1964 Mercury Comet A/fx on 2040-cars
Engine:8 Cylinder
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Body Type:--
Transmission:Manual
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 4H23551848
Mileage: 0
Make: Mercury
Trim: A/FX
Drive Type: --
Features: --
Power Options: --
Exterior Color: White
Interior Color: Red
Warranty: Unspecified
Model: Comet
Mercury Comet for Sale
1967 mercury comet caliente(US $17,500.00)
1965 mercury comet caliente(US $21,900.00)
1977 mercury comet(US $23,995.00)
1967 mercury comet cyclone gt(US $64,995.00)
1964 mercury comet(US $26,995.00)
1963 mercury comet custom(US $5,000.00)
Auto blog
What do you do with a fake Bugatti Veyron for $60k?
Tue, Mar 29 2016Replica cars are a challenging labor of love because builders spend countless hours recreating a vehicle that people immediately compare to the real thing. Perhaps, the person behind this Mercury Cougar-based Bugatti Veyron should look for another way to pass that time. The coupe is currently for sale on eBay Motors for $59,900. The builder deserves some credit because the fiberglass body looks acceptable in the photos from farther away. The car might even fool a few people from a distance. However, the devil is in the details, and the closer you look, the worse this gets. The side intakes are especially rough. The red interior is atrocious. It's essentially the Cougar's cabin but in an eye-searing shade accented with lots of fake carbon fiber. The seller's eBay Motors ad really tries to market the look, though. "You slide in to [sic] this extremely comfortable leather interior and you feel like your bank account just quadrupled in size," the listing says. Don't expect to win any top speed titles in this Veyron replica, either. Rather than a mid-mounted quad-turbo W16, a 3.0-liter V6 from a Mercury Sable sits at the front. Thanks to an upgraded intake and exhaust, the seller claims, "It doesn't sound like your grandmas [sic] Sable." We wish the seller the best of luck, but the asking price of nearly $60,000 is probably too optimistic. We would still think twice about buying it even after taking a zero off that figure, but at least this thing is fun to look at. Related Video:
NHTSA advances investigation of Ford Crown Victoria headlights
Sat, Aug 15 2015The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into reports of suddenly failing headlights on 517,945 examples of the 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. The government started looking into this problem in April when the North Carolina Consumers Council filed a defect petition with the agency. Now, the inquiry has moved to the next step. According to NHTSA's documentation (as a PDF), it examined its own database and worked with Ford to come up with a total of 3,609 complaints of the front lighting control module suddenly failing. When this happens, drivers lose the low-beam headlights, but the high-beams can be used by holding the stalk. Sometimes turning the switch off and on fixes the issue. Additionally, there are 15 allegations of crashes, and one reported shoulder injury. NHTSA's preliminary evaluations "evaluate the scope, frequency, and consequence of the alleged defect" and don't necessarily lead to a recall. NHTSA looked into this problem once before in 2008 and 2009 and decided that a recall wasn't necessary. Ford also extended the warranty on the front lighting control module for these vehicles. INVESTIGATION Subject : Loss of headlights Date Investigation Opened: AUG 10, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15028 Component(s): EXTERIOR LIGHTING All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2003-2005 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 2003-2005 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: After receiving a defect petition (DP15002) concerning the loss of headlights and other exterior lighting in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure. The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066). Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off. In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.
NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe
Mon, 17 Dec 2012According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"