1999 Chevy Astro Van Auto A/c Service Clean History Report 98 00 01 02 03 04 05 on 2040-cars
Elyria, Ohio, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:GAS
Engine:4.3L 262Cu. In. V6 GAS OHV Naturally Aspirated
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Make: Chevrolet
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Model: Astro
Trim: Base Extended Cargo Van 3-Door
Disability Equipped: No
Drive Type: RWD
Mileage: 20,090
Doors: 3
Sub Model: CARGO 20K Discount Pricing Best Deal Call Today
Drive Train: Rear Wheel Drive
Exterior Color: White
Number of Doors: Generic Unit (Plural)
Interior Color: Gray
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Number of Cylinders: 6
Power Options: Air Conditioning
Chevrolet Astro for Sale
2001 chevy astro, no reserve
Chevy astro van sport 1998, selling as is body is good but needs a motor. *rare*
1998 chevrolet astro lt extended passenger van 3-door 4.3l(US $5,000.00)
No reserve in az - 2005 chevy astro awd 8 passenger off corporate lease rear a/c
2000 chevrolet astro ls extended passenger van 3-door 4.3l
2001 chevrolet astro cargo van awd v6 prev. comcast 1 owner fleet runs great 4.3(US $4,995.00)
Auto Services in Ohio
Zehner`s Service Center ★★★★★
Westlake Auto Body & Frame ★★★★★
Wellington Auto Svc ★★★★★
Walt`s Auto Inc ★★★★★
Waikem Mitsubishi ★★★★★
Vin Devers- Auto Haus of Sylvania ★★★★★
Auto blog
Personal testimonies show real-world effect of plugging in with Chevy Volt
Mon, Jan 13 2014At this point, there are tens of thousands of individual stories about what it's like to live with a Chevrolet Volt. But it also remains informative to take a look at one of these in depth. For example, one Atlanta-area Volt owner says he's cut his cents-per-mile ownership costs by almost 40 percent compared to his previous car primarily because of his ability to drive almost all the time on electric power. Jeffrey Cohen told Clean Technica that he put about 14,000 miles on his Volt extended-range plug-in hybrid for the year that ended October 2013, and that more than 92 percent of those were on electrons. He estimates his "lifetime" miles per gallon rating at a whopping 384 mpg, a figure pushed upward by the fact that he installed a Level 2 charger at home while his employer added an external 110-volt charger at work. Cohen is spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents in his Infiniti M35. As a result, he's spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents a mile with his prior vehicle, an Infiniti M35. About two-thirds of those Volt costs are for the $349-a-month lease payments, while 15 percent is insurance, 11 percent is for the charger and seven percent for the gas and electricity that actually powers the car. Helping lower that last figure is an overnight electricity rate that's about 10 percent of Cohen's daytime rate. Chevy parent General Motors hopes such testimonies will re-trigger sales for the Volt in 2014. Last year, GM sold 23,094 Volts, down 1.6 percent from 2012. We expect our readers have similar stories they'd like to share in the Comments. Related Gallery 2011 Chevrolet Volt: Review View 22 Photos News Source: Clean TechnicaImage Credit: Lead image: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong Green Chevrolet GM Electric running costs
2020 Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra recalled due to faulty brake component
Wed, Mar 11 2020General Motors is recalling 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pickups to fix a defect in the trucks' brake system. Certain Silverado and Sierra pickups were produced with brake-caliper bolts that were not heat-treated. Without heat-treating, the bolts are weaker than they should be, and there is a risk that they could fail, which would affect the trucks' braking performance, possibly leading to a crash. In total, 20,352 vehicles are affected. Owners of affected trucks will be contacted by GM. Dealers will inspect the bolts and replace those that are defective. Related Video: Â Â Â
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.
