1967 Ford Fairlane Gta on 2040-cars
Daytona Beach, Florida, United States
1967 Ford Fairlane GTA. 390 High performance engine. New rear owl radial tires, front tires like new, new spare,
and Cragar wheels. Dual exhaust, new C-6 transmission with shift kit, older restoration, new PS, PB, factory AM
radio. Front and rear oversized swaybars, KYB shocks, 9 inch rear end, new leaf springs, custom striping , tinted
windows, new vintage A/C, front end like new.
Ford Fairlane for Sale
- 1958 ford fairlane fairlane skyliner hardtop convertible(US $10,000.00)
- Good title(US $7,200.00)
- 1957 ford fairlane skyliner(US $22,480.00)
- 1964 ford fairlane(US $24,000.00)
- Bos(US $5,000.00)
- 1964 ford fairlane(US $12,480.00)
Auto Services in Florida
Zip Automotive ★★★★★
X-Lent Auto Body, Inc. ★★★★★
Wilde Jaguar of Sarasota ★★★★★
Wheeler Power Products ★★★★★
Westland Motors R C P Inc ★★★★★
West Coast Collision Center ★★★★★
Auto blog
2016 Ford Focus RS mule spotted on US soil
Tue, 17 Jun 2014Okay Ford, this is what we like to see. One of our intrepid spy photographers has captured a vehicle that we weren't even sure would see the light of day - the next Focus RS. While this is pretty clearly a mule based on the current Focus ST, as our spy points out, there are a number of giveaways about this hot hatch's true nature.
Indication number one that all is not right with this Focus is the heavily camo'd front fascia, which has been completely reconfigured for duty on the RS. It boasts significantly larger grilles that are meant to accommodate what is likely the 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder that's destined for the 2015 Ford Mustang. Considering that, then, we can expect around 300 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque from the hottest of Foci, although it's entirely possible that the production model could climb even higher, to around 330 hp.
The front fascia tweaks are complemented in the back by a modified rear bumper, which fails at hiding a pair of exhaust tips quite unlike the standard Focus ST's center-exit exhaust. Other obvious changes include the wheel/tire/brake package on this particular car. Larger 19-inch wheels are shod in super-sticky Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires in 235/35/19 while the brakes feature what we think are four-piston calipers, possibly from Brembo, up front.
The biggest gas-guzzlers of 2024: 'The Meanest List' is the opposite of greenest cars
Thu, Mar 14 2024In some circles — especially some automotive circles — bigger is better. This explains the Hummer, for example. In its so-called “Meanest List” of a dozen models, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) makes no apologies for berating “the worst-performing mass market automobiles” sold in 2024 in the U.S. The most diminutive car on the list is a Chevy Corvette Z06. At the top of this particular heap is the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, a gas-powered SUV that the environmental agency says was “the worst-performing vehicle of the more than 1,200 models assessed by Greener Cars and has an annual fuel cost over $4,000.” Not to mention its MSRP of around $184,000. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 Gas 20 $184,000 $4,242 2 Ram 1500 TRX 4x4 Gas 22 $98,335 $3,819 3 Ford F150 Raptor R Gas 24 $79,975 $3,777 4 Cadillac Escalade V Gas 26 $152,295 $3,388 5 Dodge Durango SRT Gas 26 $74,995 $3,332 6 Jeep Wrangler 4dr 4X4 Gas 27 $35,895 $3,260 7 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 4x4 Gas 28 $91,945 $3,058 8 Mercedes-Benz G550 Gas 28 $143,000 $3,186 9 GMC Hummer EV SUV EV 29 $98,845 $1,746 10 GMC Sierra Gas 29 $37,700 $3,069 11 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Gas 30 $114,395 $3,169 12 Mercedes-Benz Maybach S680 Gas 30 $234,300 $3,031 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In terms of numbers, the dirty dozen of the meanest includes seven SUVs and three trucks. Lonely at the middle of the list is the sole electric, the GMC Hummer EV, which weighs in at 9,000 pounds. The council notes that “though EVs have lower emissions than similarly sized gasoline models, the Hummer demonstrates that size and efficiency, not just fuel source, are important factors in a carÂ’s environmental impact.” ItÂ’s also worth reminding prospective buyers that the average fuel cost of a vehicle on the “Greenest List” eats up only a fifth of the fuel cost of a vehicle on the Meanest List, “showing that greener options can also be more affordable.” The ACEEE also put out a "Greener List" of efficient gasoline and hybrid cars that don't require plugging in. By the Numbers Green Cadillac Chevrolet Dodge Ford GMC Hummer Jeep Maybach Mercedes-Benz RAM Emissions Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Truck SUV Electric Hybrid
Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid
Tue, Jun 17 2014It'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.