2007 Ford F-250 Crew Cab King Ranch Diesel Fx4 Lift 20" Wheels on 2040-cars
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Diesel
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Make: Ford
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Crew Cab
Model: F-250
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Mileage: 131,582
Sub Model: 4WD Crew Cab
Options: Leather Seats
Exterior Color: Brown
Power Options: Power Windows
Interior Color: Tan
Number of Cylinders: 8
Ford F-250 for Sale
1981 f-250 4x4 with miller trailblazer dc welder generator and torch(US $8,500.00)
4x4 lariat crew cab 6.2 v8 leather bed extender & liner 2011 ford f-250 38k(US $36,220.00)
New 2013 ford super duty f-250 4wd crew cab xlt diesel msrp $52105
2005 ford f-250 crew cab lariat fx4 diesel 20" wheels sunroof(US $16,990.00)
2006 ford f250 lariat crew cab short bed diesel fx4 4x4 one-owner(US $16,777.00)
2006 ford f250 fx4 lariat 4x4 lifted w/ new 35" tires one-owner clean carfax(US $15,900.00)
Auto Services in Louisiana
Southern Chevrolet Cadillac Inc ★★★★★
Southern Automotive Service ★★★★★
Siegen Car Care ★★★★★
Rossi Auto Service ★★★★★
Rayne Glass Services ★★★★★
Rayne Auto Repair ★★★★★
Auto blog
After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality
Fri, Jan 3 2014Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.
Driving a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle, and the 2021 Kia K5 arrives | Autoblog Podcast #634
Thu, Jul 2 2020In this week's Autoblog Podcast, Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore is joined by Road Test Editor Zac Palmer and News Editor Joel Stocksdale. They start with what they've been driving this week, including the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 diesel, 2020 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle. They move on to the news, covering the 2021 Kia K5, Geneva Motor Show (canceled again), Maserati's new engine and a new extended reality experience here at Autoblog. Finally, the guys spend some money for a listener who just had twins. Autoblog Podcast #634 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Rundown Cars we're driving 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 AT4 diesel 2020 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport 1964 Volkswagen Beetle 2021 Kia K5 Geneva Motor Show cancelled Maserati engine Extended Reality with the Mustang Mach-E Spend your money Feedback Email – Podcast@Autoblog.com Review the show on iTunes Related Video:
Ford files trademark application for 'Model E'
Fri, 27 Dec 2013In early December, Ford filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the name "Model E." Historically, Ford never produced a Model E, and while automakers are known to file for trademarks they never use, some have wondered if the application might be used for a concept car.
Based on other recent events, though, it could be a legal move. In 2000 Ford sued an online start-up called Model E over the similarity of that name to Ford's industry-shaping Model T, but the judge dismissed the case citing lack of proper grounds. In August 2013, Tesla applied for trademark registration for Model E, and at the time, Ford said it would review the application. Tesla actually made two applications for Model E, one for automobiles and structural parts therefore, the other for "providing maintenance and repair services for automobiles," and there are plenty of theories about what the name could be applied to.
The Published for Opposition date for Tesla's applications is December 31, 2013, after which anyone who thinks they'd be harmed by Tesla being granted the trademark gets 30 days to register their issues. This is just speculation, but Ford's application - which was filed for automobiles only - might be about protecting what it sees as unwelcome encroachment on the name Model T, protection it wasn't able to enforce before when the stakes were only online and much smaller.