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

2007 Ford Ranger Xlt Standard Cab Pickup 2-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Year:2007 Mileage:102171
Location:

Southfield, Michigan, United States

Southfield, Michigan, United States
Advertising:

2007 Ranger XLT 4x2 5 spd manual 3.0 mileage 102,171 starts, runs, drives strong. Clean truck. Vehicle was involved in accident 8-16-2014 damage down passenger side - scrapes to door, bent rear wheel, cab (corner), bed box, tail light, rear bumper and top corner tailgate. Power windows, locks, stereo cd, cloth, clean interior and exterior. Very repairable. Vehicle must be transported to destination, reason being bent rear wheel from accident. Vehicle can drive right up a dolly, trailer or flatbed. Any questions I will respond ASAP. Thanks for your interest.

Auto Services in Michigan

Young`s Brake & Alignment ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Tire Dealers, Tires-Wholesale & Manufacturers
Address: 1320 S Front St, Negaunee
Phone: (906) 228-8700

Winners Auto & Cycle ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Engine Rebuilding, Motorcycles & Motor Scooters-Repairing & Service
Address: 17700 Telegraph, Allen-Park
Phone: (734) 229-1009

Wills Body Shop ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 6493 Wildcat Rd, Smiths-Creek
Phone: (810) 327-2154

West Side Auto Parts ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission
Address: 592 32nd St, China
Phone: (810) 985-7766

Wealthy Body Shop Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Glass-Auto, Plate, Window, Etc
Address: 343 La Grave Ave SE, Hudsonville
Phone: (616) 458-5698

Unique Auto Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 2456 Port Sheldon St, Holland
Phone: (616) 396-6461

Auto blog

2020 Ford Explorer safer than old model; crash test ratings short of Top Safety Pick

Mon, Dec 16 2019

The 2020 Ford Explorer three-row crossover has improved on the outgoing model in many ways. According to the IIHS, it has also improved in a number of safety categories, but not enough to earn a Top Safety Pick award. The culprit is not the headlight performance for once. The Explorer's headlights were given an "Acceptable" rating, which would be sufficient for Top Safety Pick, if not Top Safety Pick +. Where the Ford falls short is in the front small overlap driver-side crash test, in which it got the second highest "Acceptable" rating. The IIHS requires a "Good" rating in this category, whereas an "Acceptable" rating on the passenger side would be, well, acceptable for Top Safety Pick. According to IIHS, Ford will be reviewing the results to figure out what the issue is, and it will likely make revisions to future Explorers to improve the result. Other than the one test, the Explorer performed admirably. It received a "Good" rating in all other crash categories except the passenger-side small overlap that was not tested. Both its standard and optional forward collision prevention systems had the highest "Superior" ratings, with the standard one preventing a collision with a car at speeds of up to 25 mph, and the optional one avoiding a collision at 12 mph, and "nearly" preventing one at 25 mph. Headlights are rated as "Acceptable" and so is access to child seat LATCH anchors. Also worth noting is that the Explorer's crash test ratings apply to its luxurious twin the 2020 Lincoln Aviator, meaning it also doesn't get a Top Safety Pick rating. The forward collision system performed the same as in the Ford, and the only difference between the two was in headlight performance. The Lincoln's standard headlights, included on the base, Reserve and Grand Touring trims, have the second-lowest "Marginal" rating, but the optional headlights for those trims, and the standard ones on the Black Label trim, received the "Good" rating. Among three-row Explorer competitors, the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Santa Fe XL, Kia Telluride, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota Highlander all have a Top Safety Pick. The Hyundai Palisade, Mazda CX-9, Subaru Ascent, and the slightly smaller Kia Sorento and Volkswagen Tiguan all have a Top Safety Pick +. As for Lincoln Aviator competitors, the Cadillac XT6, Infiniti QX60, Lexus RX and Volvo XC90 get a Top Safety Pick. The Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class and two-row-only BMW X5 get the Top Safety Pick + rating. Related Video:      

2015 Fisker-Galpin Rocket Quick Spin [w/video]

Fri, Aug 21 2015

There is no shortage of fast Mustangs these days. Roush and Saleen will tune your ordinary 'Stang into something really special. Ford itself offers hot coupes like the new Shelby GT350. Don't even get me started on the endless aftermarket catalogs full of bolt-on whats-its and performance upgrades. Standing out within the huge crowd of tuned Mustangs is hard to do. But you'll definitely notice this one. "I always wanted to do a Mustang," Henrik Fisker told me as we walked toward his latest creation, the Rocket, parked outside the Inn at Spanish Bay in Pebble Beach, CA. The man knows a thing or two about design, after all. He penned the BMW Z8, as well as the Aston Martin DB9 and V8 Vantage. But this Rocket is, well, ugly. The rear end isn't totally terrible, and those 21-inch wheels are sort of cool, but taken as a whole, it looks like it swallowed something it doesn't like the taste of. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder – or perhaps, the creator – so we'll let Mr. Fisker explain why the car looks the way it does. See the video below for his brief design walkaround. If you can get past the looks, there's a world of performance to unleash, thanks to the boys at Galpin Auto Sports – the same folks responsible for the GTR1 I drove last year. The Mustang's 5.0-liter V8 gets a 2.9-liter Whipple supercharger that improves output to 725 horsepower (the torque figure isn't available), and the car's suspension has been thoroughly reworked to help put all that grunt to the ground. It's very good, yet very familiar. Let me explain. Driving Notes Like the stock Mustang, it's really easy to drive. The car fires up with a growl, you move the shifter into first gear, and the action of engagement is as solid as it is in the normal 5.0-liter car. Both the clutch and throttle have a progressive action, so it's super easy to launch the Rocket (sorry). Once you get going, there's a ton of power to unleash. It doesn't smack you in the face right up front, though – the power delivery is smooth and linear. Easy to manage, too, thanks to that slick six-speed manual transmission. Credit Ford (and Getrag) for making a manual that's able to handle so much extra grunt. That said, the Rocket feels like your typical fast Mustang. It goes like hell in a straight line and there isn't a ton of steering feel. Galpin retuned the electronic power-assisted steering, but it's still too light considering the added power of the car.

Ford trademarking 'Mach 1,' possibly for Mustang

Thu, 24 Oct 2013

A legendary name might be accompanying the redesigned, 2015 Mustang when it finally makes its world debut - Mach 1. Stumbled upon by the team at Ford Authority, the Mach 1 title was found in a trademark filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office, and would revive a name last used on the fourth-generation, 2003 Mustang.
While the the 2003 vintage was well and good, the Mach 1 is really remembered for a three-year run from 1969 to 1971 - it's best to just forget the emissions-choked 1972 to 1978 Mach 1s - when power output ranged from a modest 250 horsepower with the two-barrel, 351-cubic-inch Windsor V8 to "375 hp" (actual output was rumored to be well north of 400 horsepower) with the righteous, 429-cubic-inch Super Cobra Jet V8.
What does the title hold for the sixth-generation Mustang? It's tough to say. The fanatics at Ford Authority seem to think Mach 1 could take the place of the Shelby GT500 at the top of the Mustang hierarchy, which sounds like a valid argument. At the same time, we could see the SVT Cobra moniker returning for the flagship model, and the Mach 1 doing battle with the Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 (unless the Boss 302 were to return). Confounding things is the historical precedent - the Mach 1 was responsible for the death of the Mustang GT in 1969, so it might make sense as a volume performance model.