2003 Ford Ranger Xlt Extended Cab Pickup 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars
Garrett, Indiana, United States
Engine:3.0L 182Cu. In. V6 FLEX OHV Naturally Aspirated
Vehicle Title:Clear
Body Type:Extended Cab Pickup
Fuel Type:FLEX
For Sale By:Private Seller
Exterior Color: Red
Make: Ford
Interior Color: Tan
Model: Ranger
Trim: XLT Extended Cab Pickup 4-Door
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Drive Type: RWD
Options: CD Player
Number of Cylinders: 6
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows
Disability Equipped: No
Mileage: 98,000
Sub Model: xlt
i am selling my 2003 Ford Ranger xlt. its red with tan interior. has 98,000 miles good tires. it is rear wheel drive but i still like to put it through the mud and keep it nice and clean. i have done regular maintenance on it. i am asking for pay off i want to get a bigger truck for what im paying monthly for this small truck. im asking $9,000 for pay off they wont give me a discount for paying it off early which is stupid. any questions you can email me or text me on my cell 260-445-6098 dougsdaddy2006@yahoo.com
Ford Ranger for Sale
2001 ford ranger pickup 2-door 2.5l
11 ford ranger xl reg cab - warranty - one owner florida truck - original paint(US $12,900.00)
04 ford ranger xlt 4x4 extended cab no reserve
2001 ford ranger xl extended cab pickup 4-door 3.0l special edition
1984 ford ranger custom hot rod 302/345hp tubbed(US $10,000.00)
2008 ford ranger extended cab 4x4 pickup racks included must see 4wd four wheel(US $12,995.00)
Auto Services in Indiana
Zamudio Auto Sales ★★★★★
Westgate Chrysler Jeep Dodge ★★★★★
Tom Roush Lincoln Mazda ★★★★★
Tim`s Wrecker Service & Garage ★★★★★
Superior Towing ★★★★★
Stan`s Auto Electric Inc ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford Mondeo with 1.5-liter EcoBoost debuts in China
Sat, 20 Apr 2013Does the car above, posing fancifully in white, look familiar? Well, it should. Although it wears Mondeo badges in the form you see above for the Chinese market - as it does in Europe - the car is basically the same thing sold in the US as the Ford Fusion. Of course, it's what's under that shapely skin that counts.
Ford has chosen the Shanghai Motor Show as the venue with which to unveil its 1.5-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. We'd heard about the engine before, but now we have a few performance estimates to share: 133 kW of power (about 178 horsepower) and 240 Nm of torque (about 177 pound-feet).
Those numbers pretty much confirm previous rumors indicating about 177 in each category, and it's right on par with what Ford's own 1.6-liter EcoBoost produces. Ford is claiming best-in-class fuel economy as well, but no specific figures have yet been provided. In any case, we'll surely have all the data soon enough, as the 1.5-liter mill is destined for the US Fusion in 2014.
J Mays retiring from Ford design, succeeded by Moray Callum
Tue, 05 Nov 2013Ford's highly influential head of design, J Mays, has announced that he'll be retiring from his position after 33 years in the industry, 16 of which were at the Dearborn, MI-based company. Upon departure, he'll be succeeded as group vice president of design by Moray Callum. If that last name sounds familiar, yes, he's the brother of Jaguar's Ian Callum.
It's difficult to explain just how big of a role Mays had on not just Ford's design over the years, but on the entire industry. Before heading to Dearborn, Mays worked for Audi, BMW and then Volkswagen, where he was involved in concept cars that paved the way for design icons like the first-generation Audi TT and the Volkswagen New Beetle. As for his Ford resume, it's extensive.
Mays joined the company in 1997 as design director for Ford, Lincoln, Mercury and Mazda, as well as the Premier Automotive Group (Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar and Aston Martin). He was heavily involved in the Ford Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, Taurus, F-150 and Mustang, while also contributing to concept cars like the Atlas, Evos, 427, Forty-Nine, Shelby GR-1, Lincoln MKZ and the MKC.
Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]
Mon, 22 Jul 2013Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.