1948 Chcopped,suicide Ford F1 on 2040-cars
Henderson, Nevada, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:350
Number of Cylinders: 8
Make: Ford
Model: Other Pickups
Power Options: Power Windows
Drive Type: 2WD
Trim: n
Mileage: 0
Ford F1 project truck.. chevy 350/350 tranny. Top had been chopped 4 in, Volare front end, and it has suicide doors. This is a great project truck i just dont have the time to finish it.Motor runs strong.
Ford Other Pickups for Sale
- 1965 ford econoline pickup
- 1949 ford f-1 custom pickup(US $57,900.00)
- 1951 ford truck, f1 with flathead v8
- 1950 ford f1 pickup truck(US $10,000.00)
- Look at this 2008 f-450 extended cab texas own with warranty only 74k(US $24,800.00)
- Custom build 2008 ford f550 pickup with sleeper(US $79,000.00)
Auto Services in Nevada
Updated Auto ★★★★★
Sudden Impact Auto Body and Collision Repair Specialists ★★★★★
Sudden Impact Auto Body & Collision Repair Specialists ★★★★★
Speed House ★★★★★
Smog-N-Go ★★★★★
Skip`s Spring Svc ★★★★★
Auto blog
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.
Jaguar design boss admits X-Type was a mistake
Thu, 19 Sep 2013History has a way of repeating itself, especially in the auto industry. When Jaguar was owned by Ford, the British brand attempted to field a competitor for the BMW 3 Series, called the X-Type. Based on the bones of a Ford Mondeo, it aped the styling of Jaguar's flagship model, the XJ, while borrowing liberally from the Ford parts bin. That was 2001.
Now, in 2013, Jaguar is planning a new 3 Series challenger based on the platform previewed by the C-X17 Concept, while Ford is attempting to take the latest Mondeo upmarket. The moves have both brands recognizing where, why, and how the X-Type failed. "It didn't look mature or powerful or anything. It was just a car," Jaguar's current head of advanced design, Julian Thomson, told PistonHeads. Basing the X-Type on a front-drive car while giving it styling that was meant for a rear-driver lead to proportions that "were plainly wrong," Thomson told PH. Ford's European head of quality, Gunnar Herrmann, added that the X-Type was "a fake Jaguar, because every piece I touch is Ford."
For what it's worth, the X-Type's successor in the segment will sport rear-drive, with plenty of input from Ian Callum. Thomson described the new model, which would challenge the 3 Series as having, "Big wheels right to the ends of the car, low bonnet, short overhangs, very low cabins." Sounds good to us.
Tier 1 suppliers call GM the worst OEM to work with
Mon, 12 May 2014Among automakers with a big US presence, General Motors is the worst to work for, according to a new survey from Tier 1 automotive suppliers, conducted by Planning Perspectives, Inc.
The Detroit-based manufacturer, which has been under fire following the ignition switch recall and its accompanying scandal, finished behind six other automakers with big US manufacturing operations. Suppliers had issues with trust and communications, as well as intellectual property protection. GM was also the least likely to allow suppliers to raise their prices in the face of unexpected increases in material cost, all of which contributed to 55 percent of suppliers saying their relationship with GM was "poor to very poor."
GM's cross-town competitors didn't fare much better. Chrysler finished in fifth place, ahead of GM and behind Dearborn-based Ford, which was passed for third place this year by Nissan. Toyota took the top marks, while Honda captured second place.