1962mercury Monterey Custom on 2040-cars
Williamsburg, Virginia, United States
Body Type:Sedan
Engine:390
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Interior Color: Black
Make: Mercury
Number of Cylinders: 8
Model: Monterey
Trim: Custom
Drive Type: Auto
Mileage: 53,000
Exterior Color: White
1962 Mercury Monterey Custom sedan, nice old car. Solid body, top surfaces origional paint, doors have been repainted below mldngs, not a good repaint, looks good from a distance. Has a dent in left rocker panel. covered by rocker mldng. No known rust through issues. Frame & floor very nice, trunk floor solid. Interior origional other tan new carpet, in excellent condition. New tires & rear brakes. Engine is a 30 over 390 with edelbrock intake and carm, has an aftermarket cam, do not know specs, but hits pretty good at idle. Recent new dual exhaust. C6 trans, feels may have mild shift kit. Runs & drives really nice. Really nice old cruiser, AM radio works. Fuel gauge does not work. Odometer shows 53K, title says not actual. Hve gotten many great comments at local cruise ins as you dont see many of these.
Mercury Monterey for Sale
- 1962 mercury monterey custom convertible 352 v8 automatic barn find survivor !!(US $9,950.00)
- 1954 mercury monterey original like new
- 1957 mercury monterey w/ original ford y-block turnpike cruiser 368/290 engine!
- 1964 red mercury monterey "breezeway" 2 door coupe v8 stock am radio
- 1960 mercury monterey(US $15,900.00)
- Mercury 428 cid monterey
Auto Services in Virginia
Xtensive Body & Paint ★★★★★
Tread Quarters Discount Tire ★★★★★
Taylor`s Automotive ★★★★★
Sterling Transmission ★★★★★
Staples Automotive ★★★★★
Stanton`s Towing ★★★★★
Auto blog
Ford recalling 370,000 Crown Vic, Grand Marquis and Town Car models
Fri, 30 Aug 2013The Detroit News is reporting that Ford will recall some 370,000 Crown Victoria (pictured), Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car vehicles from model years 2005 through 2011, for an issue regarding the lower intermediate steering shaft. 355,000 of the vehicles in question were sold in the US, with the other 15,000 sold in Canada.
The report indicates that corrosion of the lower intermediate steering shaft could cause a "loss of steering," presumably because of a partial or complete failure of the part. The report points out the dealers will inspect and replace the offending steering component for recalled cars, and may also secure a lower steering column bearing and replace the upper intermediate steering shaft as needed. The company is unaware of any reports of the faulty part causing any accidents or injuries.
Ford helpfully lists states in which corrosion is more likely to have taken place, mostly in the Snow Belt, as you might guess. Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia are listed.
Ford recalling 126,000 Fusions and Milans over wheel separation concern
Fri, 09 Dec 2011Ford has announced a recall of certain Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles after an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A total of 128,616 2010 and 2011 models equipped with steel wheels may have been manufactured with wheel studs that could crack and split over time. If that happens, the vehicle may experience a wheel separation.
According to The Detroit News, the company is aware of a total of 30 wheel separation incidents, one of which occurred on the front of the vehicle. Even so, no injuries have been reported as a result of the defect.
The problem apparently stems from the fact that the mounting pads on the vehicles' steel wheels may have been faulty from the factory. In addition, the wheel mounting face on rear disc brakes may not have been installed properly. Ford will inspect the rear disc face and replace them as necessary. In addition, the company will replace all of the vehicle's wheel studs free of charge. Head to the NHTSA website for more information, and click past the jump to view the full recall notice.
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.'"