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

Low Mileage Wll Cared For Suv This Is The Largest And And Most Powerfull Suv Out on 2040-cars

Year:2002 Mileage:90577 Color: Green /
 Other
Location:

Binghamton, New York, United States

Binghamton, New York, United States
Advertising:
Transmission:Automatic
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:6.8L 415Cu. In. V10 GAS SOHC Naturally Aspirated
For Sale By:Dealer
Body Type:Sport Utility
Fuel Type:GAS
Condition:
Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. ...
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number)
: 1FMNU43S92EB46249
Year: 2002
Make: Ford
Warranty: Unspecified
Model: Excursion
Trim: Limited Sport Utility 4-Door
Options: Leather Seats
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes
Drive Type: 4WD
Power Options: Power Windows
Mileage: 90,577
Sub Model: Limited Ulti
Exterior Color: Green
Number of Cylinders: 10
Interior Color: Other

Auto Services in New York

Zuniga Upholstery ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Upholsterers, Automobile Seat Covers, Tops & Upholstery
Address: 31 Crown St, Brightwaters
Phone: (866) 595-6470

Westbury Nissan ★★★★★

New Car Dealers
Address: 15 Kinkel St, Locust-Valley
Phone: (516) 338-5600

Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Oil & Lube, Automotive Tune Up Service
Address: 907 Old Country Rd, Old-Westbury
Phone: (516) 334-1442

Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Oil & Lube, Automotive Tune Up Service
Address: 7374 Pittsford Palmyra Rd, Port-Gibson
Phone: (585) 223-1840

Value Auto Sales Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 4854 Broadway, Wales-Center
Phone: (866) 595-6470

TM & T Tire ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Tire Dealers
Address: North-Salem
Phone: (718) 729-3500

Auto blog

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

Mon, Jan 2 2017

About 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.

Ford F-100 'Snakebit' shown off by Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed at SEMA

Tue, 05 Nov 2013

Ford, along with KISS bassist Gene Simmons and his wife, Shannon Tweed, used SEMA as a backdrop to pull the covers off Snakebit, a 1956 Ford F-100 pickup truck that's been updated with Shelby Mustang-derived styling bits and a 5.4-liter supercharged V8 engine. All 550 horsepower are funneled through a six-speed manual gearbox to the rear wheels.
Underneath the custom bodywork sits a chassis that's been stretched five inches and a bed widened and bedecked with billet machined pieces that are supposed to look like wood. The 20-inch rear and 18-inch front wheels ape those of past Shelby Mustang models. The interior is swathed in two-tone leather with a bench seat designed to look - try to act surprised - like a Shelby Mustang.
Like what you see? Bidding for the truck will take place in 2014 at an unspecified Barrett-Jackson event (we'd assume Scottsdale). Proceeds will be used to help build a children's hospital in Saskatoon, in the province of Saskatchewan, where Ms. Tweed grew up. See the high-res gallery above and the press release down below for more.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

Tue, Jun 17 2014

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.