2015 Ford Explorer Xlt on 2040-cars
10700 New Haven Rd, Harrison, Ohio, United States
Engine:3.5L V6 24V MPFI DOHC
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1FM5K8D88FGA07725
Stock Num: F4966
Make: Ford
Model: Explorer XLT
Year: 2015
Exterior Color: White Platinum
Options: Drive Type: 4WD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
GRAND OPENING OF THE NEWEST FORD SHOWROOM **Oil Changes 4 Life** No kidding!! Best online prices!! A++ rating with the BBB, Family Owned and operated since 1940's Cronin Ford/Kia has a lot full of deals, and if we don't have it we can get it fast. Here is a list of options we can get you. 3rd Row Seats, CD Player, Cruise Control, DVD Player, Heated Seats, Leather Seats, Navigation, Sunroof, AWD / 4WD, New, Used, Certified, CPO, warranty, ect we will get it for you. Must print and present at time of arrival to receive internet pricing. In Stock only!! It the best deal in town!! So use some ink and paper and print this out!!
Ford Explorer Sport for Sale
- 2012 ford explorer limited(US $31,528.00)
- 2014 ford explorer limited(US $42,295.00)
- 2012 ford explorer xlt(US $28,502.00)
- 2015 ford explorer xlt(US $38,765.00)
- 2013 ford explorer xlt(US $29,797.00)
- 2014 ford explorer xlt(US $34,483.00)
Auto Services in Ohio
Whitesel Body Shop ★★★★★
Walker`s Transmission Service ★★★★★
Uncle Sam`s Auto Center ★★★★★
Trinity Automotive ★★★★★
Trails West Custom Truck 4x4 Super Center ★★★★★
Stone`s Auto Service Inc ★★★★★
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.
10 automakers sued over keyless ignitions
Thu, Aug 27 2015Keyless ignition has rapidly proliferated throughout the auto industry to become a fairly normal feature on new cars. It's supposed to offer the convenience of keeping the fob in your pocket and just pressing a button to drive away. However, ten major automakers are now being sued in US District Court over claims that the system is dangerous, Reuters reports. The suit alleges that people are forgetting to shut off the engine, and the lack of an idle timer is the cause for 13 deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning and multiple injuries. The suit currently includes 28 plaintiffs, according to Reuters, but the lawyers are asking for class-action status to potentially add many more. The case goes after a major swath of the industry, including BMW, Daimler, FCA, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, plus their related brands like Acura, Infiniti, Mini, and Lexus. In all, over five million vehicles are affected. The assertion here is that people walk away from their vehicle without shutting it off because they believe the engine shuts off automatically. If parked in a garage, carbon monoxide can build up, leading to poisoning. The lawyers claim automakers know this is a problem and also cite 27 complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the issue, according to Reuters. The plaintiffs are asking for an automatic shut-off and damages from the companies. These concerns have come up before, though. Toyota previously faced a lawsuit over a carbon monoxide death after a woman accidentally left her Lexus running. Also earlier this year, GM recalled 64,186 examples of the 2011-2013 Chevrolet Volt because owners weren't shutting them off. The problem resulted in two injuries, and the company released a software update to limit the idling time.
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.