2002 (02) Ford F-250 Super Duty 4wd Powerstrokediesel Towpackage Ac We Finance on 2040-cars
Bedford, Ohio, United States
Engine:8
Fuel Type:Diesel
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:Pickup Truck
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Regular Cab
Make: Ford
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Model: F-250
Mileage: 100,263
Sub Model: XL
Disability Equipped: No
Exterior Color: White
Doors: 2
Interior Color: Gray
Drive Train: Four Wheel Drive
Inspection: Vehicle has been inspected
Ford F-250 for Sale
- 2009 ford f250 diesel 4x4 backup camera 20k miles
- 2002 ford f-250 sd xl 2wd 7.3l v8 turbo diesel
- 2009 ford f250 supercab diesel 4x4 leather rear cam 46k texas direct auto(US $30,780.00)
- 1998 ford f250 lifted extended cab runs good no reserve
- 2006 ford f250 lariat crew cab diesel 4x4 short bed truck hwy miles $599 ship(US $15,500.00)
- Loaded-xlt prem pkg-fx4 pkg-6.7l diesel v8-loaded-1owner-warranty-pristine!!(US $38,888.00)
Auto Services in Ohio
World Auto Parts ★★★★★
West Park Shell Auto Care ★★★★★
Waterloo Transmission ★★★★★
Walt`s Auto Inc ★★★★★
Transmission Engine Pros ★★★★★
Total Auto Glass ★★★★★
Auto blog
2015 Ford Mustang vs. Camaro and Challenger [w/poll]
Thu, 17 Jul 2014The horsepower wars are tightening among the Detroit Three, as the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger are getting bigger, more powerful, and yes, more fuel efficient.
That came into sharper focus this week as more information was revealed about the most insane Challenger ever - the 707-horsepower Hellcat - followed quickly by Ford's in-depth showcase of the 2015 Mustang in Dearborn.
It's shaping up to be a golden age for enthusiasts, and what's under the hood is becoming more important than ever.
Ford Mustang chief engineer, mid-engine Corvette | Autoblog Podcast #488
Fri, Sep 16 2016Note: There were some technical difficulties that prevented some of you from downloading this week's podcast. The player and link below should be working now, and the file has reached iTunes and other feeds as well. Thanks to everyone who wrote in to let us know of the issues! On the podcast this week, we have some questions for Ford Chief Engineer Carl Widman. Plus, Associate Editor Reese Counts joins Mike Austin to talk about the latest news, most notably the spy photos of the upcoming mid-engine Corvette. We also chat about the Jaguar F-Type Coupe, the Nissan Armada, and why 0-60 mph is a stupid performance figure. And, of course, we get into some Spend My Money advice, telling strangers what car to buy. And new this week is a cost-no-object what-cars-would-you-buy game. The rundown is below. And don't forget to send us your questions, money-spend or otherwise, to podcast at autoblog dot com. Autoblog Podcast #488 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention Mid-engine Chevrolet Corvette spied Chevy Bolt EV comes with 238 miles of range Ford will sell self-driving cars by 2025 Jaguar F-Type Coupe 2017 Nissan Armada (yes, Mike knows it's not a Patrol) Ford Mustang Chief Engineer Carl Widman interview Spend My Money - we give purchase advice Why 0–60 mph is a stupid performance test Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 03:30 What we've been driving - 16:20 Carl Widman - 26:44 Spend my money - 37:03 New fun game - 51:48 0–60 mph is overrated - 56:50 Total Duration: 1:04:57 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 Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Chevrolet Ford Jaguar Nissan Car Buying nissan armada mid-engine corvette jaguar f-type coupe
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.