2014 Ford F150 Xlt on 2040-cars
115 Regency Park, O'Fallon, Illinois, United States
Engine:3.7L V6 24V MPFI DOHC
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FTEX1CM9EFB09664
Stock Num: 47822
Make: Ford
Model: F150 XLT
Year: 2014
Exterior Color: Blue
Options: Drive Type: RWD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 11
Auffenberg Ford North has the area's best New selection of Fords. Mustangs, F150, Fusion....the list goes on and we have them ALL! Cars, Trucks and SUV's. We offer superior sales and service for our valued customers. We are committed to serving our friends and customers and look forward to hearing from you
Ford F-150 for Sale
2014 ford f150(US $28,542.00)
2014 ford f150 xlt(US $35,721.00)
2014 ford f150 lariat(US $37,052.00)
2013 ford f150 lariat(US $40,985.00)
2014 ford f150 lariat(US $41,551.00)
2014 ford f150(US $41,824.00)
Auto Services in Illinois
Xtreme City Motorsports ★★★★★
Westchester Automotive Repair Inc ★★★★★
Warson Auto Plaza ★★★★★
Voegtle`s Auto Service Inc ★★★★★
Thom`s Four Wheel & Auto Svc ★★★★★
Thomas Toyota ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy
Thu, Jan 8 2015With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.
2015 Ford Focus
Tue, 14 Oct 2014Sitting down at the pre-drive briefing with Ford engineers ahead of sampling the refreshed 2015 Focus, water bottles clinked as we wet our whistles before Q&A. While pouring a glass, we noticed something stamped on the bottle label: "1L." One liter. We were palming the exact displacement of the EcoBoost engine our group was about to drive. This was undoubtedly coincidence (such bottles litter every conference and dinner table in Europe) but it served to drive home just how small the total swept volume of Ford's wunderkind powerplant really is. It's tiny.
Of course, this isn't our first run-in with the little triple - we've sampled its turbocharged charms before in Ford's smaller Fiesta. At that time, we found it had plenty of poke for the subcompact, but the larger C-segment Focus carries around another 450 pounds or so and pushes a wider profile through the air. Would the three-cylinder have the stuffing to make the most of the Focus' athletic chassis, or would it be a letdown? Would it be the same as it was when we tested it in a Euro-spec Focus a couple of years ago? There was nothing left for it but to head out on the bucolic roads surrounding Versailles the day after the Paris Motor Show and find out for ourselves.
2020 Ford Escape, Lincoln Corsair ace crash tests, earn Top Safety Pick from IIHS
Fri, Nov 15 2019The redesigned 2020 Ford Escape and its platform-mate, the 2020 Lincoln Corsair, have both just completed their bout of crash tests at the hands of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and while they did not emerge unscathed, they did come away with the agency's Top Safety Pick Award. One caveat: The rating only applies to the Escape equipped with the available LED headlights, which were deemed Acceptable. Similarly, the Corsair needs the available curve-adaptive LED headlights, also rated Acceptable, in order to achieve Top Safety Pick. The Escape's standard halogen headlights scored only a Marginal rating, while the Corsair's base LED headlights were deemed Poor due to glare. Those low headlight ratings knock the vehicles out of contention for Top Safety Pick. Had either vehicle offered headlights able to achieve a Good rating, that would have been enough to get them the agency's Top Safety Pick+ rating. Outside of their headlights, the 2020 Escape and Corsair acquitted themselves well. The Escape saw a big improvement in the difficult small-overlap front crash test, going from a Poor result in the previous generation to Good with the new one. The Corsair performed identically, and both achieved Good ratings in all six crash tests. The IIHS also tests automatic emergency-braking systems, and the standard and optional systems in the Escape and the Corsair both earned Superior ratings.