Pro Touring, Vortec V8, Th 350, Disc Brakes, Tilt Column, Custom Interior on 2040-cars
Huntersville, North Carolina, United States
Body Type:Pickup Truck
Engine:Vortec V8
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Make: Chevrolet
Model: C-10
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Regular Cab
Trim: Cheyenne
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Drive Type: Rear Wheel Drive
Options: Leather Seats, CD Player
Mileage: 13,300
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Power Seats
Exterior Color: Dark Green
Interior Color: Black
Number of Cylinders: 8
Disability Equipped: No
Chevrolet Cheyenne for Sale
- 1972 chevy cheyenne blue and white new!(US $18,000.00)
- !972 chevrolet 3/4 ton cheyenne. (little rust) new wheels and tires.
- 1971 chevy super cheyanne(US $4,900.00)
- 1979 c10 pu(US $6,000.00)
- 1973 chevrolet cheyenne 3/4 ton, 454 cu/in, auto & air conditioning(US $6,500.00)
- 1997 chevy reg cab truck..clean..rust free..arizona truck!
Auto Services in North Carolina
Xpress Lube ★★★★★
Wrightsboro Tire & Auto ★★★★★
Wilburn Auto Body Shop - Lake Norman ★★★★★
Wheeler Troy Honda Car Service ★★★★★
Truck Alterations ★★★★★
Troy`s Auto & Machine Shop ★★★★★
Auto blog
Junkyard Gem: 1986 Chevrolet Sprint Plus
Fri, Jun 16 2023General Motors sold second- and third-generation Suzuki Cultuses with Geo or Chevrolet Metro badging in the United States from 1989 through 2001 model years, and we've all seen plenty of those cars on the street over the years. The first-generation Cultus was sold here as well, with Chevrolet Sprint badges, and I've found a rare example of the Sprint five-door hatchback in a Northern California car graveyard. The Chevy Sprint first appeared on the West Coast as a 1985 model, then became available everywhere in the United States for the 1986 through 1988 model years (in Canada, it was sold as the Pontiac Firefly). It was available here as a hatchback with three or five doors; for 1986 only, the five-door was badged as the Sprint Plus. Soon enough, The General would be selling many more Asian-built cars with Detroit badges here. Isuzu I-Marks were sold as Chevrolet/Geo Spectrums starting in the 1986 model year, while Daewoo provided the Pontiac LeMans two years later. Under the hood, a 1.0-liter three-cylinder rated at 48 horsepower. The five-door Sprint cost $5,580 in 1986, which was $200 more than the three-door (those prices would be $15,445 and $14,891 in 2023 dollars). I've documented seven discarded Sprints prior to this one (including an extremely rare Turbo Sprint), and all of them were three-doors; we can assume that price was the most important factor for Sprint buyers. Gasoline prices were crashing hard during the middle 1980s, but memories of gas lines and odd-even-day fuel rationing from 1979 remained strong. What cars competed with the '86 Sprint on sticker price? Well, there was no way to undercut the hilariously affordable (and terrible) Yugo GV, which cost $3,990. The much bigger (but still pretty bad) Hyundai Excel listed at $4,995, while Toyota would sell you a sturdy (but zero-fun) Tercel starting at $5,448. Even the wretched Chevy Chevette — yes, it was still available in 1986 — cost $5,645. The original buyer of this car was willing to shell out an extra $395 to get an automatic instead of the base five-speed manual. That's about $1,093 in today's money. This car must have been slow. By the end, the doors were held shut with duct tape, but it still stayed alive until age 37. 53 miles per gallon on the highway! It does everything. The camels of the highway.
GM Recalls 218,000 Chevy Aveo Models Over Fire-Prone Lighting
Wed, May 21 2014The recall train keeps on rolling for General Motors. Hot on the heels of its recent 2.4 million-vehicle recall of various models, it's now calling in 218,000 Chevrolet Aveo units from the 2004-2008 model years because they could catch fire. The problem concerns the daytime running light module in the instrument panel. It could overheat, melt and cause a fire. According to GM spokesperson Alan Adler, "We are aware of some fires," and the company "is still investigating." Adler wouldn't comment about how many fires were reported or when the automaker was first aware of this issue because of the ongoing analysis. However, he said the issue has not caused any injuries or fatalities. GM also doesn't have a fix for the problem with the DRL module yet. The company says in its recall statement to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the remedy "is still under development." Adler wasn't sure when it would be ready, but he said Aveo owners would receive notification in the mail "relatively soon." They will receive a second letter later to schedule the repair. In a separate letter about the Aveo's problem to NHTSA (viewable here as a PDF), GM said its Executive Field Action Decision Committee decided to conduct the recall on May 16. Scroll down for the recall report. RECALL Subject : Daytime Running Light Module Overheating Report Receipt Date: MAY 19, 2014 NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V261000 Component(s): Potential Number of Units Affected: 218,000 Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors is recalling certain model year 2004-2008 Chevrolet Aveo vehicles equipped with daytime running lights (DRL). In the affected vehicles, there may be heat generated within the DRL module located in the center console in the instrument panel, which could melt the DRL module. CONSEQUENCE: If the DRL module melts due to the heat generation, it could cause a vehicle fire. REMEDY: The remedy for this recall campaign is still under development. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet). General Motors recall number for this campaign is 14236. NOTES: Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.
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.