1964 Ford Galaxie on 2040-cars
Newport, New Hampshire, United States
Engine:390
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Body Type:CONVERTIBLE
Transmission:Automatic
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 00000000000000000
Mileage: 39300
Make: Ford
Drive Type: --
Features: --
Power Options: --
Exterior Color: Blue
Interior Color: White
Warranty: Unspecified
Model: Galaxie
Ford Galaxie for Sale
1961 ford galaxie sunliner convertible(US $28,500.00)
1963 ford galaxie 500 convertible(US $15,000.00)
1964 ford galaxie 500 convertible(US $16,750.00)
Ford galaxie(US $14,000.00)
1959 ford galaxie(US $16,800.00)
Certificate of origin (US $49,500.00)
Auto Services in New Hampshire
Trans Medic Transmission Clinic ★★★★★
Subaru of Keene ★★★★★
Russell Auto Inc. DBA Portland Transmission Exchange ★★★★★
Pete`s Auto Technology ★★★★★
Laurent`s Auto Service ★★★★★
J & W Auto Service ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ward's reveals annual 10 Best Engines list for 2013
Thu, 13 Dec 2012Ward's Auto has released its annual 10 Best Engines award winners. The 2013 list covers the full width and breadth of the internal combustion spectrum, from a spate of efficient four-cylinders to the most powerful production V8 on the planet. As always, the entries must be available in a production vehicle in the first quarter of 2013 with an MSRP of less than $55,000. The supercharged 3.0-liter V6 from the Audi S5 held on for the fourth consecutive year, and BMW earned two spots on the list with its turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder and turbo 3.0-liter inline-six.
Ford pulled in two awards for its 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder and and the supercharged 5.8-liter V8 from the Shelby GT500. Honda matched BMW and Ford with two wins of its own. Wards awarded the 2.4-liter four-cylinder from the Honda Accord Sport as well as the 3.5-liter V6 from the Honda Accord. Chrysler, General Motors and Subaru each garnered a spot on the list as well for the 3.6-liter V6 in the Ram 1500, the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the Cadillac ATS and the 2.0-liter four-cylinder the Subaru BRZ, respectively. You can read the full press release below for more information.
The U-2 spy plane needs high-performance cars to help land
Thu, Oct 15 2015Typically, aircraft deploy their landing gear from three main points. Most military aircraft, for example, deploy two gears at the back and one forward, like a tricycle. Some civilian aircraft flip the layout, with two in front and one in back - tail-draggers. The U-2 Dragon Lady is wildly different than any of these. With a 103-foot wingspan but a body that's just 63-feet long, the layout of the U-2 makes a traditional landing setup infeasible. Instead, the U-2 utilizes a pair of wheels, one up front and one in back. With such a bizarre layout, landings are so tough that since the U-2's earliest flights at Area 51, the US Air Force has used high-performance chase cars to guide the pilot down safely. The landing process isn't over there, though. As this video from Sploid shows, balancing out the aircraft to fit the detachable "pogos" – think training wheels for spy planes – is a comical procedure requiring a number of airman using their full body weight to even out the U-2. This video also recaps some of the great vehicles that have served as chase vehicles for this legendary spy plane. They include Chevrolet El Caminos, and the Fox-body Ford Mustangs so favored by the California Highway Patrol. For the last several years, the USAF has utilized products from General Motors, using fourth-generation Chevy Camaros, before switching over to the Pontiac GTO and most recently, the awesome Pontiac G8. It's fair to say that if you're a gearhead in the Air Force, this is the job you want. Check out the video, embedded up top. News Source: Sploid via YouTubeImage Credit: Sploid Chevrolet Ford GM Pontiac Military Performance Videos
2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise
Mon, Jan 2 2017About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.