1931 Model A Couple With Rumble Seat....runs And Drives Sweet on 2040-cars
Athens, Tennessee, United States
Transmission:Manual
Vehicle Title:Clear
Sub Model: COUPE
Make: Ford
Exterior Color: 2 TONE GREEN WITH BLACK FENDERS
Model: Model A
Interior Color: Tan
Trim: RUMBLE SEAT & 2 TONE PAINT
Number of Cylinders: 4
Drive Type: OLD SCHOOL
Mileage: 9
Ford Model A for Sale
1929 ford model a roadster and trailer beautiful car(US $21,900.00)
1931 ford model a400(US $40,000.00)
1931 ford model a coupe hot rod street rod rat rod scta 1932
Shay reproduction model a roadster
1930 ford model a briggs '3 window deluxe' fordor hotrod(US $15,999.00)
1930 model a sport coupe with rumble seat
Auto Services in Tennessee
Votaw`s Tire & Auto Repair ★★★★★
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
Transmission Unlimited ★★★★★
Transmission Masters ★★★★★
The Body Shop at Long of Chattanooga ★★★★★
Sun Matic Control Inc ★★★★★
Auto blog
Why Edmunds took a sledgehammer to its 2015 Ford F-150
Tue, Jan 27 2015The discussion around repair bills for the aluminum-bodied 2015 Ford F-150 pickup continued from the beginning of last year to the end, and haven't abated; as an aside, some Tesla Model S owners have been shocked at disquieting repair estimates for minor damage to their aluminum wunder-sedans. Edmunds decided to inject some fact into the fray: it bought a $52,000 long-term 2015 F-150 and clouted it with an eight-pound sledgehammer. Twice. The rear of the bedside took the impacts since it couldn't be replaced, it would have to be repaired. To the pickup's credit, the only reason associate editor Travis Langness hit it twice was that the first sledgehammer blow didn't do as much damage as Edmunds wanted. After the second, the visible damage included the two direct impacts, a few creases, and a cracked taillight, so they drove the pickup to Santa Monica Ford to get an estimate, complete with a fictitious story about how the damage occurred and the mercy plea that Langness was paying for the repair out-of-pocket. In Part 2 Langness hits on some of the details with getting the truck fixed, such as the massively expensive taillight and the list of tools Ford recommends dealers have to work on aluminum. But he was promised he'd have his truck back in seven days, and Santa Monica Ford got it back to him in seven days. In Part 3 we get the bill. It's not small, but it's quite a bit less than it could have been if the service manager had charged Edmunds the official labor rate for aluminum. We're not going to spoil it here, so check out the videos above and below for the beginning and the end, and head over to Edmunds for the complete story about how it all happened and some riffing on the repair numbers. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Related Video:
Ford starting up 2.0L EcoBoost engine production in Ohio
Fri, 22 Feb 2013Joe Hinrichs, Ford's President of The Americas (pictured above), announced today that in late 2014, the automaker will be building the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder at its Cleveland Engine Plant, a move requiring a $200-million investment and the hiring of 450 new employees. European-built Ford products will continue to source this engine from the Valencia, Spain plant where all of these EcoBoost four-cylinder engines are currently built, and the new Cleveland engines will be used for all North American-made models.
Ford is planning to build its popular EcoBoost engines regionally to maximize production capacity and meet customer demand. Last year, Ford sold 334,364 vehicles with EcoBoost engines in the US alone, and that number is expected to swell to more than 500,000 by the end of this year, with global sales expected to total 1.6 million. By 2015, Ford says that 95 percent of its nameplates will offer an EcoBoost engine.
One such vehicle that could be adding an EcoBoost engine, according to Automotive News, is none other than the 2015 Ford Mustang. The report says that Ford could use either the 2.0-liter EcoBoost or an upcoming 2.3-liter EcoBoost in the sixth-generation pony car.
Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel
Mon, Apr 14 2014When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).