2001 Ford F-150 Xl Standard Cab Pickup 2-door 4.2l on 2040-cars
Godley, Texas, United States
Engine:4.2L 256Cu. In. V6 GAS OHV Naturally Aspirated
Vehicle Title:Salvage
Body Type:Standard Cab Pickup
Fuel Type:GAS
For Sale By:Private Seller
Exterior Color: Black
Make: Ford
Interior Color: Gray
Model: F-150
Trim: XL Standard Cab Pickup 2-Door
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Drive Type: RWD
Options: Cassette Player, 4-Wheel Drive, CD Player
Number of Cylinders: 6
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Power Locks, Power Windows
Disability Equipped: No
Mileage: 135,000
Sub Model: XL Sport
This truck is being sold as is.. I bought it over a year ago without the title and I'm not to sure on how to get one, I have had to replace brakes, spark plugs, fuel filter, oil changed, battery with lifetime warranty,ignition was just replaced which is why the key will need to be reprogrammed by the ford house or a local locksmith but the truck will have to be towed from my residents. The truck has a good motor and good transmission and I have replaced just about everything else already. It does have a dent in the tailgate my fianc'e backed into it so you could replace it but it doesn't effect the truck in any way besides the appearance, it's never been in a wreck or had any leans filled on it and has only had 1 other owner besides myself. I have new tires but they are not on the truck yet but are included. Like I said before I do not have a title for this truck and I'm selling it as it is. Thank you and good luck
Ford F-150 for Sale
2003 ford f-150 xlt rwd automatic red trailer hitch cruise control 4-wheel abs
We finance!! 2007 ford f-150 fx4 off-road 4x4 lift roof heated seats texas auto(US $23,998.00)
White/black leather sunroof supercrew 4x2 s 5.4l 4 doors we finace trade ins
2006 ford f-150 fx4 crew cab pickup 4-door 5.4l(US $15,500.00)
1996 ford f150 xlt(US $3,500.00)
2011 svt raptor 6.2 v8 super crew 4x4 38k low miles navigation remote start(US $44,912.00)
Auto Services in Texas
Woodway Car Center ★★★★★
Woods Paint & Body ★★★★★
Wilson Paint & Body Shop ★★★★★
WHITAKERS Auto Body & Paint ★★★★★
Westerly Tire & Automotive Inc ★★★★★
VIP Engine Installation ★★★★★
Auto blog
EU formally questions French government assistance of Peugeot's finance arm
Fri, 28 Dec 2012Recently, the finance arm of PSA/Peugeot-Citroën was in such debt trouble that it was pricing itself out of the car loan market. The rates it was paying to service its debt, which was rated one step above junk, were so high that it was forced to charge car-buying customers higher rates than they could find elsewhere. This was adding to Peugeot's already impressive woes by sending revenue out the door to competitors.
Two months ago a deal was worked out with the French government whereby the state would provide 7 billion euro ($9 billion USD) in bonds to guarantee the finance arm's loans. The French government could nominate someone to join the Peugeot board, Peugeot would guarantee more French jobs, and on top of that deal, other banks would provide non-guaranteed loans. The government would take no equity stake in the car company.
Although not yet finalized, the arrangement is meant to create some breathing room for Peugeot Finance to lower its interest rates for customers, and a government-nominated board member, Louis Gallois, was recently named to Peugeot's supervisory board. The arrangement was also openly questioned by at least three competitors: Ford, Renault - which is 15-percent owned by the French government after it received state aid - and the German state of Lower Saxony, itself a 15-percent shareholder in Volkswagen.
Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test
Wed, Sep 29 2021The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:
Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid
Tue, Jun 17 2014It'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.