1960 Mercury Monterey Convertible Classic Americana on 2040-cars
Duanesburg, New York, United States
| |||||||
Mercury Monterey for Sale
- Nice merc lead sled, 350ci chevy, auto trans w/ a/c, shaved doors w/ poppers(US $37,995.00)
- Restored 1966 mercury montery convertable(US $7,350.00)
- 1954 mercury monterey sun valley glass top bubble top hot rod or rat rod(US $5,500.00)
- 1953 mercury monteray 2dr, hardtop on frame restored no reserve
- 1967 mercury monterey 2 dr hdtp, new built 390, auto, 17"cobra wheels. marauder?
- 1953 mercury monterey flathead v8 w/auto trams
Auto Services in New York
YMK Collision ★★★★★
Valu Auto Center (ORCHARD PARK) ★★★★★
Tuftrucks and Finecars ★★★★★
Total Auto Glass ★★★★★
Tallman`s Tire & Auto Service ★★★★★
T & C Auto Sales ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford recalls Five Hundred, Mercury Montego sedans over fuel tank woes
Mon, 18 Jul 2011Ford has announced through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it is recalling nearly 3,000 examples of its Five Hundred and Mercury Montego (pictured) sedans from the 2007 model year.
The action, which affects 2,945 vehicles, is due to potentially defective welds between the filler neck and the fuel tank, a condition that could result in a fuel leak or the smell of gasoline reaching the occupants. In the worst-case scenario, a leak could cause a fire. Cars with the affected fuel tank problem could see an illuminated dashboard warning light as a result of the evaporative emissions leak being detected.
Ford will inspect and replace the fuel tank at no cost to owners (those who have already had the procedure done at-cost can apply for reimbursement), and the Dearborn automaker will begin notifying Five Hundred and Montego owners beginning August 15. Check out the official NHTSA press release after the jump for further details.
Junkyard Gem: 1996 Nissan Quest XE with 338,549 miles
Sun, Jul 9 2023When I hit the junkyard, I always look for vehicles with impressive final figures showing on their odometers. I find so many Hondas and Toyotas with better than 300,000 miles that I don't consider them especially noteworthy (the exception being super-low-spec cheap models, such as a Tercel or Civic VX), and it goes without saying that the bar is quite high for Mercedes-Benzes as well. It has been surprisingly difficult to find discarded Nissans that made it past the 300k mark; today's Junkyard Gem is just the fourth I've documented. The highest-mile junked Nissan I'd found prior to today's minivan is a 1994 Maxima with 364,238 miles, followed by a 1987 Maxima with 341,176 miles and a 1986 200SX with 309,222 miles. Keep in mind that Nissan didn't go to six-digit odometers on most of its US-market cars until the early 1980s, and then went to tough-to-read-in-the-junkyard electronic odometers in the early 2000s; this means the pool of potential high-mile Nissans is limited to about the 1983-2000 range of model years. Ford has just as much right to claim credit to this van's impressive mile total as does Nissan, since the Quest was a collaboration between Ford and Nissan that also produced the Mercury Villager; this van was built by Ford at the Ohio Assembly plant. The Quest/Villager platform was derived from the Maxima's, and the engine is pure Nissan: a 3.0-liter VG30 V6 rated at 151 horsepower. The only transmission available in the first-generation (1993-1999) Quest/Villager was a four-speed automatic. This one appears to have been sold new at Landrum Nissan in Pueblo. The rear glass has been painted flat black, possibly to keep prying eyes from seeing valuable cargo. The rear seats are long gone, so this van probably hauled cargo for much of its long life. The front interior seems to be in good shape. Why is this van here? There's body damage on the left rear and right front, suggesting a crash that may have bent the suspension past the worth-fixing threshold. Perhaps the crinkled metal just made this van too unsightly, or maybe some powertrain problem was the culprit. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's time to expect more from a minivan. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's all fun and games until the toddler takes the wheel.
NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe
Mon, 17 Dec 2012According 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.'"