2008 Ford E-350 12-passenger Van 5.4l V8 Dvd Ent 63k Mi Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars
Stafford, Texas, United States
Ford E-Series Van for Sale
Ford : 2007 e250 ext tuscany hightop conversion 14-pass 31k orig miles
1998 ford e 250 - black passenger shuttle van
1997 ford e-350 econoline base extended cargo van 2-door 7.3l(US $5,000.00)
2004 ford e-150 xl cargo van 4.6l v8 cruise control 56k texas direct auto(US $10,980.00)
2010 ford e-350 15-passenger park assist cd player 59k texas direct auto(US $17,980.00)
2004 ford e-150 chateau 7-pass leather alloy wheels 59k texas direct auto(US $11,980.00)
Auto Services in Texas
Woodway Car Center ★★★★★
Woods Paint & Body ★★★★★
Wilson Paint & Body Shop ★★★★★
WHITAKERS Auto Body & Paint ★★★★★
Westerly Tire & Automotive Inc ★★★★★
VIP Engine Installation ★★★★★
Auto blog
2014 Roush Stage 3 Mustang
Fri, 26 Jul 2013Up until now, it's been some years since I managed to get behind the wheel of the hot Mustangs tuned by the folks at Roush Performance. My memories of those vehicles are fond, as the Roush up-fits usually make for better-driving examples of the iconic Ford pony, with better-tuned suspensions, excellent short-shift kits and, of course, huge additions of power. The wake-your-neighbors aural characteristics of these cars have been nothing short of outstanding, too.
But in the years since my last experience with the Roush formula, Ford's own development team has churned out some pretty potent 'Stangs. We currently live in a world where the Blue Oval will sell you a Mustang with 662 horsepower from the factory, and the recently departed Boss 302 remains one of the best Mustangs - and best sports coupes - the Autoblog crew has ever driven.
So with great-driving and hugely powerful Mustangs coming straight off the line at Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant, does the Roush package still offer that extra special something to make it stand out? I spent a week with a Stage 3 coupe to find out.
Ford starting up 2.0L EcoBoost engine production in Ohio
Fri, 22 Feb 2013Joe Hinrichs, Ford's President of The Americas (pictured above), announced today that in late 2014, the automaker will be building the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder at its Cleveland Engine Plant, a move requiring a $200-million investment and the hiring of 450 new employees. European-built Ford products will continue to source this engine from the Valencia, Spain plant where all of these EcoBoost four-cylinder engines are currently built, and the new Cleveland engines will be used for all North American-made models.
Ford is planning to build its popular EcoBoost engines regionally to maximize production capacity and meet customer demand. Last year, Ford sold 334,364 vehicles with EcoBoost engines in the US alone, and that number is expected to swell to more than 500,000 by the end of this year, with global sales expected to total 1.6 million. By 2015, Ford says that 95 percent of its nameplates will offer an EcoBoost engine.
One such vehicle that could be adding an EcoBoost engine, according to Automotive News, is none other than the 2015 Ford Mustang. The report says that Ford could use either the 2.0-liter EcoBoost or an upcoming 2.3-liter EcoBoost in the sixth-generation pony car.
Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy
Thu, Jan 8 2015With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.