2012 Ford Explorer Htd Leather Nav 20" Wheels 47k Miles Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars
Stafford, Texas, United States
Engine:See Description
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:SUV
Certified pre-owned
Year: 2012
Warranty: Vehicle has an existing warranty
Make: Ford
Model: Explorer
Options: Leather, CD Player
Power Options: Power Seats, Power Windows, Power Locks, Cruise Control
Mileage: 47,800
Sub Model: REARVIEW CAM
Exterior Color: Gray
Number Of Doors: 4
Interior Color: Gray
Inspection: Vehicle has been inspected
Number of Cylinders: 6
CALL NOW: 832-310-2228
Seller Rating: 5 STAR *****
Ford Explorer for Sale
1996 ford explorer xlt sport utility 4-door 4.0l(US $10,000.00)
2006 ford explorer xlt sport utility 4-door 4.0l(US $9,750.00)
1996 ford explorer v8 awd eddie bauer ** custom explorer **(US $4,500.00)
Warranty 1 owner limited 4x4 nav 3rd row sync htd lthr sts boards we finance(US $23,900.00)
1997 ford explorer xlt sport utility 4-door 5.0l
2013 ford explorer fwd 4dr xlt
Auto Services in Texas
WorldPac ★★★★★
VICTORY AUTO BODY ★★★★★
US 90 Motors ★★★★★
Unlimited PowerSports Inc ★★★★★
Twist`d Steel Paint and Body, LLC ★★★★★
Transco Transmission ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford recalls nearly 200,000 Expeditions and Navigators for fire risk
Thu, Sep 1 2022Ford is recalling 2015-2017 Expeditions and 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigators because the front blower motor could fail and cause a fire. In total, 198,482 Expeditions and Navigators will be recalled. In the official recall documents posted by NHTSA, Ford says that it “has not identified the cause of this condition.” However, Ford also says it is currently aware of 25 fire allegations related to the blower motors on these vehicles. Despite not strictly identifying the cause of blower motor fires, Ford put forth a theory in its fieldwork analysis of the issue. “In June 2022, based on component analysis, Ford Engineering theorized that a mispositioned blower motor brush holder spring could cause an internal short or localized heating of the brush spring or holder. It is believed that when a fire initiates on the blower motor, it does so at the positive brush holder location. The variable blower controller would remain operational and there would be no signs of an overheated relay. Field data indicates that this concern typically occurs at a higher time in service, and on vehicles with higher mileage.” Since the blower motor is located on the passenger side interior behind the glovebox, the fires that start are interior fires. Ford isnÂ’t aware of any accidents related to this issue, but there is one claim of burnt hands and fingers as a result of a fire. According to Ford, warning signs of an impending fire or failed blower motor include an inoperative fan, burning smell and/or smoke from the instrument panel vents while the vehicle is on. To remedy this situation, Ford is recalling the affected SUVs and replacing the blower motor assembly with a revised part. The new part uses a blower motor assembly design utilized on other applications. If folks with these SUVs experience any symptoms of blower motor failure before the new part becomes available, Ford says they can take their vehicle to the dealer to have it replaced with a part of the same design. Once the redesigned part becomes available, the dealer will then swap it in. Owner notification letters are expected to begin on September 12 this year. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.
Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico
Fri, Nov 18 2016President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.
Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel
Mon, Apr 14 2014When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).
2040Cars.com © 2012-2025. All Rights Reserved.
Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the 2040Cars User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
0.048 s, 7928 u























