Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

Rare Colonial White, Most Is New Or Rebuilt Including 352 Engine And Automatic on 2040-cars

Year:1958 Mileage:5500
Location:

Concord, California, United States

Concord, California, United States
Advertising:

Ford Thunderbird for Sale

Auto Services in California

Zube`s Import Auto Sales ★★★★★

New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 225 Tank Farm Rd Ste B2, Shell-Beach
Phone: (805) 541-9823

Yosemite Machine ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Machine Shop, Engine Rebuilding & Exchange
Address: 229 Empire Ave, Ceres
Phone: (209) 578-5654

Woodland Smog ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Inspection Stations & Services, Gas Stations
Address: 208 Main St, Knights-Landing
Phone: (530) 662-5253

Woodland Motors Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, New Car Dealers, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 1680 E Main St, North-Highlands
Phone: (888) 969-7133

Willy`s Auto Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 7542 Warner Ave # 104, Midway-City
Phone: (714) 842-3161

Western Brake & Tire ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Brake Repair, Tire Dealers
Address: 801 E Ball Rd, Rowland-Heights
Phone: (714) 533-1152

Auto blog

Chrysler called out over lackluster Ram Runner by racer who helped develop it

Fri, 11 Apr 2014

Fans of off-roading and desert blasting might recall that Chrysler offers an aftermarket conversion that can turn a Ram 1500 into a road-legal desert racer, called the Ram Runner. The kit, sold through Mopar, includes some significant suspension upgrades, body tweaks and a brawnier cat-back exhaust for the truck's 5.7-liter V8.
Considering all of this, comparisons with the almighty Ford F-150 SVT Raptor are common. Among the off-road community, that makes these two a sort of Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang for people that prefer driving on dirt. In the Race-Dezert forum, the discussion as to which truck was better was proceeding as normal - Ram fans said their piece and Ford fans said theirs. Then, a man named Kent Kroeker offered up his two cents.
See, Kroeker is a Baja racer, and the man that helped develop the Ram Runner. Despite his association with the truck, though, he had some less than kind words for Chrysler and the Ram Runner.

Ford trademarking 'Mach 1,' possibly for Mustang

Thu, 24 Oct 2013

A legendary name might be accompanying the redesigned, 2015 Mustang when it finally makes its world debut - Mach 1. Stumbled upon by the team at Ford Authority, the Mach 1 title was found in a trademark filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office, and would revive a name last used on the fourth-generation, 2003 Mustang.
While the the 2003 vintage was well and good, the Mach 1 is really remembered for a three-year run from 1969 to 1971 - it's best to just forget the emissions-choked 1972 to 1978 Mach 1s - when power output ranged from a modest 250 horsepower with the two-barrel, 351-cubic-inch Windsor V8 to "375 hp" (actual output was rumored to be well north of 400 horsepower) with the righteous, 429-cubic-inch Super Cobra Jet V8.
What does the title hold for the sixth-generation Mustang? It's tough to say. The fanatics at Ford Authority seem to think Mach 1 could take the place of the Shelby GT500 at the top of the Mustang hierarchy, which sounds like a valid argument. At the same time, we could see the SVT Cobra moniker returning for the flagship model, and the Mach 1 doing battle with the Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 (unless the Boss 302 were to return). Confounding things is the historical precedent - the Mach 1 was responsible for the death of the Mustang GT in 1969, so it might make sense as a volume performance model.

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Fri, Jan 3 2014

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.