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

2003 Ford Expedition on 2040-cars

US $10,900.00
Year:2003 Mileage:61800 Color: Blue /
 Gray
Location:

530 N Kansas Expy, Springfield, Missouri, United States

530 N Kansas Expy, Springfield, Missouri, United States
Advertising:
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Engine:5.4L V8 16V MPFI SOHC
Transmission:4-Speed Automatic
Condition: Used
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FMPU16L03LB88205
Stock Num: 1418
Make: Ford
Model: Expedition
Year: 2003
Exterior Color: Blue
Interior Color: Gray
Options:
  • 4-wheel ABS Brakes
  • AM/FM stereo
  • Automatic locking hubs
  • Auxilliary transmission cooler
  • Braking Assist
  • Cargo area light
  • Cassette player with auto-reverse
  • Chrome grille
  • Clock: In-radio display
  • Coil front spring
  • Coil rear spring
  • Cruise control
  • Cruise controls on steering wheel
  • Curb weight: 5,686 lbs.
  • Double wishbone front suspension
  • Double wishbone rear suspension
  • Dusk sensing headlights
  • Four-wheel Independent Suspension
  • Front and rear suspension stabilizer bars
  • Front Head Room: 39.7"
  • Front Hip Room: 63.0"
  • Front Leg Room: 41.2"
  • Front Shoulder Room: 63.4"
  • Front Ventilated disc brakes
  • Fuel Capacity: 28.0 gal.
  • Fuel Consumption: City: 13 mpg
  • Fuel Consumption: Highway: 17 mpg
  • Fuel Type: Regular unleaded
  • Gross vehicle weight: 7,300 lbs.
  • Headlights off auto delay
  • Heated driver mirror
  • Heated passenger mirror
  • In-Dash single CD player
  • Independent front suspension classification
  • Independent rear suspension
  • Instrumentation: Low fuel level
  • Manual front air conditioning
  • Manufacturer's 0-60mph acceleration time (seconds): 9.3 s
  • Max cargo capacity: 110 cu.ft.
  • Overall height: 77.6"
  • Overall Length: 205.8"
  • Overall Width: 78.7"
  • Overhead console: Full with storage
  • Passenger Airbag
  • Plastic/rubber shift knob trim
  • Power Adjustable Pedals
  • Power remote driver mirror adjustment
  • Power remote passenger mirror adjustment
  • Power windows
  • Privacy glass: Deep
  • Radio Data System
  • Rear center seatbelt: 3-
  • Rear Head Room: 39.8"
  • Rear Hip Room: 62.4"
  • Rear Leg Room: 38.7"
  • Rear Shoulder Room: 64.3"
  • Rear Stabilizer Bar: Regular
  • Regular front stabilizer bar
  • Seatbelt pretensioners: Front
  • Spare Tire Mount Location: Underbody w/crankdown
  • Speed Sensitive Audio Volume Control
  • Speed-proportional power steering
  • Steel spare wheel rim
  • Suspension class: Regular
  • Tachometer
  • Tilt-adjustable steering wheel
  • Total Number of Speakers: 4
  • Trailer hitch
  • Variable intermittent front wipers
  • Vehicle Emissions: ULEV
  • Wheel Diameter: 17
  • Wheel Width: 7.5
  • Wheelbase: 119.0"
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 61800

Why buy from The White House No commissioned salespeople deal direct with the President!!

Auto Services in Missouri

Unnerstall Tire & Muffler ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers, Automobile Inspection Stations & Services
Address: 1 E 5th St, Innsbrook
Phone: (636) 239-5494

Tim`s Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 4101 Waco Rd Unit E, Centralia
Phone: (573) 474-6910

St Charles Foreign Car Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Used Car Dealers, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 1205 N 2nd St, Breckenridge-Hills
Phone: (636) 946-7023

Scherer Auto Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 6447 State Highway H, Benton
Phone: (573) 545-4111

Rogers Auto Center ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Restoration-Antique & Classic
Address: 1809 N State Route 291, Peculiar
Phone: (816) 380-7200

Rev Diy Automotive Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Car Wash
Address: 1900 Old Saint James Rd, Vichy
Phone: (573) 458-0030

Auto blog

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

Tue, Jul 14 2020

The 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.

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Tue, Feb 11 2014

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Tue, 05 Feb 2013

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.