2006 Ford Ranger Regular Cab on 2040-cars
Manhasset, New York, United States
Excellent work truck, Very strong engine, AC blows cold, 4 Cyl. Great gas milage with rebuilt transmission.
|
Ford Ranger for Sale
1999 ford ranger supercab xlt v6 4x4 5 speed new tires!!(US $4,480.00)
2003 ford ranger xlt extended cab pickup 4-door 4.0l
Extended cab fx4 clean tow package excellent condition 4x4 low mile carfax
1998 ford ranger xlt reg cab long bed 4cyl 5 spd ac only 79k miles(US $4,500.00)
2002 ford ranger xlt
1993 ford ranger pick-up (158,567m) $650(US $650.00)
Auto Services in New York
Willowdale Body & Fender Repair ★★★★★
Vision Automotive Group ★★★★★
Vern`s Auto Body & Sales Inc ★★★★★
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
Valanca Auto Concepts ★★★★★
V & F Auto Body Of Keyport ★★★★★
Auto blog
Mustang parts under the new Lincoln Aviator mean good things for Ford
Wed, Mar 28 2018NEW YORK — As we mentioned last night, underneath the new Lincoln Aviator "concept" there appears to be an independent rear suspension lifted right from the Ford Mustang parts bin. And while it's pretty cool on its face that Mustang rear-drive platform bits are being reused in the broader Ford universe, what this means for the next Explorer could be really cool. A quick caveat: The Aviator here in New York is very close to the production version, but it's not technically a production car. It looks hand-built, with temporary exhaust and some show-car touches. The suspension underneath looks exactly like a Mustang's, but the actual production Aviator will almost certainly use beefier components with the same basic design and geometry, since the Aviator will be much heavier than the smaller Mustang. That being said, we're fairly confident that even at this early stage, the Mustang-derived suspension seen in New York is a preview of what'll be under the production Aviator. Furthermore, Ford won't say it, but based on what we're seeing on Aviator, it's a safe bet that Ford will utilize the Aviator platform for the next Explorer. That would enable the economies of scale necessary to produce a brand new rear-drive-based SUV platform in the first place. It also means that the Explorer should be available without AWD — and given the stable of powerful EcoBoost engines, and the competent 10-speed automatic in the parts bin, a rear-drive Explorer has a shot at being a decent driver. Aviator wouldn't go rear-drive-based if driving dynamics weren't important; Explorer should inherit these priorities. More evidence: The Explorer spy shots we saw back in February sure share the Aviator's general proportions. Even back then, before Aviator was revealed, we were hypothesizing that an EcoBoost 3.5-liter-powered version could boast as much as 400 horsepower, if the Expedition's tune were adopted. Suddenly, the Explorer seems very interesting. So, an EcoBoost, rear-drive Explorer sure sounds like something Ford Performance would be interested in, right? We knew an Explorer ST is coming, but with 365-400 horsepower potential and a chassis designed with dynamics in mind, it doesn't seem like as much of a stretch as the Edge ST. And a performance-oriented AWD system is a possibility, too. That's an area where Ford has been gathering experience at a rapid pace. What do we not expect from a new Explorer? A V8.
2015 Ford Mustang Convertible makes inappropriate appearance in Detroit [w/video]
Tue, 14 Jan 2014With the polar vortex fresh in the minds of Autoblog's Detroit-based staff, we're finding it funny that any manufacturer would choose January in the Motor City to show off a new and highly anticipated convertible to the general media and public for the first time. But Ford has done just that, giving us our first real peek at the new Mustang Convertible in the flesh.
The new Mustang Convertible is more or less unchanged from the standard coupe, with some subtle styling tweaks to accommodate the retractable soft top. Engine and transmission choices are identical to the hardtop, although we should expect slightly lower performance due to the hardware for the roof. Like the coupe, neither prices nor performance metrics have been published yet for the convertible.
Hop up top for our live gallery of images from the floor of the Detroit Auto Show.
Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating
Mon, Aug 6 2018Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.