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

1956 Mild Custom Mercury Monterey on 2040-cars

Year:1956 Mileage:99999
Location:

Ridgefield, Connecticut, United States

Ridgefield, Connecticut, United States

Up for auction is Mild Custom 1956 Mercury Monterey 2 Dr. Sedan 2 tone pearl white/red with classic pin stripping. All the original trim is in perfect shape, paint is flawless (one small road chips). The Mercury has power windows, seats, steering and brakes all in great working ordered. The interior is custom tuck/roll in white and red and is like new condition. The car comes from Sacramento Ca.

The Mercury is running a full air ride suspension professional installed, there hasn’t been any modification done to the suspension or the frame other then the removal of the front coil springs and one leaf spring in the back and added air bags front and back with duel compressors and tank neatly installed in the upper back of the trunk.

The Y- Block Mercury motor  and transmission has recently been professional rebuild very clean and neat, starts and run like it did back in 56’. New everything Battery, Holly 4 barrel, later model electronic   distributor 57’, power steering has been completely over hauled. Underneath looks like a new car no rust truly amazing and she runs dry no leaks and have always run at normal operating temperatures. In the trunk the steel is solid as well and the front and back wheel wells the body is flawless straight as an arrow no rust or body filler/or replacement panel work , a true California car.   

The car is located in my shop in Ridgefield Ct.  and can be seen on weekends  so please make an appointment to come visit and I will take you for a short spin.  Serious Inquires only.

This car is the real deal and a true survivor in and out. Call 203-826-0580 for an appointment to come visit or PM to ask question.  Shipping cost is the buyers responsibility, seller will help load. This Mercury is for sale locally and this auction could close early.

Items need attention on the Mercury

Heater blower

Speedometer stopped last year

The Radio has its own mine

See photo one paint chip rear quarter panel

 

 

Auto Services in Connecticut

West Springfield Auto Parts ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Accessories
Address: 724 Campbell Ave, West-Haven
Phone: (203) 932-5815

Monro Muffler Brake & Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Mufflers & Exhaust Systems
Address: 556 Boston Post Rd, Haddam
Phone: (203) 458-1658

M K Auto Body Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Auto Transmission
Address: 332 Hanover St, Bridgeport
Phone: (203) 366-3107

Lia Volkswagen of Enfield ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers
Address: 140 Elm St, Melrose
Phone: (518) 612-7473

Jensen Tire & Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers
Address: 6746 Main St, Easton
Phone: (203) 459-8473

Goodyear Tire & Service Network ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Wheel Alignment-Frame & Axle Servicing-Automotive
Address: 1370 Kings Hwy Cut-Off, Greens-Farms

Auto blog

NHTSA advances investigation of Ford Crown Victoria headlights

Sat, Aug 15 2015

The 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.

Junkyard Gem: 1992 Mercury Grand Marquis LS

Thu, Nov 24 2022

We've all been seeing the instantly familiar Ford Crown Victoria P71 Police Interceptor on North American roads for what seems like forever, though in fact the very first of the aerodynamic Crown Vics didn't appear until a mere 31 years ago. Yes, after more than a decade of boxy LTD Crown Victorias, Dearborn took the late-1970s-vintage Panther platform and added a brand-new, Taurus-influenced smooth body and modern overhead-cam V8 engine, giving us the 1992 Ford Crown Victoria. The rule was, since 1939, that (nearly) every Ford model needed a corresponding Mercury, and so the Mercury Division applied different grille and taillights and the rejuvenated Grand Marquis was born. Here's one of the first of those cars to be built, now residing in a Denver-area self-service boneyard. The Marquis name goes respectably far back, to the late 1960s and a Mercurized version of the Ford LTD hardtop. The Grand Marquis began life as the name for an interior trim package on the 1974 Marquis Brougham (also LTD-based), eventually becoming a model in its own right for the 1979 model year. Today's Junkyard Gem came off the Ontario assembly line in March 1991, making one of the very first examples built. For 1992 (and through 2011), the Grand Marquis was a Crown Victoria with slightly enhanced bragging rights. This one has the top-grade LS trim, with an MSRP of $20,644 (that's about $44,370 in inflation-adjusted 2022 dollars). The corresponding Ford-badged model (built on the same assembly line by the same workers) would have been the Crown Victoria LX, which actually cost a bit more: $20,987 ($44,910 now). The very cheapest civilian 1992 Crown Vic cost just $19,563 ($42,045 today). There weren't any powertrain differences between the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis in 1992. The only engine available was this Modular 4.6 SOHC V8, rated at either 190 (single exhaust) or 210 (dual exhaust) horsepower. The transmission was a four-speed automatic with overdrive. How many miles are on this one? Can't say! Based on the worn-out interior, I'm going to guess 221,719 miles passed beneath this car's wheels during its 32-plus years on the road. I've seen some very high-mile Police Interceptors, of course, including one with 412,013 miles, but Ford didn't go to six-digit odometers in the Grand Marquis until a bit deeper into the 1990s. Thanks to flawed speech-to-text applications on smartphones, the Grand Marquis is known as the "Grandma Keith" to many of us today.

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

Mon, 17 Dec 2012

According 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.'"