Crew Cab Long Bed Dually 7.3l Powerstroke Diesel Lariat 129k Miles on 2040-cars
Costa Mesa, California, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:7.3L POWERSTROKE
Fuel Type:Diesel
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Make: Ford
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Crew Cab
Model: F-350
Trim: LARIAT
Options: 4-Wheel Drive, Leather Seats, CD Player
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Drive Type: 4x4
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows, Power Seats
Mileage: 129,050
Exterior Color: White
Interior Color: Gray
Disability Equipped: No
Number of Cylinders: 8
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Ford F-350 for Sale
- Crew cab long bed srw 7.3l powerstroke diesel 90k miles lift'd rims tires mint!!(US $20,980.00)
- 2008 crew cab long box 1 ton tow hitch tint trailer brake sunroof tube step
- 2006 ford f350 srw xl power stroke 2wd rebuildable wreck clear title(US $7,200.00)
- 2010 f350 diesel 4x4 lariat custom lifted 1-owner crew back up cam f250(US $38,995.00)
- 2008 f-350 king ranch diesel 4x4 navigation sunroof crewcab f250 carfax texas(US $19,495.00)
- 2001 f350 4x4 7.3 diesel dually flat bed
Auto Services in California
Yuba City Toyota Lincoln-Mercury ★★★★★
World Auto Body Inc ★★★★★
Wilson Way Glass ★★★★★
Willie`s Tires & Alignment ★★★★★
Wholesale Import Parts ★★★★★
Wheel Works ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford C-Max sales hold steady despite fuel economy fracas
Mon, 09 Sep 2013Despite the ballyhoo that accompanied Ford's lowering of the C-Max fuel economy figures, the Blue Oval is still seeing strong demand for the five-seat MPV, as Automotive News reports. Speaking to marketing boss Jim Farley, AN says that the controversy surrounding the C-Max's fuel economy figures won't force Ford to change its marketing strategy.
Ford lowered the fuel economy rating of the C-Max after public outcry and legal action by customers that were unable to reach the 47 miles per gallon promised by the window sticker. The new ratings were dropped about a month ago to 45 mpg on the freeway and 40 mpg in the city. Ford offered rebates for current C-Max owners, with $550 going to those that bought their car and $325 to lessees. The issue, says Ford, stemmed from testing standards that allowed the automaker to base the C-Max's fuel economy on the Fusion Hybrid, because they use identical powertrains. The C-Max's less aerodynamic shape wasn't taken into account, though.
Whether Ford's PR team handled the crises perfectly or people just aren't that bothered by a four-mpg drop in combined ratings, demand remains strong for the C-Max among consumers. Ford moved 3,000 units in August, which was a 12-percent jump over July sales. Meanwhile, consumer demand through third-party shopping websites remains strong as well, according to Autometrics, a data analysis company that spoke with Automotive News. While the long-term effects of the adjustments remain unknown, the C-Max appears to have fared well in the near term.
Did a US automaker blow the whistle on Hyundai, Kia fuel economy issue?
Mon, 17 Dec 2012In all of the most hotly contested mainstream segments of the motoring universe, the difference of one mile per gallon averaged on a widow sticker can mean the difference between a sale and a walk-off - to say nothing of two or three mpg. So, when Hyundai and Kia were forced to reveal that many of their 40-mpg ratings were actually 38s and 37s, well, it made for big news.
It also, conceivably, made for a competitive disadvantage immediately, when the Korean automakers' products were being shopped versus the guys down the block. And it's that disadvantage that makes a recent story from Automotive News so juicy.
AN is reporting that Margo Oge, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, got a tip in 2010 that Hyundai/Kia were "cheating" to get its impressive fuel economy numbers. The tip, said Oge (who retired from the EPA this past September), came from a senior vice president from a domestic automaker. The source was credible enough for Oge to launch an audit of the Hyundai figures, which ultimately lead to the debacle that we reported on a few months ago, and that the Korean company has been trying to bounce back from ever since.
Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating
Mon, Aug 6 2018Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.