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

2010 Roush Ford Mustang Gt Premium Coupe 427 Supercharged Grabber Blue 16k Miles on 2040-cars

Year:2010 Mileage:16058
Location:

Painesville, Ohio, United States

Painesville, Ohio, United States
Advertising:

Ford Mustang Roush GT Premium Coupe Manual Blue 16058 8-Cylinder V8, 4.6L; SOHC 24V2010 Coupe Auto XChange 4405490377

Auto Services in Ohio

World Auto Parts ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 1240 Carnegie Ave, Highland-Hills
Phone: (216) 344-9000

West Park Shell Auto Care ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Body Parts
Address: 13960 Lorain Ave, North-Olmsted
Phone: (216) 252-5086

Waterloo Transmission ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Transmissions-Other, Auto Transmission
Address: 3603 Cleveland Ave NW, East-Sparta
Phone: (330) 754-0862

Walt`s Auto Inc ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Used & Rebuilt Auto Parts, Automobile Salvage
Address: 3551 Springfield Xenia Rd, Cable
Phone: (800) 325-7564

Transmission Engine Pros ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Engine Rebuilding & Exchange, Auto Transmission
Address: 5288 Pearl Rd, Hinckley
Phone: (216) 672-0322

Total Auto Glass ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Windshield Repair, Glass-Auto, Plate, Window, Etc
Address: 6475 E Main St, Lockbourne
Phone: (614) 328-8566

Auto blog

The biggest gas-guzzlers of 2024: 'The Meanest List' is the opposite of greenest cars

Thu, Mar 14 2024

In some circles — especially some automotive circles — bigger is better. This explains the Hummer, for example. In its so-called “Meanest List” of a dozen models, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) makes no apologies for berating “the worst-performing mass market automobiles” sold in 2024 in the U.S. The most diminutive car on the list is a Chevy Corvette Z06. At the top of this particular heap is the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, a gas-powered SUV that the environmental agency says was “the worst-performing vehicle of the more than 1,200 models assessed by Greener Cars and has an annual fuel cost over $4,000.” Not to mention its MSRP of around $184,000. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 Gas 20 $184,000 $4,242 2 Ram 1500 TRX 4x4 Gas 22 $98,335 $3,819 3 Ford F150 Raptor R Gas 24 $79,975 $3,777 4 Cadillac Escalade V Gas 26 $152,295 $3,388 5 Dodge Durango SRT Gas 26 $74,995 $3,332 6 Jeep Wrangler 4dr 4X4 Gas 27 $35,895 $3,260 7 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 4x4 Gas 28 $91,945 $3,058 8 Mercedes-Benz G550 Gas 28 $143,000 $3,186 9 GMC Hummer EV SUV EV 29 $98,845 $1,746 10 GMC Sierra Gas 29 $37,700 $3,069 11 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Gas 30 $114,395 $3,169 12 Mercedes-Benz Maybach S680 Gas 30 $234,300 $3,031 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In terms of numbers, the dirty dozen of the meanest includes seven SUVs and three trucks. Lonely at the middle of the list is the sole electric, the GMC Hummer EV, which weighs in at 9,000 pounds. The council notes that “though EVs have lower emissions than similarly sized gasoline models, the Hummer demonstrates that size and efficiency, not just fuel source, are important factors in a carÂ’s environmental impact.” ItÂ’s also worth reminding prospective buyers that the average fuel cost of a vehicle on the “Greenest List” eats up only a fifth of the fuel cost of a vehicle on the Meanest List, “showing that greener options can also be more affordable.” The ACEEE also put out a "Greener List" of efficient gasoline and hybrid cars that don't require plugging in.  By the Numbers Green Cadillac Chevrolet Dodge Ford GMC Hummer Jeep Maybach Mercedes-Benz RAM Emissions Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Truck SUV Electric Hybrid

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

Mon, Oct 10 2016

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.

Quitting Mexico factory helps bring down Ford earnings $200 million in 2016

Thu, Jan 26 2017

Ford released its 2016 earnings report this morning, and despite a fourth quarter net loss it proved to be the automaker's second most successful year ever, following record breaking numbers in 2015. Losses for the year come from a number of sources, including accounting changes and a $200 million hit for backing out of the small-car factory in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Despite the loss, come March 9 about 56,000 UAW-represented employees will receive a $9,000 profit-sharing check. That, like most of Ford's other 2016 metrics, is slightly down from the year before, but it's still the second best profit-sharing payment ever. Total net income was $4.6 billion, down $2.8 billion from 2015. Total revenue for 2016 was $151.8 billion, up $2.2 billion. Ford's earnings report lists a global market share of 7.6 percent, down a tenth from 2015. Ford's European and Asia-Pacific markets posted their best and second best pre-tax profits respectively. The South American, Middle East, and African markets all took hits because of unstable economies and other external factors. Ford expects to have another down year in 2017 as it invests in new and emerging markets and focuses more on its mobility projects.Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Ford via Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Earnings/Financials Plants/Manufacturing UAW/Unions Ford Lincoln Mexico ford earnings