2000 Ford Excursion Limited on 2040-cars
Van Nuys, California, United States
Engine:6.8L
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Body Type:Sport Utility
Transmission:Automatic
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FMNU43S1YEA13607
Mileage: 128500
Make: Ford
Trim: LIMITED
Drive Type: 137" WB Limited 4WD
Features: 6.8L (415) SOHC SEFI V10 ENGINE
Power Options: --
Exterior Color: Green
Interior Color: --
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Model: Excursion
Ford Excursion for Sale
- 2002 ford excursion limited(US $8,000.00)
- 2004 ford excursion xlt(US $4,999.00)
- 2001 ford excursion(US $19,999.00)
- 2003 ford excursion limited(US $21,900.00)
- 2004 ford excursion xlt(US $4,999.00)
- 2005 ford excursion(US $25,995.00)
Auto Services in California
Z Auto Sales & Leasing ★★★★★
X-treme Auto Care ★★★★★
Wrona`s Quality Auto Repair ★★★★★
Woody`s Truck & Auto Body ★★★★★
Winter Chevrolet - Honda ★★★★★
Western Towing ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford hiring 800 more salaried workers than originally expected
Wed, 24 Jul 2013Ford is on a roll this year, with excellent quarterly earnings and better-than-expected vehicle sales leading to 800 more job opportunities with the Blue Oval. In January, Ford announced that it wanted to hire 2,200 salaried employees, but, since then, that figure has been revised to 3,000, representing a 36-percent increase over original projections. About 1,500 of those jobs remain, 80 percent of which are technical professional positions.
"Engineers and technical professionals are in as much demand as our cars, trucks and SUVs," says Felicia Fields, Ford Group Vice President for Human Resources. Helping to spur this job growth are increasing market share on both the West and East Coast and robust demand for the Ford Escape and F-150.
To find job candidates, Ford is reaching out to them via Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, in addition to the company's corporate career site. The Blue Oval is also ramping up its presence on college campuses.
Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age
Thu, 17 Jul 2014In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.
American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings
Fri, 10 May 2013Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.