1960 F100 pickup very little rust New windowshield,brakes, rear window needs installed. Motor runs needs new gas tank. tires ok. New bed rails but needs new bed. this is a stepside with laft side tire carrier. seat in good cond. with nice black seat cover Rare truck. This is a project truck need to sell Ihave two othger project truck n car and dont have time for this one. sold as is with a $200.00 deposit through palpal only balance due at time of pick up. Will need to tow not road worthy. Pickup only will not ship located in the Atlanta area Call 706 878 0734 wityh questions On Oct-26-13 at 10:07:39 PDT, seller added the following information: Needs tailgate |
Ford F-100 for Sale
- 1951 ford f1 truck 100% original engine transmission tires runs perfect trophie(US $18,000.00)
- 56 ford f100 custom(US $65,000.00)
- 1953 f-100 swb
- 1968 f100 short bed
- 1972 ford f-100 sport custom red short bed all original georgia truck very nice!
- 1969 ford f100 swb short bed lowered hot rod rat rod patina
Auto Services in Georgia
ZBest Cars ★★★★★
Youmans Chevrolet Co ★★★★★
Wren`s Body Shop ★★★★★
Wholesale Tire & Wheel Co ★★★★★
Walton Tire Co ★★★★★
TJ Custom Muffler & Brake ★★★★★
Auto blog
Consumer Reports: Ford Fusion fun but flawed; Mitsubishi i-MiEV slow, chintzy [w/videos]
Wed, 23 Jan 2013Waiting for a Ford compliment from Consumer Reports these days is like waiting for a low-cost new product from Apple. So we weren't really expecting a glowing review of the 2013 Ford Fusion when CR got its hands on the car. The institute's crew bought three different versions of the Fusion (Hybrid, 1.6-liter EcoBoost and a Titanium with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost) to put through its barrage of tests, and while we aren't too surprised by some of the findings, they're still interesting nonetheless.
CR praises the Fusion for its "eye-catching" design and says that the sportier Titanium trim level is the best-handling midsize sedan they've ever tested, but that's about where the good news ends for Ford. The Fusion Hybrid also posted the best-ever fuel economy CR has recorded in a midsize sedan, but the only problem is that their number was 39 miles per gallon combined - far less than Ford's 47 mpg rating for city, highway and combined. As expected, CR also dinged the Fusion for its MyFord Touch, but some of the other gripes about the car include a cramped cabin and poor fit and finish.
Other Ford products tested this time around include the Focus Electric and C-Max Hybrid. Like the Fusion, CR's observed fuel economy of 37 mpg for the C-Max fell well short of Ford's advertised 47-mpg rating, and both cars were criticized for the use of MyFord Touch. CR notes that the Focus Electric's interior is also cramped, with the battery pack taking up a lot of cargo space.
Ford Fusion getting substantial refresh for 2017
Wed, 13 Aug 2014It's only been a couple of years since Ford rolled out the current Fusion, but if these spy shots are anything to go by, it's already planning what appears to be a substantial update for the mid-size sedan.
According to our paparazzi on the ground, the new Fusion is being prepared for launch late in 2016 or early 2017. Although heavily camouflaged to keep it from prying eyes such as ours, it appears that the updated Fusion will tone down the Aston Martin-style grille, ditch the small corner window with revised front side glass and tweak the vehicle's overall shape. But there's more to the new Fusion than a styling adjustment, and our spy photographers have caught a glimpse inside and taken us along.
Apparently the new Fusion is to get a completely overhauled interior with soft-touch surfaces and matte wood trim to make it seem more upscale. There's an all-new rotary gear selector (like you'd find on a Jaguar, for example) hinting at the implementation of a new nine-speed automatic transmission. The prototype appears to be packing the Microsoft SYNC system, suggesting that the new Blackberry QNX system isn't ready quite yet - though that doesn't necessarily mean it won't be ready by the time the new Fusion is.
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.