1928 Ford Model A Pickup on 2040-cars
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, United States
Body Type:Pickup Truck
Engine:4 Cyl
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Number of Cylinders: 4
Model: Model A
Trim: Black
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Drive Type: Standard Shift on the floor
Mileage: 6,936
Exterior Color: Blue
Interior Color: Black
1928 Ford Model A Fully restored from the bottom up
1st place trophy winner at many car shows. Kept in a temperature controlled garage.
Great show piece or nice for the Sunday drive.
Ford Model A for Sale
Very nice 1931 model a street rod, show or go, great driver, candy red, "look"(US $25,000.00)
1928 ford roadster hot rod real steel traditional flathead av8 28,29,30,31,32
1930 1931 chopped ford model a t sedan coupe hot rat rod custom project 1932 34
1929 ford coupe
1929 model a fiberglass roadster
1929 ford model a four door murray(US $8,500.00)
Auto Services in Pennsylvania
Zirkle`s Garage ★★★★★
Young`s Auto Transit ★★★★★
Wolbert Auto Body and Repair ★★★★★
Wilkie Lexus ★★★★★
Vo Automotive ★★★★★
Vince`s Auto Service ★★★★★
Auto blog
EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate
Mon, 26 Aug 2013
The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.
2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid
Mon, 01 Apr 2013Your Mileage May Vary
As difficult as it is to write this, I was actually excited about the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid. With the beautiful looks of the newest midsize fighter from Ford and a fuel economy estimate capable of shaming even the stalwart Camry Hybrid, the battery-augmented four-door seemed like a recipe for unabashed success. But appearances love nothing more than swapping our boundless enthusiasm for cold platters of disappointment. The 2013 Fusion Hybrid gets hobbled right out of the gate with a lofty price tag, and real-world driving keeps the sedan from even approaching those EPA figures.
With so many excellent midsize hybrids on the market, is there any reason to consider the newest Fusion Hybrid? Are sharp aesthetics, a well-executed interior and capable driving dynamics enough to overcome the machine's shortfalls? Not from where I'm standing.
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.




















