No Reserve Svt Cobra Convertible4.6l, V8, Manual, Low Mileage, Non Smoker, Clean on 2040-cars
Old Forge, Pennsylvania, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:4.6L 281Cu. In. V8 GAS DOHC Naturally Aspirated
For Sale By:Dealer
Body Type:Convertible
Fuel Type:GAS
Make: Ford
Warranty: Unspecified
Model: Mustang
Trim: SVT Cobra Convertible 2-Door
Options: Convertible
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes
Drive Type: RWD
Power Options: Power Windows
Mileage: 41,561
Sub Model: 2dr Converti
Exterior Color: Red
Number of Cylinders: 8
Interior Color: Tan
Ford Mustang for Sale
2000 ford mustang gt saleen s281 gloucester, va(US $14,500.00)
2007 ford mustang gt 5,308 miles [ like new ](US $18,000.00)
Mustang 92 lx notch 8.50 cert. kuntz 352 r block bogarts lupi trans c4 x275 ?(US $14,500.00)
2007 ford mustang convertible
66 coupe 289 four speed manual
1997 ford mustang, no reserve
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
A cool boost to turbocharger performance
Fri, Jul 17 2015Since the advent of the forced-induction engine, we have been looking for ways to get every drop of performance we can. There are many approaches to getting additional power using better intercooling, water injection, or even adding nitrous oxide. One take on a short instant burst of power is being researched by Mahle and involves providing supercooled air to an engine, which allows it to burn a leaner fuel mixture and produce more power. The supercooling idea is not new and was examined by Ford in 1993 on the Mustang Mach III concept car, then brought up again in 2003 with the SVT F-150 Lightning concept. Ford called its system the SuperCooler; it was designed to work with any turbocharged or supercharged engine equipped with a water-to-air intercooler. The system on the Lightning concept used a small tank of antifreeze that was hooked up to the truck air conditioning compressor. The air conditioning compressor cooled the antifreeze down to about 30 degrees. The other side of the tank was hooked up to the air-to-water intercooler, which usually had a temperature over 100 degrees. Once the antifreeze was circulated from the tank into the intercooler, it would lower the intercooler temperature and provide for a cooler, denser air charge into the engine; the result was around 50 extra horsepower for a burst of about 30 seconds to a minute, depending on the size of the tank. The system for the Lightning was to be offered as a $750 option and would have been targeted towards drag racers and the like, as it could be used for a run down the drag strip and then re-cooled by the time the truck was back in line. The system was fairly non-intrusive – it only weighed about 25 pounds and did not require a new compressor or intercooler. But as with many concepts, it was ultimately scrapped. The technology was always stuck in the back of my mind, but with larger and more powerful engines being produced it could not find its place. With the advent of new fuel economy standards, we have seen small-displacement turbocharged engines pop up and they seem like the perfect candidate for this type of technology. Ford's EcoBoost 1.0-liter three-cylinder turbocharged engine, as used in the Fiesta and Focus, is one such candidate for this technology. It would add a negligent amount of weight but could provide a boost of 10 to 20 horsepower when needed, like merging onto the highway or catching up to traffic.
Ford UK exec says EVs are a good way to lose a fortune
Wed, Mar 19 2014Stateside, Ford execs are quick to point out the automaker's expansion in the plug-in sector. And despite a minimal presence in the pure EV space, the Blue Oval has been promoting its plug-in vehicles as part of an overall effort to boost fleetwide fuel economy. Too bad the company's UK chief didn't get the memo. There's "no point in us getting behind [EVs] and losing a fortune" - Ford's Mark Ovenden Mark Ovenden, speaking rather frankly at the Geneva Motor Show recently, said he didn't have real high hopes for substantial electric-vehicle adoption and said the company's money was better spent on smaller gas- and diesel-powered engines, the UK's Daily Mail says. Ovenden said of EV development that there was "no point in us getting behind it and losing a fortune," adding that his goal was to have variants of Ford's EcoBoost engine in 40 percent of the company's vehicles. Ford has about a 15-percent market share in the UK. The UK doesn't appear to be as kind to the EV as the US. Nissan last year cut the price of its all-electric Leaf there last year by about $4,000, while the company rolled out a promotion for the Leaf late last year, including allowing Leaf drivers to borrow a gas- or diesel-powered Nissan for free for as long as two weeks a year during the first three years of Leaf ownership. In the US, Ford sold just 229 Ford Focus Electrics during the first two months of the year after moving 1,738 units in 2013.
American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings
Fri, 10 May 2013Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.








































































