79 Ford Truck Short Bed on 2040-cars
Flovilla, Georgia, United States
FOR SALE SOLID FORD TRUCK AT, 302 , BUILT ALL SUMMITT PARTS, TUBE HEADERS, RUNS GOOD & AND FAST NEW BUMPERS
IT'S A SHORT BED,NO RUST . THANKS rick,,,,,, |
Ford F-150 for Sale
- 2003 ford f-150 xl crew cab pickup 4-door 4.6l(US $5,500.00)
- 2009 ford f-150 "king ranch" super crew cab pickup(US $20,750.00)
- Great buy for this 4x4 ford truck with low miles!!!
- Stunning crew cab with custom paint and features, loaded with goodies!(US $11,500.00)
- 2005 ford f-150 lariat 5.4l extended cab pickup 4-door 5.4l 4wd black(US $10,500.00)
- 2002 f 150 harley davidson edition supercharged 5.4l
Auto Services in Georgia
Wishen Motors ★★★★★
WILLIE & BATMAN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE ★★★★★
William Mizell Ford ★★★★★
W.T. Standard & Assoc. ★★★★★
Unlimited Motor Cars ★★★★★
Toyota Mall Of Georgia ★★★★★
Auto blog
Experts wonder if aluminum F-150 gives Ford a real advantage
Mon, 17 Mar 2014There's no doubt that Ford is taking a risk in producing the body of its upcoming new F-150 pickup truck in aluminum. What is up for debate, however, is whether aluminum was a wise risk to take in the first place. Wards Auto took the opportunity to poll some experts on the subject of aluminum versus steel in the automotive sector, with somewhat unsurprising results.
Richard Schultz, a project consultant at Ducker Worldwide, which bills itself as "a leading aluminum industry consultant (though they also deal in steels), suggests that the potential drawbacks to aluminum - higher costs, lower supply - aren't really impediments to the auto industry's increased acceptance of the lightweight metal.
Similarly, Randall Scheps, global automotive marketing director for Alcoa, a massive aluminum producer, counters claims that aluminum is less safe for vehicle occupants, suggesting that the use of aluminum can actually increase safety as it could potentially allow for larger vehicles with more crush space than steel.
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.
Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age
Thu, 17 Jul 2014In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.