2005 Ford Ranger Xlt Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 3.0l Cheap No Reserve Affordable on 2040-cars
New Church, Virginia, United States
Up for auction is a 2005 Ford Ranger XLT extended cab pickup with 157,039 miles. We traded this truck in on a Dodge Nitro and did not realize the rust issues on the truck. This extended cab is not a 4 door extended cab, just a 2 door extended cab. White in color, this truck was used for work, and it shows. It has dings and dents on the top of the bed rails and a few on the sides of the bed. The tailgate has been replaced, as it is yellow in color and the rest of the truck is white. There is a rust issue on the passenger bed side behind the rear wheel. There is also rust issues with the rear of the frame of this truck. Not sure what it was used for in its past life, but I venture to guess it lived some of its life working with salt water. The rear portion where the rear bumper bolts to the frame has rusted off and the replacement bumper has steel plates that bolt to the bumper and bolt to the frame. I have taken pictures the best I can of it. This was the reason we did not go any further with our plans to retail the truck. Inside the seats are fine, there is white dog hair everywhere, but the seats slide back and forth, and the recline mechanisms work just fine. The rear jump seats I did not fold out, but they are there. I cannot believe anyone would be comfortable in them anyway. The radio is a plain jane AM/FM radio, the windows are manual (have to crank them), the door locks are manual, the cruise control does work, the truck does have a/c and does blow cold. The owners manual is in the glove box for late night reading. I started this truck with our jump box, I have included a video. We had to use the jump box because the truck has been sitting for the good part of a month. Once I let the truck run, it fired back up once I turned it off. I personally drove this truck 35 miles in each direction to drop off and a week later to pickup a rebuilt transmission. It runs and drives very well. Like I said before, we were planning on retailing this truck until we found the rust issues. Looks like the previous owner had installed new tires just before they traded it in, because the tires look great. The factory steel wheels have the factory center caps with them also. The spare is in the bed of the truck, probably because it will not fit underneath with the relocated rear bumper. This truck is being sold as-is with no warranties. If you do not understand this, please ask. If you are interested in this truck, I suggest you stop by our dealership and look at it yourself. I have described it to the best of my ability, and I am willing to take more pictures if needed. Please ask any and all questions before the auction ends, and I will do my best to answer them. Payment is cash, certified check, or MasterCard/Visa. A deposit is required with in 48 hours of auction end time. Vehicle can remain on our lot for 14 days, after that storage will occur at $10.00 a day. Once payment is made, you will be given a Buyer's Order and the Title to the truck. We can provide temporary tags for an extra fee as long as you have liability insurance on the truck. We have a $199.00 processing fee that will be added to your final bid, please be aware of this!! You are buying this Ranger in the state of Virginia, therefore Virginia state law will prevail. Thanks for looking!! If you have any questions, please ask!!!! |
Ford Ranger for Sale
2000 ford ranger xlt extended cab pickup 2-door 3.0l(US $1,700.00)
Ranger, factory turbo diesel, 4x4, 5 speed,rare, in great shape,solid, rust free
2011 ford ranger sport gray(US $22,444.00)
2003 ford ranger 210,227 miles key:yes starts w jump wiring issues, windshield
1998 ford ranger, no reserve
2003 ford ranger edge standard cab pickup 2-door 3.0l(US $3,000.00)
Auto Services in Virginia
Winkler Automotive Service Center ★★★★★
Williamsons Body Shop & Wrecker Service ★★★★★
Wells Auto Sales ★★★★★
Variety Motors ★★★★★
Valley Collision Repair Inc ★★★★★
Tidewater Import Auto Repair LLC ★★★★★
Auto blog
BMW V8-powered Ford Model A is the definition of Hot Rod
Thu, 20 Jun 2013Today, hotrodding has a pretty staid definition. Take one classic American car, add one classic American V8, sprinkle with tire smoke and you pretty much have every hot rod to roll out of a shop in the last 40 years. Mike Borroughs knows it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time, getting your bucket to go faster meant grabbing whatever parts were lazing about the yard, bolting them together with a bit of ingenuity and laughing your way down the quarter mile. It's in that spirit that Burroughs built his 1928 Ford Model A.
Rather than turn to the tired flathead or the common Chevrolet small block, Burroughs plucked a 4.0-liter V8 from a 1995 BMW 7 Series. With 300 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, the engine has no trouble shuffling the old A around town. He had to build a custom chassis to get everything to cooperate, but the result is a 1,500-pound heathen that looks built to harass dry lake beds. You can check it out in the video below. Be warned, the soundtrack by Hanni el Khatib may not be safe for work - awesomeness of this caliber rarely is.
Next-gen Ford Cobra Jet development underway, but will it be a Mustang?
Wed, 09 Oct 2013Ford might be stepping away from the NHRA, but it isn't abandoning drag racing altogether. Hot Rod says that Ford confirmed a next-gen Cobra Jet factory drag racer is in the works, but the report also speculates that a new Cobra Jet could switch away from the Mustang nameplate.
Even though talk of a new Cobra Jet coincides with the all-new 2015 Mustang, the lack of confirmation for the dragster's platform leaves Hot Rod to guess that the car might switch to another platform - specifically a front-drive-based, unibody car like the Fusion or Taurus. We'd hate to think of a world with a NASCAR-ized dragster from Ford Racing, but it's also highly unlikely that the Mustang Cobra Jet would step away from its quarter-mile rivals like the Chevy COPO Camaro and Dodge Challenger Drag Pak.
Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]
Mon, 22 Jul 2013Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.