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

1969 Ford Bronco on 2040-cars

US $12,800.00
Year:1969 Mileage:37400 Color: Black
Location:

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Advertising:

1969 FORD BRONCO RESTO MOD: -DYNATRACK AXLES (FRONT AND REAR) -FRONT ; REAR LOCKING DIFFERENTIAL -ATLAS TRANSFER CASE -SHERMAN 23GAL ALUMINUMN TANK -BESTOP TOP -CUSTOM MADE SUSPENSION -CUSTOM CONTROL ARMS -FRONT ; REAR DISC BRAKES WILDWOOD -CORBEAU SEATS (FRONT ; BACK) -AUTO METER GAUGES -TUFFY CENTER CONSOLE -TUFFY UNDERSEAT VOULT - 406CI ENGINE WITH 550HP ; 550FPT -HOLLEY CARBURATOR 4150 ALUMINUM ULTRA HP SERIES -CUSTOM MADE EXHAUST AND HEADERS -MSD IGNITION CONTROL -CENTERFORCE PERFORMANCE CLUTCH -RON DAVIS RACING ALUMINUM RADIATOR -NV3550 TRANSMISSION -ALPINE MARINE CD PLAYER WITH JL SOUND SYSTEM -AFTERMARKET FRONT ; REAR BUMPER -WARN 9.0RC WINCH -KC FOG HEADLIGHTS - TR BAJA WHEELS ONE OF A KIND PRESTINE CONDITION BRONCO!

Auto Services in Florida

Zip Auto Glass Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Windshield Repair, Glass-Auto, Plate, Window, Etc
Address: 213 US Highway 41 Byp S, Venice
Phone: (888) 463-0379

Willie`s Paint & Body Shop ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 4114 Park Lake St, Goldenrod
Phone: (407) 895-8850

Williamson Cadillac Buick GMC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 7815 SW 104th St, Perrine
Phone: (305) 548-8816

We Buy Cars ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Automobile Salvage, Automobile & Truck Brokers
Address: 10222 NW 80th Ave, Miami-Lakes
Phone: (305) 823-4045

Wayne Akers Truck Rentals ★★★★★

New Car Dealers, Truck Rental, Car Rental
Address: 1900 10th Ave N, Atlantis
Phone: (561) 693-3196

Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Oil & Lube, Automotive Tune Up Service
Address: 5928 SE Abshier Blvd, Summerfield
Phone: (352) 307-2356

Auto blog

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

Mon, Oct 10 2016

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.

Submit your questions for Autoblog Podcast #329 LIVE!

Mon, 15 Apr 2013

We're set to record Autoblog Podcast #329 tonight, and you can drop us your questions and comments via our Q&A module below. Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes if you haven't already done so, and if you want to take it all in live, tune in to our UStream (audio only) channel at 10:00 PM Eastern tonight.
Discussion Topics for Autoblog Podcast Episode #329
Subcompact sales slump, yet again

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

Mon, 26 Aug 2013


The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.