2014 Ford F150 on 2040-cars
117 E Broad St, Hemingway, South Carolina, United States

Engine:5.0L V8 32V MPFI DOHC
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FTFX1EF0EKE50025
Stock Num: NT3012
Make: Ford
Model: F150
Year: 2014
Options: Drive Type: 4WD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Haselden Brothers Ford has been serving the Carolina's since 1938. We truly believe in customer service and we have the Awards to prove it. 10 Time Ford President's Award for Customer Satisfaction along with many others. We deal honestly and straight forward and don't have document or add-on fees. We've been here for our customers for over 75 years and we plan to stick around!
Ford F-150 for Sale
2014 ford f150
2014 ford f150(US $43,460.00)
2014 ford f150(US $51,250.00)
2013 ford f150(US $40,315.00)
2014 ford f150(US $42,005.00)
2014 ford f150(US $33,555.00)
Auto Services in South Carolina
Wilson Collision Center ★★★★★
W W Kustomz Auto Sales ★★★★★
Summit Collision Centers ★★★★★
Starnes Automotive Tire ★★★★★
Southern Motor Company ★★★★★
Southern Film Installations ★★★★★
Auto blog
We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton
Tue, Jul 14 2020The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender. Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys. As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more. On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.
Autoblog Podcast #326
Tue, 26 Mar 2013Easter Jeep Safari concepts, Shelby 1000, 2014 Cadillac CTS and Mercedes CLA45 AMG leaks
Episode #326 of the Autoblog Podcast is here, and this week, Dan Roth and Zach Bowman talk about this year's Easter Jeep Safari concepts, the 1,200-horsepower Shelby 1000 and leaked images of the 2014 Cadillac CTS and Mercedes-Benz CLA45 AMG. We wrap with your questions and emails, and for those of you who hung with us live on our UStream channel, thanks for taking the time. Keep reading for our Q&A module for you to scroll through and follow along, too. Thanks for listening!
Autoblog Podcast #326:
EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate
Mon, 26 Aug 2013
The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.