1950 Chevrolet Short-bed 3100 5 Window - 1947 1948 1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 on 2040-cars
Tucson, Arizona, United States
- Arizona Truck, No Rust, 12 Volt Conversion - Short Bed - Five Window Deluxe a Cab - - Six Cylinder 235 - Rebuilt from top to bottom - Original Push to Start - fires up beautifully on first push - Four Speed Muncie - On the floor - shifts like it should - 1955 Chevy rear end - Geared for Highway use - New Oak Wood Bed - beautifully done - New Splash Guard and Chrome Bumpers - New Glass / Rubbers / Mounts - Air Ride (front and back) - New Cherry Bomb - New Brakes / Drums / Cylinders - AM/FM/CD in glove box - New Headliner / Door Panels / Upholstery - New Rubber Floor Mat - New Chrome Grille - chrome everywhere - - Coker Classic White Walls - Cross Spoke Hubcaps - - Flashlight and Siren included - - truck is my daily driver. - Drive this truck to your next show - - 24,000 OBO - five-two-zero-24O-O4O8 - for more information |
Chevrolet Other Pickups for Sale
1952 52 chevrolet chevy pickup 3600 3100 rolling chassis with straight 6
1976 chevy thunder truck with a 427 engine. excellent condition(US $13,000.00)
1958 chevrolet truck 3100 apache standard cab pickup 2-door(US $4,800.00)
1955 chevrolet 3100 "big window" truck(US $69,900.00)
1951 chevy pickup(US $30,000.00)
Hot rod, old school
Auto Services in Arizona
Wright Cars ★★★★★
World Class Automotive Repair ★★★★★
Walt`s Body & Paint, LLC ★★★★★
Upark We Sell IT ★★★★★
Tristan Express Auto Sales ★★★★★
Superstition Springs Lexus ★★★★★
Auto blog
2020 Chevy Silverado HD vs. 2019 Ram, Ford heavy duty trucks: How they compare on paper
Tue, Jan 15 2019Last year was all about the latest in light-duty full-size pickup trucks, so this year, Ram, Ford and Chevy are launching the heavy-duty variants. The first out of the gate is the redesigned 2019 Ram 2500 and 3500 HD, and Ram dropped all the pertinent specs with the reveal. Chevy followed with the new Silverado HD in Chicago, and Ford revealed updates to the Super Duty at the same show. Ford hasn't released details on output, payload capacity, towing capacity or pricing for the updated Super Duty. As such, we'll be comparing the current Super Duty with the all-new Silverado HD and Ram HD. Both Chevy and Ram have revealed full specs for each of their respective trucks, leaving out only pricing, which we've estimated based on the outgoing models. You can see the raw details in the chart below, followed by extra information and analysis. Some things to keep in mind: These specifications cover all versions of the Ram HD, Silverado HD and Super Duty, such as 2500 and 3500 models, and all the way up to F-450. Specifications can vary widely based on engine, drivetrain, cab and bed configurations, so be sure to take a close look at the specific model you're interested in when you get particularly serious about buying. And of course, be sure to check out our car comparison tool if you'd like to look at other trucks on the market. Engines and drivetrains All three of these trucks offer gasoline and diesel engines, but only the Ram has two versions of the diesel. Starting with gas engines, Ram's 6.4-liter V8 has the power advantage with 25 more horsepower than the next-most-potent Super Duty, but the new Silverado HD's 6.6-liter V8 takes the torque crown at 464 pound-feet, nearly 35 more than the other two gas engines. The Ram is also the only one to pair an eight-speed automatic with the gas engine, whereas the Ford and Chevy make do with a six-speed. With diesel engines, horsepower is a weak point for the Ram. The Ram's entry-level turbo 6.7-liter inline-six is the weakest, as the only one with under 900 pound-feet of torque and under 400 horsepower. Even the high-output version only makes 400 horsepower, while the Chevy makes 445 and the Ford 450. But the tables turn with torque, as the Ram makes a best-in-class 1,000 pound-feet followed by the Ford's 935 and the Chevy's 910. Both the Ram and the current Super Duty diesels each get a six-speed automatic, but the new Silverado HD's diesel gets a 10-speed unit.
Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf go nearly the same all-electric miles a year
Sun, Nov 1 2015Range anxiety? What range anxiety? The concept is a foreign one to those driving Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-ins, and as a result, that vehicle's all-electric driving miles are actually pretty close to that of the all-electric Nissan Leaf. Such were the findings of a study conducted by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), which tracked about 8,700 cars during a three-year period, including a bunch of Volts, Leafs and Smart ED electric vehicles. In short, even though the Volt's all-electric range of about 38 miles is less than half that of the Leaf's, the Volts' collective all-electric driving was just six percent lower than the Leaf's (the next-generation Volt will be even more electro-generous, with a 50-mile range). The logic makes sense considering typical US driving habits, in which a vast majority of people commute less than 35 miles a day. Additionally, Volt drivers obviously have no fear of running out of electricity, so they were far more likely to max out on that range than some Leaf drivers. Overall, the average Leaf is driven about 15 percent less than the national average of about 11,300 miles a year for all vehicles, while Volts are driven about eight percent more. Of all those Volt miles, about 81 percent were in all-electric mode. Additionally, Volt drivers recharged about 1.5 times a day, while Leaf drivers recharged about once a day, and about 85 percent of that charging was at home. As for non-home charging, about 20 percent of the vehicles accounted for 75 percent of the station use, so folks are definitely creatures of habit. Check out the INL's 22-page report here for more interesting details. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Volt: First Drive View 24 Photos Related Gallery 2016 Nissan Leaf View 30 Photos News Source: Idaho National Laboratory via Hybrid Cars Green Chevrolet Nissan Electric Hybrid extended-range plug-in
BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index
Mon, Oct 10 2016While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.
















