1966 Ford F100 Shortbed Pickup 352 Cid on 2040-cars
Ridgewood, New Jersey, United States
|
This is a 1966 Ford F-100
truck with a 352 V8 engine. It is a beautiful truck that runs strong. Over $20,000 invested just in the restoration and have the receipts to prove it. The motor
was rebuilt with a 3 speed on the column. It has a good clutch, new brakes, new seat belts, good steering, new tires, new rims, original (repainted hubcaps)and a new battery. The truck has a new rear axle (Ford 9" posi), new shocks, bushings and was been newly painted 18 months ago. The seats,
rubber floor mats, and headliner are all new. This is a wonderful truck to be
caught driving in. It is great for cruising. This truck
is definitely worth it. I reserve the right to end the auction at any time. If
you have any questions, call or text Gary at 201-280-8782 or email at
gvainsworth@gmail.com. $500.00 deposit is due upon sale. The rest of the balance
should be received in 7 days through PayPal. Cash sale (in person) or bank
transfer are accepted. The vehicle can be picked up or shipped. Storage is
available if necessary. No warranty and no returns. We are not selling the
truck internationally. All sales must be in the US. Payments should also be made
on time. If payments are not made on time, the truck will be put back on the
eBay auction.
|
Ford F-100 for Sale
1951 ford pickup(US $45,000.00)
1968 ford f100(US $6,000.00)
1956 ford f100 custom cab for sale(US $26,000.00)
1972 f100 pro street big block
Ford classic f100 pickup
All original ford f100 - original paint-motor----super clean
Auto Services in New Jersey
Vip Honda ★★★★★
Totowa Auto Works ★★★★★
Taylors Auto And Collision ★★★★★
Sunoco Auto Care ★★★★★
SR Recycling Inc ★★★★★
Robertiello`s Auto Body Works ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford dinged by OSHA for asbestos at Buffalo plant
Sat, 20 Jul 2013Ford 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.
2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid
Thu, 02 May 2013No Prius Killer
As much as we enthusiasts like to rail on the lowly Toyota Prius as the harbinger of death for all we hold dear, there's no denying the machine's absolute and interminable grip on the hybrid hatchback market in the United States. Toyota has so thoroughly sunk its teeth into the segment that you can clearly hear the automaker's incisors clacking against one another with the conclusion of each financial quarter. And there's little wonder why. Buyers can plop down less than $25,000 and have a runabout that can return up to an estimated 51 miles per gallon in the city, leaving every other entry on the market with precious little gristle to gnaw on.
Enter the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid. With its claimed 47 mpg combined, the funky little hatch from Europe already falls behind the 48 mpg city offered by the Prius, but that marginal sacrifice in fuel economy could be a small price to pay for buyers who want a credible alternative to the stalwart Toyota. Unfortunately, like the Fusion Hybrid, the C-Max Hybrid had trouble even approaching its Environmental Protection Agency estimates during our time with the car.
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.



