1927 Ford Model T Rat Rod Roadster on 2040-cars
Spokane, Washington, United States
Body Type:Convertible
Engine:350 sbc w/Tri-Power
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Interior Color: Flat black
Make: Ford
Number of Cylinders: 8
Model: Model T
Trim: none
Drive Type: rwd
Mileage: 0
Exterior Color: flat black pin striped
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
MOTOR-350- .30 over Chevy with Offenhouser TRI-POWER
TRANS- 1979 Chevy 3 speed w/ Hurst shifter, 1955 Bell housing, 11'' Centerforce clutch, setup has 1955 starter
REAR END- 1973 Chevy Nova 10 bolt, ladder bars- heim joints, elip springs
FRAME- fully boxed 2x3 custom built by Coach Craft Calif.
FRONT AXEL-Dropped I beam 4'' New Kings, 50 chevy spindles, 76 chevy calipers and rotors, split wish bones and heim joints
WHEELS- 60s Chevy wheels w/ new front tires.
hot rod, classic, race, drag, muscle, chevelle, nova, mustang, ratrod, hotrod,
Ford Model T for Sale
Auto Services in Washington
USA Auto Glass Repair ★★★★★
Town Nissan ★★★★★
Subaru Of Puyallup ★★★★★
S K & Sons Inc ★★★★★
Rollins Auto Wrecking ★★★★★
Rempt Motor Co ★★★★★
Auto blog
White House clears way for NHTSA to mandate vehicle black boxes
Fri, 07 Dec 2012At present, over 90 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States today are equipped with event data recorders, more commonly known as black boxes. If the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gets its way, that already high figure will swell to a full 100 percent in short order.
Such automotive black boxes have been in existence since the 1990s, and all current Ford, General Motors, Mazda and Toyota vehicles are so equipped. NHTSA has been attempting to make these data recorders mandatory for automakers, and according to The Detroit News, the White House Office of Management Budget has just finished reviewing the proposal, clearing the way. Now NHTSA is expected to draft new legislation to make the boxes a requirement.
One problem with current black boxes is that there's no set of standards for automakers to follow when creating what bits of data are recorded, and for how long or in what format it is stored. In other words, one automaker's box is probably not compatible with its competitors.
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.
Project Ugly Horse: Part VII
Fri, 12 Apr 2013Devils, Details and Weight Reduction
There are many things I could call this exercise. A party is not one of them.
I've spent three days crammed in the axle well of this 1989 Mustang with nothing to keep me company beyond a trouble light, a DeWalt drill on the very last of its legs and billion razor sharp, red hot slivers of metal with an affinity for my most sensitive of regions. My joints are raw from crawling around on the concrete. I'm half deaf from the shriek of the spot weld cutter and the boom of the cold chisel and hammer.