Ford Mustang on 2040-cars
Cold Spring, New York, United States

This Is A Very Rare 2002 Roush 380r Stage 3 Mustang. Supercharged. One Of Only 4 Built That Year. This Is Serial # 004. It Is The Only One Given 3.73 Rear Gears. Conservatively Rated At 389 Hp At Rear Wheels, Which Actually Puts Out Approx 415 Hp At Crank. 5 Speed Manual.
Ford Mustang for Sale
Ford mustang(US $15,000.00)
Ford mustang(US $6,000.00)
Ford mustang coupe(US $2,000.00)
Ford mustang saleen(US $15,000.00)
Ford mustang(US $19,000.00)
Ford mustang gt 350(US $18,000.00)
Auto Services in New York
Westchester Toyota ★★★★★
Vision Dodge Chrysler Jeep ★★★★★
Village Automotive Center ★★★★★
TNT Automotive ★★★★★
Sterling Autobody Centers ★★★★★
Sencore Enterprises ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy
Thu, Jan 8 2015With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.
GM also sheds parts from its pickups to boost payload ratings
Thu, 31 Jul 2014The row between Ford and Ram over who boasts the best-in-class tow rating for heavy duty pickups has revealed a number of things. Chief among them is a report that Ford removes items like the spare tire, jack, radio and center console from its vehicles in a bid to lower its base curb weight and therefore keep the truck's gross vehicle weight rating down.
For those that need a refresher, GVWR is the vehicle's curb weight plus its maximum payload. A lower GVWR allows Ford to station its F-450 among the so-called Class III pickups, despite the fact that internally, it has the makings of a more brutish Class IV truck.
Ford explains away these deletions, saying a customer could order their vehicle in such a manner. It has also come to light that Ford is not the only automaker to engage in such practices.
IIHS Crash-tests Expose American Muscle Cars' Weaknesses | Autoblog Minute
Thu, Jun 2 2016Turns out American muscle cars aren?t that strong according to IIHS crash tests. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put three iconic American sports cars through a range of performance crash tests. Chevrolet Dodge Ford Autoblog Minute Videos Original Video crash test camaro challenger