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

1971 Ford Ranchero 5.8l on 2040-cars

Year:1971 Mileage:47573 Color: Orange /
 Black
Location:

Kelso, Washington, United States

Kelso, Washington, United States
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:U/K
Engine:5.8L 351Cu. In. V8 GAS Naturally Aspirated
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:GAS
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN: 1A47H276204 Year: 1971
Number of Cylinders: 8
Make: Ford
Model: Ranchero
Trim: Base
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Drive Type: U/K
Mileage: 47,573
Exterior Color: Orange
Disability Equipped: No
Interior Color: Black
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. ... 

 Selling this for a friend, So I dont have a lot of info. He is just thinning out his collection. This is a 1971 Ford Ranchero, Has the 351 Cleveland, with a nice bumpity cam, Aluminum Intake, 4 Barrell, Newer Dual exhaust, Automatic trans, Power Steering and Power Brakes, This Ranchero was owned by a mechanic, Was his daily driver, Has been lowered a few inches front and rear, Drives real Nice. Brakes are good, Crawled around underneith the best I could, Do not see any rust issues. Nice straight body, Paint looks real good, Has a nice shine. Appears to be the original color, Does have some small scratches, paint chips, dont see any rust issues on the body, Nice and Straight ! Not a show car but would not take much to be  Show ready.Shows 47,000 miles Im sure its proably 147,000
Interior is all there, Newer Headliner, seat is good, door panels are good, Has a nice Stereo, If you are looking for a Hot  Rod that is Mechanically sound, Straight Clean Body, 17" Wheels, Then here is a great car that you can hop right in and drive. Feel free to call me and leave a message I will get right back to and try to answer any questions, Might be easier to email me, Im on the computer all day. rredell@aol.com  360-560-1771

Auto Services in Washington

System Seven Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 10831 Tukwila International Blvd, Tukwila
Phone: (206) 789-5516

Sunmark Upholstery ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 800 118th Ave NE, Medina
Phone: (425) 821-2400

Sumner Collision Center ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 725 W Main St, Edgewood
Phone: (253) 863-3859

South Tacoma Honda ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers
Address: 7802 S Tacoma Way, Mcchord-Afb
Phone: (253) 472-2300

Sonic Collision Center ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 19249 Des Moines Memorial Dr, Burton
Phone: (425) 502-6744

Showcase Auto Rebuild ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Tire Dealers
Address: 13325 NE 124th St, Bothell
Phone: (425) 823-6006

Auto blog

Ford dinged by OSHA for asbestos at Buffalo plant

Sat, 20 Jul 2013

Ford has come under fire from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for violations regarding asbestos exposure in a company metal stamping plant in Buffalo, NY. OSHA has cited Ford for eight violations in total, according to an Automotive News report, and faces fines of up to $41,800. 537 workers are employed at the stamping facility.
The violations include a pipefitter at the facility being exposed to asbestos-containing material while working on a steam line, other workers exposed to the material without respiratory protection and work areas that were not designed to limited the number of workers in contact with asbestos. Further, areas in which asbestos was present were not properly restricted, and levels of asbestos in the air were not monitored.
According to an unnamed Ford spokesperson in the AN report, the company feels that the OSHA citation is erroneous saying, "We have fully cooperated with the local OSHA officials and we don't believe the citations are warranted." Ford also maintains that it will work with the authorities to resolve the issue.

Ford recalls Explorer and Lincoln MKC for fire hazard

Thu, Mar 31 2016

The Basics: Ford will recall 5,536 examples of the 2016 Explorer and 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC. The Explorers have build dates between October 20, 2014, and January 28, 2016, at the Chicago Assembly Plant. The MKCs are from between November 25, 2013, and January 25, 2016, at the Louisville Assembly Plant. In total, there are 3,129 total affected examples of the 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 examples of the 2016 Ford Explorer. Of these, 1,543 are in the US and 3,993 are in Canada. The Problem: The combination of the engine block design and the block heater in these vehicles can cause the part to overheat when plugged in. Injuries/Deaths: None reported, but there are two cases of underhood fires in Canada. If you own one: Ford will begin notifying owners during the week of May 16, company spokesperson John Cangany tells Autoblog. Related Video: Ford issues safety recall for certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to replace engine block heaters Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 5,500 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to remove the heaters and replace them with an updated design. The engine block design, coupled with the particular block heater installed in these vehicles, causes the unit to be susceptible to overheating when the vehicle is parked and the block heater is plugged in –increasing the risk of an underhood fire. Ford is aware of two reports of underhood fires in Canada, but is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this issue. Affected vehicles include certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC vehicles built at Louisville Assembly Plant, Nov. 25, 2013 through Jan. 25, 2016 and certain 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 20, 2014 through Jan. 28, 2016. There are 5,536 vehicles affected by the issue, including 3,129 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles, with 1,543 of the affected vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 3,993 in Canada. Dealers will remove and replace the engine block heater with an updated design and, if needed, replace the cord at no cost to the customer.

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.