1999 Toyota Corolla Ve 1.8l 4 Cylinder Auto Low Mileage 1 Owner Great On Gas on 2040-cars
Pompano Beach, Florida, United States
Toyota Corolla for Sale
- 2002 toyota corolla le 1.8l 4 cylinder auto low mileage great on gas loaded(US $6,900.00)
- 2011 toyota corolla le
- 2013 toyota corolla le sedan 4-door 1.8l(US $13,995.00)
- 1977 toyota corolla sr5 lift back restored with upgrades razor straight body
- 2012 toyota corolla s, navigation! roof! spoiler! 1 ownr! clean carfax! loaded!!(US $15,900.00)
- 2012 used 1.8l i4 16v fwd sedan 35k miles(US $13,998.00)
Auto Services in Florida
Yow`s Automotive Machine ★★★★★
Xtreme Car Installation ★★★★★
Whitt Rentals ★★★★★
Vlads Autobahn LLC ★★★★★
Village Ford ★★★★★
Ultimate Euro Repair ★★★★★
Auto blog
Toyota passes BMW as most valuable car brand
Tue, 21 May 2013An annual market study of the strongest brands across various industries has seen Toyota leapfrog BMW as the world's most valuable automotive brand. Toyota's 2013 brand value rose to $24.5 billion, up 12 percent versus 2012 numbers according to market research company Millward Brown's BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands list. BMW's value fell slightly; down by 2 percent to a total of $24 billion.
Mercedes-Benz finished in third place in the automotive category, up 11 percent from 2012 for a valuation of $18 billion. Honda ($12.4 billion, down 2 percent) and Nissan ($10.2 billion, up 3 percent) rounded out the top five for the category. Volkswagen was the only other auto brand that finished in the top 100 overall, in 100th place. Audi made the greatest percentage gain over 2012, up 18 percent to $5.5 billion, but finished outside of the top 100.
Technology companies dominated the overall list, with Apple, Google and IBM ranking one through three. Couture brand Prada was 2013's biggest gainer, rising by 63 percent over 2012.
Bring back the Bronco! Trademarks we hope are actually (someday) future car names
Tue, Mar 17 2015Trademark filings are the tea leaves of the auto industry. Read them carefully – and interpret them correctly – and you might be previewing an automaker's future product plans. Yes, they're routinely filed to maintain the rights to an iconic name. And sometimes they're only for toys and clothing. But not always. Sometimes, the truth is right in front of us. The trademark is required because a company actually wants to use the name on a new car. With that in mind, here's a list of intriguing trademark filings we want to see go from paperwork to production reality. Trademark: Bronco Company: Ford Previous Use: The Bronco was a long-running SUV that lived from 1966-1996. It's one of America's original SUVs and was responsible for the increased popularity of the segment. Still, it's best known as O.J. Simpson's would-be getaway car. We think: The Bronco was an icon. Everyone seems to want a Wrangler-fighter – Ford used to have a good one. Enough time has passed that the O.J. police chase isn't the immediate image conjured by the Bronco anymore. Even if we're doing a wish list in no particular order, the Bronco still finds its way to the top. For now (unfortunately), it's just federal paperwork. Rumors on this one can get especially heated. The official word from a Ford spokesman is: "Companies renew trademark filings to maintain ownership and control of the mark, even if it is not currently used. Ford values the iconic Bronco name and history." Trademarks: Aviator, AV8R Company: Ford Previous Use: The Aviator was one of the shortest-run Lincolns ever, lasting for the 2003-2005 model years. It never found the sales success of the Ford Explorer, with which it shared a platform. We Think: The Aviator name no longer fits with Lincoln's naming nomenclature. Too bad, it's better than any other name Lincoln currently uses, save for its former big brother, the Navigator. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree, though. Ford has made several customized, aviation themed-Mustangs in the past, including one called the Mustang AV8R in 2008, which had cues from the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet. It sold for $500,000 at auction, and the glass roof – which is reminiscent of a fighter jet cockpit – helped Ford popularize the feature. Trademark: EcoBeast Company: Ford Previous Use: None by major carmakers.
Ford fights back against patent trolls
Fri, Feb 13 2015Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.