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

1967 Ford Mustang on 2040-cars

US $43,500.00
Year:1967 Mileage:7500 Color: Red /
 Black
Location:

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Body Type:Coupe
Transmission:Automatic
Vehicle Title:Clean
Engine:289
Year: 1967
Mileage: 7500
Model: Mustang
Make: Ford
Interior Color: Black
Number of Seats: 4
Number of Previous Owners: 2
Number of Cylinders: 8
Exterior Color: Red
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. See all condition definitions

Auto Services in Arizona

Vince`s Automotive Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Brake Repair, Auto Transmission
Address: 341 S Olsen Ave, Tucson
Phone: (520) 624-6131

Ultimate Imports ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission
Address: 1900 N McClintock Dr Suite 15, Tempe
Phone: (480) 305-5756

Tire & Auto Service Center ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers
Address: 62 Capri Ln, Desert-Hills
Phone: (928) 855-8473

The Ding Doctor ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: New-River
Phone: (623) 332-2546

Team Ramco ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Accessories
Address: 4701 E Gila Ridge Rd, Somerton
Phone: (928) 344-5360

Stockton Hill Tire ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers
Address: 3979 Stockton Hill Rd, Kingman
Phone: (928) 757-7117

Auto blog

Ford recalling 370,000 Crown Vic, Grand Marquis and Town Car models

Fri, 30 Aug 2013

The Detroit News is reporting that Ford will recall some 370,000 Crown Victoria (pictured), Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car vehicles from model years 2005 through 2011, for an issue regarding the lower intermediate steering shaft. 355,000 of the vehicles in question were sold in the US, with the other 15,000 sold in Canada.
The report indicates that corrosion of the lower intermediate steering shaft could cause a "loss of steering," presumably because of a partial or complete failure of the part. The report points out the dealers will inspect and replace the offending steering component for recalled cars, and may also secure a lower steering column bearing and replace the upper intermediate steering shaft as needed. The company is unaware of any reports of the faulty part causing any accidents or injuries.
Ford helpfully lists states in which corrosion is more likely to have taken place, mostly in the Snow Belt, as you might guess. Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia are listed.

Ford Q3 pretax profits drop to $1.18B

Fri, 24 Oct 2014

Following positive third quarter financial results recently from General Motors, rival Ford took a tumble in Q3. The automaker posted pre-tax profits of $1.18 billion, compared to about $2.59 billion in Q3 2013, a drop of around 54 percent. Net income also suffered with $835 million made in the quarter, versus $1.272 billion last year, a decline of about 34 percent. The Blue Oval blamed the gloomy figures on three reasons in its release: "lower volume, higher warranty costs and adverse balance sheet exchange effects."
There were problems of one kind or another in practically every region. North America experienced higher warranty costs than expected, partially due to recalls. The sales volume for the quarter was 665,000 units, versus 725,000 in Q3 2013, and pre-tax results amounted to $1.41 billion versus $2.296 billion last year.
South America and Europe both posted worse pre-tax results than last year. On the bright side, European volume was up slightly to 321,000 vehicles, from 303,000 in Q3 2013. The Middle East and Africa also lost $15 million, but that was an improvement compared to the $25 million loss previously experienced in this region.

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.