1964 Ford Falcon Futura Convertible on 2040-cars
Stratford, Connecticut, United States
|
Nice shape and in good running condition, only 36000k miles. This car has to many new parts to list. Just to mention some, new front disk brakes, front and back bumpers new interior with das boar padding instrument panel. .See all pictures and ask questions
|
Ford Falcon for Sale
1965 ford falcon futura sprint(US $3,500.00)
Ford falcon, classic, hot rod, rat rod, hardtop, custom, daily driver(US $9,300.00)
1967 ford falcon van
1964 ford falcon futura 4 dr. sedan
Falcon station wagon unrestored collector car hot rod or restore or drive it
1964 falcon sprint 2-door hardtop(US $23,995.00)
Auto Services in Connecticut
Valvoline Instant Oil Change ★★★★★
Uzun Auto ★★★★★
Tire Country Of Manchester Inc ★★★★★
The New England Classic Car Co ★★★★★
Superior Automotive Center ★★★★★
Superior Auto ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford-sponsored survey says a third of Brits have snapped a 'selfie' while driving [w/videos]
Fri, 08 Aug 2014Talking on the phone while driving isn't advisable, and texting while driving is downright dangerous. Considering those truths, the fact that we even need to point this out this is incredibly disturbing: taking "selfies" while behind the wheel is exceptionally stupid. But, it's a thing that a third of 18- to 24-year-old British drivers have copped to doing, according to a new study from Ford.
Ford, through its Driving Skills for Life program, surveyed 7,000 smartphone owners from across Europe, all aged between 18 and 24, and found that young British drivers were more likely to snap a selfie while behind the wheel than their counterparts in Germany, France, Romania, Italy, Spain and Belgium.
According to the study, the average selfie takes 14 seconds, which, while traveling at 60 miles per hour, is long enough to travel over the length of nearly four football fields (the Ford study uses soccer fields, but we translated it to football, because, you know, America). That's an extremely dangerous distance to not be focused on the road.
2015 Ford F-150 spied in the rain
Mon, 10 Jun 2013Standing as quite a contrast from the spy shots of the 2015 Ford Mustang we saw earlier today, our spies also sent along these pictures of the next-generation F-150 pickup out testing in its (heavily camouflaged) full prototype body. Much of the new truck's design is hidden under the bulky coveralls, but we expect a lot of its new lines to be inspired by the Atlas concept that debuted at the 2013 Detroit Auto Show.
Perhaps the biggest unknown surrounding the new F-150 is what, exactly, its body will be made of. Earlier reports have suggested that lightweight aluminum materials may be used throughout, offering a serious reduction in weight versus previous models. But Ford engineers will need to be careful, though, as they need to keep a tight rein on costs while preserving class-competitive (if not class-leading) towing and payload capacity.
On the powertrain front, the new F-150 will undoubtedly carry on with EcoBoost engines, and we'd bet on a normally aspirated V8 as well. A diesel option hasn't been confirmed, but we wouldn't be surprised to see one some time in the truck's lifecycle. Mum's the word on when the production F-150 will be revealed, but our best guess is that we'll see it at the 2014 Detroit Auto Show.
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.















