1967 Chevy Caprice 2 Door Awesome 350 V8 / 305 Hp Factory Ac on 2040-cars
Henderson, Nevada, United States
| ||
Chevrolet Caprice for Sale
- 1991 chevrolet caprice classic sedan 4-door 5.7l(US $2,500.00)
- 1985 chevrolet caprice classic sedan 4-door 5.0l (manuals included)
- 1977 chevrolet caprice classic sedan 4-door
- 1975 chevrolet caprice classic convertible 2-door 5.7l
- 1966 chevy impala super clean and original
- 1970 chevrolet caprice base hardtop 4-door 5.7l
Auto Services in Nevada
Ward and Sons Automotive ★★★★★
Val Halla Automotive Service ★★★★★
Texaco Xpress Lube ★★★★★
SUVs, Cars & Trucks R Us - Full Service Center ★★★★★
Sparks Automotive ★★★★★
Skip`s Spring Svc ★★★★★
Auto blog
Will Chevy Bolt get Opel badge in Europe?
Sat, Mar 7 2015General Motors' European plug-in vehicle name may go from A to B. That's because the Chevrolet Bolt could be sold under GM's Opel brand across the Pond, Automotive News Europe says, citing people familiar with the process that it declined to identify. The Ampera, the European version of the Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle, is being phased out due to poor sales. While the Ampera won the European Car of the Year in 2012, its sales have trended well below expectations. That the Bolt would be sold as an Opel hints to us that GM expects to distribute the electric vehicle in far smaller numbers than in the US. The Bolt, which was introduced in January in its concept version at the North American Auto Show in Detroit, will have a single-charge range of about 200 miles. GM representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGeen on Friday afternoon. The car will also have a price tag in the US of about $30,000, factoring in federal-government tax incentives. That's if those tax incentives are still around in 2017, when the Bolt is expected to debut stateside. Related Videos: Featured Gallery Chevrolet Bolt EV Concept News Source: Automotive News Europe-sub.req. Green Chevrolet GM Opel Electric Chevrolet Bolt bolt
GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible
Wed, Aug 1 2018The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado
Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating
Mon, Aug 6 2018Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.