No Reserve 75k Original Miles 5.0 Convertable Lx 92 91 90 Svt Cobra Shelby on 2040-cars
Joppa, Maryland, United States
Body Type:Convertible
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:5.0L 302Cu. In. V8 GAS OHV Naturally Aspirated
Fuel Type:GAS
Number of Cylinders: 8
Make: Ford
Model: Mustang
Trim: LX Convertible 2-Door
Options: Cassette Player, Leather Seats, Convertible
Drive Type: RWD
Safety Features: Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Mileage: 75,191
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Power Locks, Power Windows, Power Seats
Exterior Color: Yellow
Interior Color: Black
Ford Mustang for Sale
- We finance!!! rare!! roush coupe 4.6l v8 stage 1 leather automatic(US $17,776.00)
- 1997 ford mustang base coupe 2-door 3.8l(US $1,400.00)
- 1988 ford mustang lx hatchback 2-door 5.0l
- 1989 ford mustang convertible
- Fully restored mach 1, balanced/blueprinted 351; top-loader 4-speed; a/c & more!
- 2007 ford shelby mustang gt500 convertible "3167 miles!!! like new!!!"
Auto Services in Maryland
Thoroughbred Transmissions ★★★★★
Standard Auto Parts Corp ★★★★★
Quickest 24/7 Ocean City Locksmith ★★★★★
Proficiency Automotive ★★★★★
Pimlico Motors ★★★★★
Motion Motorcars, Inc. ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford begins testing right-hand-drive Mustang
Wed, 20 Aug 2014Ford has officially kicked off testing of the right-hand-drive variant of its sixth-generation, 2015 Mustang, according to a statement issued by the company, which came with the above photo.
According to Ford, this will mark the first time a right-hand-drive 'Stang has traveled down the company's assembly line alongside its LHD brethren. It is far from the first of the legendary pony cars to feature its wheel on the wrong side, though, as converters in RHD markets across the globe have been making swaps for years.
Ford is planning on using the white, droptop Mustang for RHD development ahead of the car's arrival in the UK, Australia and South Africa, among other markets. Scroll down for the official press blast.
American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings
Fri, 10 May 2013Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.
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.