2014 Ford Escape Se on 2040-cars
2840 5th Ave, Huntington, West Virginia, United States
Engine:1.6L I4 16V GDI DOHC Turbo
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FMCU9GX9EUD23550
Stock Num: A40096
Make: Ford
Model: Escape SE
Year: 2014
Exterior Color: White
Options: Drive Type: 4WD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Mileage: 32
Our Internet Sales Department is EAGER to help you with your Online Purchasing Needs..... If you need help with a price or anything regarding a new vehicle inquiry, please contact us at 877-848-3043.
Ford Escape for Sale
- 2014 ford escape se(US $29,390.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $32,815.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $33,250.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $36,020.00)
- 2014 ford escape se(US $29,785.00)
- 2014 ford escape titanium(US $30,445.00)
Auto Services in West Virginia
Valley Collision Repair Inc ★★★★★
S & M Auto Repair ★★★★★
Ohio Valley Tire ★★★★★
I-77 Ford ★★★★★
Felouzis Auto Repair ★★★★★
Atkins Transmission & Auto ★★★★★
Auto blog
Next-gen Ford Cobra Jet development underway, but will it be a Mustang?
Wed, 09 Oct 2013Ford might be stepping away from the NHRA, but it isn't abandoning drag racing altogether. Hot Rod says that Ford confirmed a next-gen Cobra Jet factory drag racer is in the works, but the report also speculates that a new Cobra Jet could switch away from the Mustang nameplate.
Even though talk of a new Cobra Jet coincides with the all-new 2015 Mustang, the lack of confirmation for the dragster's platform leaves Hot Rod to guess that the car might switch to another platform - specifically a front-drive-based, unibody car like the Fusion or Taurus. We'd hate to think of a world with a NASCAR-ized dragster from Ford Racing, but it's also highly unlikely that the Mustang Cobra Jet would step away from its quarter-mile rivals like the Chevy COPO Camaro and Dodge Challenger Drag Pak.
Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015
Tue, Feb 11 2014Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.
Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel
Mon, Apr 14 2014When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).