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

Damaged Salvage Title Needs Repair on 2040-cars

US $7,000.00
Year:2010 Mileage:20067
Location:

Chichester, New Hampshire, United States

Chichester, New Hampshire, United States

2010 ford escape damaged on right front. Left headlight and grille were not damaged but were removed. The car is clean in side and out other than damage to right front. Car was hit on pasenger fender deployed roof bag only. The car runs and yard drives. Car just needs parts bolted on and paint. Parts are included in the sale (fender, headlight, bumper cover and side airbags) 

Auto Services in New Hampshire

Toy Store Auto Sales & Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers
Address: 67 S Broadway, Newton-Junction
Phone: (603) 893-2253

Tim`s Transmission Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission
Address: 98 Franklin Street Ext, East-Derry
Phone: (603) 432-4161

Subaru of Keene ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers
Address: 14 Production Ave, Sullivan
Phone: (603) 499-7320

Scenic Auto Sales ★★★★★

New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 859 Gorham St, Hollis
Phone: (978) 452-3136

Porsche of Nashua ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers
Address: 170 Main Dunstable Rd, Londonderry
Phone: (603) 595-1707

Low Cost Exhaust ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Mufflers & Exhaust Systems
Address: 50 Winthrop Ave, East-Hampstead
Phone: (978) 687-7044

Auto blog

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Fri, Jan 3 2014

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

Thu, 17 Jul 2014

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.

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.'"