2002 Chevrolet Astro Base Van - Awd on 2040-cars
Salem, Oregon, United States
Body Type:Minivan, Van
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:4.3L V6 OHV 12V
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Astro
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Trim: AWD
Options: Cassette Player, CD Player, Tilt Wheel, Overhead Console, Rear Temperature Control, Tinted Glass, AM/FM Radio
Drive Type: AWD
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag, Rear Window Defogger, Rear Window Wiper
Mileage: 140,218
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows, Power Mirrors, Power Driver's Seat
Exterior Color: Tan
Interior Color: Tan
Number of Cylinders: 6
Disability Equipped: No
Chevrolet Astro for Sale
2003 chevrolet astro base extended cargo van 3-door 4.3l
1995 chevrolet astro luxury touring awd- no reserve!!!
2001 blue chevy astro van(US $5,850.00)
Chevy astro cargo work van bins shelves ladder rack
2000 chevrolet astro base extended cargo van 3-door 4.3l
1998 chevrolet astro cargo/passenger van 3-door 4.3l. runs good!!
Auto Services in Oregon
Toy Doctor ★★★★★
Stealth Recovery and Towing ★★★★★
Salem Auto Body & Paint Works ★★★★★
S Os Automotive ★★★★★
Russ`s Auto Care ★★★★★
Real Tech Auto & Truck Repair ★★★★★
Auto blog
Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?
Sat, Sep 23 2017If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd
GM workers in Oshawa walk out in protest of plant closure
Mon, Nov 26 2018TORONTO/MONTREAL – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday expressed his "deep disappointment" in General Motors' decision to close its Oshawa plant, a move Canadian officials only learned about on Sunday and which led workers to walk off the job on Monday. GM said the closure affects a total of 2,973 assembly line jobs. GM's total employment in Canada is 8,150 direct jobs. Workers in the Unifor trade union walked out of the Oshawa plant "in protest," ahead of a meeting with GM about the announcement, a union spokeswoman said. "I've moved my family twice for this company and they do this to me," a tearful worker told CBC TV as he left the plant. Currently, the Oshawa plant builds the Cadillac XTS and Chevy Impala sedans. Under Unifor's four-year contract signed in 2016, GM must give the union a year's notice before closing the plant. The automaker intends to close the plant in December, 2019. A 2015 study commissioned by Unifor, which represents GM employees, estimated that shutting the plant would eliminate 4,100 direct jobs and reduce Ontario's gross domestic product by C$1.1 billion. But Jerry Dias, president of Unifor, said the move amounts to a breach of the automaker's contract with its employees. "We have a collective agreement that says they're not closing any of our facilities ... so we will do anything by any means to make sure that they live up to their word," Dias said at a news conference. Dias said the contract between Unifor and the company forbids GM from closing any of its Canadian plants during the contract period, which ends in September 2020. "They are not closing our damn plant without one hell of a fight." Canadian officials promised to aid auto workers affected by the 2019 closure, part of a wider restructuring by the automaker that will cut production of slow-selling models and slash its North American workforce. "I spoke with GM (CEO) Mary Barra to express my deep disappointment in the closure," Trudeau tweeted on Monday. "We'll do everything we can to help the families affected by this news get back on their feet." GM workers have been part of the heart and soul of Oshawa for generations - and we'll do everything we can to help the families affected by this news get back on their feet. Yesterday, I spoke with @GM's Mary Barra to express my deep disappointment in the closure.
Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans
Thu, Apr 30 2020Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.






















