Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

1971 Ford Thunderbird Base Hardtop 2-door 7.0l on 2040-cars

US $6,250.00
Year:1971 Mileage:118000
Location:

Southwick, Massachusetts, United States

Southwick, Massachusetts, United States
Advertising:

Auto Services in Massachusetts

Woodlawn Autobody Inc ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 9 North St, Jamaica-Plain
Phone: (781) 963-6629

Tri-State Vinyl Repair ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Seat Covers, Tops & Upholstery, Automobile Accessories
Address: East-Longmeadow
Phone: (413) 782-0335

Tint King Inc. ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Window Tinting
Address: 505 Middlesex Tpke Unit# 22, East-Boston
Phone: (978) 670-2927

Sturbridge Auto Body ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Towing
Address: Auburn
Phone: (508) 347-7469

Strojny Glass Co ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Glass-Auto, Plate, Window, Etc, Windshield Repair
Address: 92 Weir St, Mansfield
Phone: (508) 824-8671

Sonny Johnson Tire ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers, Tire Recap, Retread & Repair
Address: 621 Pond St, South-Weymouth
Phone: (781) 849-3077

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Mon, 10 Feb 2014

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper.
For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011.
The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors.

2015 Ford Mustang leaked in Autoweek

Tue, 03 Dec 2013

We would have to imagine that Ford knew it couldn't keep its 2015 Mustang under wraps for too long, and with only days to go before the pony car's official unveiling, the dam seems to be cracking. SVTPerformance.com member Screamin 40th just posted some images taken of the sixth-gen Mustang prominently featured in and on the cover of the December 9 issue of Autoweek magazine.
These images show that recent renderings we saw weren't too far off. The face is just like what we saw in spy shots a few months back, but the rear of the car features some of its more striking cues. Starting with the pronounced haunches and hidden B-pillars, the rear view of the new Mustang might be its best with the ridged, three-bar taillights, a rear diffuser and the lack of a faux gas cap, which allows the galloping pony to be an even more prominent element against the black trim.
The images also reveal a small portion of the updated interior carrying over retro themes like the deep-dish steering wheel and dual-gauge instrument cluster, but it also adds some modern tech with a big infotainment displays and a clean center stack layout. No official word on powertrain or other specs, but while we can't make out most of the magazine's text, our eyes did catch mentions of an independent rear suspension and a 200-pound weight reduction.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

Tue, Jun 17 2014

It'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.