1924 Ford Model T Touring on 2040-cars
Bucyrus, Missouri, United States
Body Type:TOURING
Engine:4 CYL
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:GAS
For Sale By:Private Seller
Interior Color: NONE
Make: Ford
Number of Cylinders: 4
Model: Model T
Trim: NONE
Drive Type: RWD
Mileage: 99,999
Exterior Color: Black
Number of Doors: 3
Car came from KC, runs and drives, no title, body needs tlc, (have wood kit and sheet metal panels for car ~ negotiable). Windshields have safety glass, top ok, bottom has a crack. Chassis and driveline complete. Engine needs freeze plugs, has fresh oil. Temporary switch on column turns coils on and off, coils running on 12 volts. Trans and brakes function correctly. Exhaust needs to be replaced front to back. Carb needs fine tuning. Tires fair, one slow leak, one fast leak, other two hold air. Hood, fenders, running boards and splash pans all good and straight and have surface rust, so I sprayed wd40 on them. I prefer cash no paypal. Any and all questions will be answered promptly. Please watch videos. Thanks for looking at my auction.
Watch videos here
Ford Model T for Sale
- 1923 ford t-bucket(US $19,000.00)
- 1925 ford model t roadster speedster vintage rare classic completely restored
- 1913 model t ford roadster
- 1927 model t rodster -all steel- on 32 rails(US $17,500.00)
- Depot hack- low miles- recently restored(US $23,095.00)
- Chopped 27 roadster rat rod(US $12,500.00)
Auto Services in Missouri
Western Tire & Auto ★★★★★
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
St Louis Car & Credit ★★★★★
St Louis Auto Parts Co ★★★★★
Specialty Automotive ★★★★★
SL Services Inc ★★★★★
Auto blog
After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality
Fri, Jan 3 2014Regulations 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.
Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and Ford Transit can haul on the track
Tue, 19 Aug 2014Line up any two comparable vehicles, and eople are going to want to race them. Need proof? In its latest track battle, Auto Express wants to know which commercial vehicle can lap a circuit faster - a Ford Transit or Mercedes-Benz Sprinter. Let's face it, neither of these European vans were ever meant to be near the track unless they are delivering a racecar and a ton of parts for a fun weekend, but it's massively fun to watch them give it a go anyway.
The one thing that Auto Express really illustrates here is the modern marvel that is stability control. The driver hops curves, and these big vans lean in the corners like your friend walking home from a long night at the bar. However, because of the amazing stability systems, the vans mostly keep all of their wheels planted and never seem close to getting sloppy, despite their behemoth size.
Unfortunately, the two vans aren't exactly fairly paired. The Ford has a dual rear axle and a few other advantages over the Mercedes, but it's still hilarious to watch them go. Even better, the host breaks down everything happening behind the wheel like these commercial vehicles were two Porsches. Enjoy watching this very unorthodox battle between Ford and Mercedes.
Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age
Thu, 17 Jul 2014In 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.