Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

02 F350 Lariat (7.3) Power-stroke (1-owner) Carfax 4wd Custom-flat-bed New-tires on 2040-cars

US $13,995.00
Year:2002 Mileage:239891 Color: Black
Location:

Houston, Texas, United States

Houston, Texas, United States

Auto Services in Texas

World Tech Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automotive Tune Up Service
Address: 213 E Buckingham Rd Ste 106, Fate
Phone: (972) 414-5292

Western Auto ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Tire Dealers, Wheels
Address: 106 W Clayton St, Hull
Phone: (936) 258-3181

Victor`s Auto Sales ★★★★★

New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 5808 Manor Rd, Geneva
Phone: (512) 270-5635

Tune`s & Tint ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Glass Coating & Tinting Materials, Consumer Electronics
Address: Booker
Phone: (806) 373-8863

Truman Motors ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers
Address: 5701 Burnet Rd Ste B., Cedar-Park
Phone: (512) 765-4494

True Image Productions ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: N Waddill St, Copeville
Phone: (972) 542-4445

Auto blog

Why Ford's Alan Mulally would be right for Microsoft, or any company

Thu, 03 Oct 2013



That Mulally was seriously being considered says a great deal about Microsoft and Mulally.
It appears that the chatter about Ford CEO Alan Mulally possibly leaving early to take over as CEO of Microsoft is losing air pretty fast. What's pretty interesting is that it got any traction in the first place.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

Tue, Feb 21 2023

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

Tue, Jun 17 2014

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.