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

2012 Ford Explorer 4wd 4dr Xlt Abs Cruise Roof Rack Sirius Satellite Sync on 2040-cars

Year:2012 Mileage:24020 Color: White /
 Tan
Location:

Richmond, Texas, United States

Richmond, Texas, United States
Advertising:
Transmission:Automatic
Vehicle Title:Clear
VIN: 1FMHK8D88CGB02780 Year: 2012
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag, Side Airbags
Make: Ford
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows
Model: Explorer
Vehicle Inspection: Vehicle has been Inspected
Mileage: 24,020
CapType: <NONE>
Sub Model: 4WD 4dr XLT
FuelType: Gasoline
Exterior Color: White
Listing Type: Pre-Owned
Interior Color: Tan
Certification: None
Warranty: Unspecified
BodyType: SUV
Cylinders: 6 - Cyl.
Options: 4-Wheel Drive, CD Player
DriveTrain: FOUR WHEEL DRIVE
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. ... 

Auto Services in Texas

WorldPac ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Parts, Supplies & Accessories-Wholesale & Manufacturers
Address: 2100 Handley Ederville Rd, Euless
Phone: (817) 590-8332

VICTORY AUTO BODY ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 3841 Apollo Rd, Portland
Phone: (361) 334-5775

US 90 Motors ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 641 W Old US Highway 90, Balcones-Heights
Phone: (210) 438-9090

Unlimited PowerSports Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Storage, Boat Storage
Address: 12024 W Highway 290, Bula
Phone: (512) 894-4792

Twist`d Steel Paint and Body, LLC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 457A W Hufsmith Rd, Jersey-Village
Phone: (281) 640-1273

Transco Transmission ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission Parts
Address: 2109 Avenue H, Fulshear
Phone: (281) 342-8772

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.

Ford exec downplays idea of aluminum-intensive cars

Thu, Jan 15 2015

Ford certainly made waves when it rolled out the all-new 2015 F-150 made primarily out of aluminum. But while trimming weight off its vehicles is a top priority for the Detroit automaker, we shouldn't expect the lightweight metal to be used as widely on passenger cars as it has been on its new pickup. Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress on Wednesday, top Ford exec Joe Hinrichs said that using aluminum in passenger cars isn't as beneficial as it is in trucks – primarily because the weight savings isn't as dramatic, or as deeply needed. Though improved fuel economy is certainly one advantage of aluminum construction in a truck like the F-150, low prices at the pump have prompted Ford to highlight another advantage, and that's capability: With less weight on its own, a lighter-weight truck can carry and tow more than a heavier one, because it all comes down to combined weight ratings. Ford is expected to make the new F-Series Super Duty largely out of aluminum for the same reasons, and we wouldn't be surprised to see the next Expedition use the material as well. But while certain components in Ford passenger cars will be made of aluminum, we shouldn't expect entire chassis and bodywork assemblies to use the material as extensively as on the F-150, or on more upscale passenger cars from the likes of Audi or Jaguar. Dearborn is, however, investing in other lightweight materials. It has a joint venture with Dow Chemical to put carbon fiber into mass production, much as BMW has with its i3. The Blue Oval will use a combination of carbon and aluminum on its 2017 GT supercar, and it has stripped weight by removing amenities from the 2016 Mustang GT350R, but apparently neither is a method Ford can practically apply to its volume models. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2015 Ford F-150 View 36 Photos News Source: TheDetroitBureau.com, Automotive News - sub. req.Tip: Ford Green Ford aluminum joe hinrichs

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.