1966 Ford Mustang on 2040-cars
Cold Brook, New York, United States
I am always available by mail at: giovannigccasilla@ukflorists.org .
1966 Ford Mustang 302 with a T-5 Transmission. I have a lot of Paper work on this car. This car is very Clean Car and it has a lot of power.
Ford Mustang for Sale
- 1965 ford mustang(US $11,200.00)
- 2007 ford mustang gt500(US $11,100.00)
- 1965 ford mustang(US $10,600.00)
- 1969 ford mustang fastback(US $11,200.00)
- 1967 ford mustang e 500 fastback eleanor(US $23,600.00)
- 2012 ford mustang gt premium california special(US $10,900.00)
Auto Services in New York
Zona Automotive ★★★★★
Zima Tire Supply ★★★★★
Worlds Best Auto, Inc ★★★★★
Vip Honda ★★★★★
VIP Auto Group ★★★★★
Village Line Auto Body ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford F-150 bumps Camry from top of Cars.com American Made Index
Tue, 25 Jun 2013With July 4th just around the corner, what better time could there be for Cars.com to announce that the Ford F-150 is the Most American car of 2013? This may be especially true since it was the Toyota Camry, a car produced by a company based in Japan, that had held the top spot from 2009 to 2012.
Cars.com compiles its Most American list by considering the amount of parts each vehicle uses that come from America, where it's final assembly takes place and how many units per year are sold. "While the assembly point and domestic parts content of the F-150 didn't change from 2012-2013, vehicle sales are responsible for bumping the F-150 to the top spot," according to Patrick Olsen, Editor-in-Chief of Cars.com.
As far as automakers go (as opposed to individual models), Toyota retains the top spot it held in 2012, with General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and Honda (in that order) rounding out the list. The motivation behind this list each year, according to Olsen, is "to help car shoppers understand that 'American-Made' extends beyond just the Detroit three" and because "a study we conducted in 2012 indicated that 25 percent of shoppers surveyed preferred to buy American."
2014 Roush Stage 3 Mustang
Fri, 26 Jul 2013Up until now, it's been some years since I managed to get behind the wheel of the hot Mustangs tuned by the folks at Roush Performance. My memories of those vehicles are fond, as the Roush up-fits usually make for better-driving examples of the iconic Ford pony, with better-tuned suspensions, excellent short-shift kits and, of course, huge additions of power. The wake-your-neighbors aural characteristics of these cars have been nothing short of outstanding, too.
But in the years since my last experience with the Roush formula, Ford's own development team has churned out some pretty potent 'Stangs. We currently live in a world where the Blue Oval will sell you a Mustang with 662 horsepower from the factory, and the recently departed Boss 302 remains one of the best Mustangs - and best sports coupes - the Autoblog crew has ever driven.
So with great-driving and hugely powerful Mustangs coming straight off the line at Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant, does the Roush package still offer that extra special something to make it stand out? I spent a week with a Stage 3 coupe to find out.
Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy
Thu, Jan 8 2015With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.