowest in track testing. Ford's products also failed to match the braking and top speeds of its rivals from Detroit and Auburn Hills – the rear-drive Charger Pursuit posted the best braking stats of the entire test, while the V8-powered Chevrolet Caprice hit the highest top speed, at 155 mph. Ford did score a top speed award, among SUVs, but at 132 mph, the naturally aspirated Police Interceptor Utility had to share its award with the equally fast, rear-drive Chevrolet Tahoe. The LA County Sheriff's timing isn't publicly available, but according to Ford, the EcoBoost-powered police cars put on a similarly impressive show for cops on the West Coast. We've assembled a spreadsheet on Google Docs that offers an easy to browse comparison of the different stats assembled by the Michigan State Police, and divided the vehicles between standard V6-powered sedans, high-performance sedans (EcoBoost and V8 models), and SUVs. You can check it out here. Related Video:
2015 Ford F-150 [w/videos]
Thu, 02 Oct 2014To learn more about the all-new 2015 F-150 and get an early read on its potential hero-or-zero status, we flew to the heart of full-size pickup truck country, San Antonio, TX, to spend a day driving, towing and playing in the mud with an assortment of Ford's innovative new trucks.
First, a caveat - while we feel we have a reasonably good handle on the new F-150 after attending this first-drive event, we are far from ready to pass definitive judgment on the success of this radically new rig. Our time in the various models was lamentably limited and we felt rushed. With so much at stake and with so much to talk about and experience, we had zero alone time with the vehicle - there were Ford folks shadowing us at every moment.
And we still don't know everything there is to know about the trucks, as Ford is withholding some of its most crucial numbers, including curb weight data and anticipated EPA fuel economy figures. We don't even have a firm on-sale date. All of this information is typically disclosed - or at least officially estimated - at the time of a new vehicle's first drive. This limits the scope of the judgments we feel comfortable making based on our first encounter.
2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise
Mon, Jan 2 2017About 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.