Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

2003 Chevrolet Corvette on 2040-cars

US $11,900.00
Year:2003 Mileage:26800 Color: Burgundy
Location:

Du Bois, Illinois, United States

Du Bois, Illinois, United States

ANY QUESTIONS JUST EMAIL ME: gerard.galbiso@zoho.com . Please check out this beautifully maintained 2003 50th Anniversary Corvette!
Only has 26800 miles on it. Only driven in the Summer months and never in in-climate weather. Housed in a garage
during the winter months.
Newly installed Corsa Performance Exhaust in September 2013 at Mid-America. Non-Smoker.

Auto Services in Illinois

Wheels of Chicago ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Wholesale Used Car Dealers
Address: 2669 N Cicero Ave, Berwyn
Phone: (773) 292-6200

Vern`s Auto Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Brake Repair, Tire Changing Equipment
Address: 1645 N Grand Ave E, Richland
Phone: (217) 525-2837

Transmissions To Go ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission
Address: 3609 Market Pl, Maeystown
Phone: (636) 238-3861

Transmatic Transmission Specialists ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Transmission, Carburetors
Address: 5210 S Il Route 31, Carpentersville
Phone: (815) 900-7278

Total Auto Glass ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Windshield Repair, Glass-Auto, Plate, Window, Etc
Address: 1151 N US Highway 67, Granite-City
Phone: (314) 667-4548

Sunderland Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 29622 E Manito Rd, Pekin
Phone: (309) 968-1339

Auto blog

Smaller Cars Endure Big Problems On Crash Test

Wed, Jan 22 2014

In a crash test of 11 of the smallest cars on the market, only one vehicle received an acceptable rating. The rest received marginal or poor ratings in the study, providing evidence that supports a widely held notion that smaller cars are among the least safe on the road. No other vehicle group has performed as poorly on a new crash test than these mini cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nonprofit group that conducted the testing. The latest results of which were released Wednesday. The Chevrolet Spark was the only car earning an overall "acceptable" rating on the small-front overlap test, and even that vehicle had its shortcomings, IIHS said. "Small lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage," said Joe Nolan, the senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. "That's why it's even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection. Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren't performing as well as other vehicle categories." The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and certain Ford Fiesta models all received "marginal" overall grades on the test, while the Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all earned "poor" ratings. Results from these sub-compact cars fare much worse than vehicles sized just a little bit bigger, IIHS said. Among 17 cars evaluated in the small category, five earned "good" ratings and five more earned "acceptable." Only introduced a year ago, the small-front overlap test has quickly become a key indicator of differences in automotive safety. IIHS introduced it as a way to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with a tree or utility pole at 40 miles per hour. In the real world, these sorts of accidents are more dangerous than others, in part because they bypass the front-end crush zones on most cars. TOP 5Most Researched Sedans 2013 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,680 2013 Hyundai Sonata MSRP : $20,895 2013 Nissan Altima MSRP : $21,760 2014 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,955 2013 Toyota Corolla MSRP : $16,230 Automakers have been rushing to make design changes to the front ends of their cars. Without a grade of acceptable or better, they cannot qualify for the IIHS' overall Top Safety Pick+ honor, given annually to the safest models on the market.

GM recalling 15k midsize pickups over leaky brakes

Mon, Jun 8 2015

General Motors has announced a recall in coordination with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration related to the brakes on the 2015 Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon. In the 14,838 units in the United States estimated to be affected, the front brake calipers may be leaking fluid. Needless to say, that could make them less effective, which could hinder the vehicle's ability to stop in time to avoid a collision. The affected units were all manufactured between January 6 and December 24, 2014. The fix seems simple and straightforward enough, with dealers being instructed to inspect the front brake calipers, and replace them if necessary. See below for all the details from NHTSA. RECALL Subject : Brake Fluid Leak Report Receipt Date: MAY 12, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V278000 Component(s): SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC Potential Number of Units Affected: 14,838 Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2015 Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon trucks manufactured January 6, 2014, to December 24, 2014. The affected vehicles may experience the front brake calipers leaking brake fluid. This is due to air pockets, an imperfection in the metal caliper body. CONSEQUENCE: If the vehicle experiences a brake fluid leak it can increase the stopping distance, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash. REMEDY: GM will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace the front-brake calipers if necessary, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin July 10, 2015. Owners may contact GM customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet), or 1-800-462-8782 (GMC). GM's number for this recall is 14888. 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. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2015 Chevrolet Colorado: First Drive View 38 Photos News Source: National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Seyth Miersma / AOL Recalls Chevrolet GMC Truck gmc canyon brakes

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

Fri, Jan 10 2014

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.