Loaded & Factory Certified~navigation~moonroof~leather~parking Tech~19s! on 2040-cars
Sterling, Virginia, United States
For Sale By:Dealer
Engine:4
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:Sedan
Vehicle Title:Clear
Certified pre-owned
Year: 2013
Make: Ford
Model: Fusion
Disability Equipped: No
Doors: 4
Mileage: 34,809
Drivetrain: Front Wheel Drive
Sub Model: Titanium
Trim: Titanium Sedan 4-Door
Exterior Color: Black
Drive Type: FWD
Interior Color: Black
Number of Cylinders: 4
Ford Fusion for Sale
2012 ford fusion 4door se(US $13,500.00)
2012 ford fusion sel... low miles.. needs work(US $8,700.00)
2012 ford fusion sel... low miles.. needs work(US $8,500.00)
Factory certified~premium warranty~one-owner~navigation~moonroof~v6~leather!(US $16,830.00)
2012 ford fusion sel one owner clean car fax certified best color must see(US $12,975.00)
We finance! 2012 se used certified 3l v6 24v automatic fwd sedan premium
Auto Services in Virginia
Wade`s First Stop Auto Repair ★★★★★
Virginia Tire & Auto of Ashburn ★★★★★
The Body Works of VA INC ★★★★★
Superior Transmission Service Inc ★★★★★
Straight Up Automotive Service ★★★★★
Steve`s Towing ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test
Tue, Oct 25 2016The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video:
We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton
Tue, Jul 14 2020The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender. Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys. As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more. On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.
Ford recalling 2015 Mustang for fuel line leak, 20K Transit Connects for plastic panel
Fri, Dec 5 2014Ford is recalling 738 examples of the 2015 2015 Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine – 712 in the US, 16 in Canada. A fuel pressure sensor might have been installed incorrectly on the affected cars, and that could result in a fuel leak. At the time of writing the company hasn't heard any reports of any incidents related to the issue, and parties with affected vehicles can take them to the dealer to have the fuel tube assembly replaced free of charge. The 2014 Transit Connect Cargo Van is also the subject of a safety recall, due to a possible problem with adhesive used on the exterior plastic panel on the sliding doors. There are 19,825 units covered by that recall, which dealers will also repair free of charge. You can find more information on both bulletins in the press releases below. Ford Issues Safety Recall for Certain 2015 Mustang Vehicles in North America for Fuel Pressure Sensor Issue Dec 4, 2014 | DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 730 2015 Ford Mustang vehicles in North America (actual 728) for a potential fuel line leak. A fuel pressure sensor, which is part of the fuel supply tube assembly, may have been installed incorrectly, potentially resulting in a pressurized fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire. Ford is not aware of any fires, accidents or injuries related to this condition. Affected vehicles include certain 2015 Ford Mustangs equipped with 2.3-liter engines built at Flat Rock Assembly Plant, Sept. 25, 2014 to Oct. 9, 2014. Ford is aware of 712 vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 16 in Canada. These totals are as of Dec. 3, 2014. Dealers will replace the fuel supply tube assembly at no cost to the customer. *** Ford Issues Safety Recall for Certain 2014 Transit Connect Cargo Van Vehicles in North America for Issue with the Plastic Panel on the Sliding Doors Dec 4, 2014 | DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 20,000 2014 Transit Connect cargo van vehicles in North America (actual 19,825) for an issue with adhesion of an exterior plastic panel to the sliding doors. This issue may result in noise, a water leak, a loose panel, or separation of the plastic panel from the vehicle while driving, potentially increasing the risk of an accident or injury. Ford is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this condition.
2040Cars.com © 2012-2025. All Rights Reserved.
Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the 2040Cars User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
0.048 s, 7811 u