Corvette 1996 Lt4 Black With Tan Interior on 2040-cars
McGregor, Texas, United States
Body Type:Coupe
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:LT4
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Corvette
Trim: Tan interior
Options: Cassette Player, Leather Seats, CD Player
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Drive Type: Six speed
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows, Power Seats
Mileage: 83,190
Exterior Color: Black
Interior Color: Tan
Number of Doors: 2
Number of Cylinders: 8
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Chevrolet Corvette for Sale
- Corvette: 2003 ann edition convertilble
- 2003 chevrolet corvette z05 50th anniversary edition - black 2 door coupe
- 1991 chevrolet corvette base hatchback 2-door 5.7l(US $7,000.00)
- 2003 corvette convertible 50th anniversary edition
- 1992 chevrolet corvette base hatchback 2-door 5.7l(US $20,000.00)
- 1992 corvette convertible & hard top
Auto Services in Texas
Yos Auto Repair ★★★★★
Yarubb Enterprise ★★★★★
WEW Auto Repair Inc ★★★★★
Welsh Collision Center ★★★★★
Ward`s Mobile Auto Repair ★★★★★
Walnut Automotive ★★★★★
Auto blog
Editors' Picks August 2021 | Honda Civic, Mercedes S-Class and more
Thu, Sep 9 2021This month of Editors' Picks saw us award the honor to a couple of redesigned stalwarts like the Honda Civic and Mercedes-Benz S-Class. Plus, a new crossover that splits the difference between the compact and subcompact class takes home the prize. On top of this, we'll introduce you to a new term: midcompact. We'll be using this to describe those in-between crossovers that are a tad too small to be considered compact, but too large to neatly fit into the subcompact class. For a few examples of these "midcompact" cars, we'll point you to the Ford Bronco Sport, Kia Seltos and VW Seltos. In case you missed our previous Editors' Picks posts, here’s a quick refresher on whatÂ’s going on here. We rate all the new cars we drive with a 1-10 score. Cars that are exemplary in their respective segments get EditorsÂ’ Pick status. Those are the ones weÂ’d recommend to our friends, family and anybody whoÂ’s curious and asks the question. The list that youÂ’ll find below consists of every car we rated in August that earned an EditorsÂ’ Pick. 2021 Genesis G70 2022 Genesis G70 View 26 Photos Quick take: Genesis hits all the right buttons with its G70. It's attractive, fun to drive and can be had for a fair price. Enthusiasts should give it a shot before taking home one of its German competitors. Score: 8 What it competes with: Alfa Romeo Giulia, Lexus IS, Acura TLX, Infiniti Q50, Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac CT4, Volvo S60 Pros: Sharp handler, stunning exterior looks, strong engines Cons: Average interior, loses manual option, small backseat and trunk From the editors: News Editor Joel Stocksdale — "I was already a big fan of the Genesis G70. It has brilliant handling, and the twin-turbo V6 is a beast. It's even a bargain against the competition. And Genesis just made it look a lot better. I wish they'd done a bit more to update the interior, but it's still not a bad cabin. Besides, you won't think too much about it when you're hustling down a fun back road." Features Editor James Riswick — "Yes, it is small, but in a sport sedan segment where "sport" means increasingly less, the G70 still delivers (in part because of that smallness).
Chevy Volt 'acceptable,' Nissan Leaf 'poor' in new IIHS safety tests
Thu, Jul 31 2014Ford C-Max Hybrid also scored "acceptable" rating. With US Nissan Leaf sales up almost 30 percent during the first half of the year, the only thing that might be able to stop the battery-electric vehicle is a good, stiff barrier. Unfortunately, thing's aren't always pretty when that happens in the real world, according to new tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Things with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in are a little bit rosier, though. The two plug-in vehicles were part of a batch of a dozen vehicles that just went through the IIHS's "small overlap" test, in which the driver's side front corner of the vehicle is crashed into a rigid barrier at 40 miles per hour. Out of the dozen, only the Mini Cooper Countryman was given a "good" rating. Five vehicles, including the Volt and the Ford C-Max Hybrid, were rated "acceptable," two were "marginal" and two, including the Leaf, were "poor." Plug-in vehicles are unique in the crash-test context because of their relatively large battery sizes. In the Volt's case, the driver had a "low risk" of injury, said the IIHS. But the Leaf's crash substantially pushed back the instrument panel and steering column, creating a scenario where the driver was "likely" to sustain leg injuries. The batteries in both the Leaf and the Volt passed safety tests specifically targeted at things like thermo and electrical properties and overall integrity. "Nissan is proud of the Leaf's 'Good' rating in all other IIHS tests, a 4-star NCAP rating from NHTSA and its IIHS Top Safety Pick rating in all previous years since the car's release," the company said in an e-mail sent to AutoblogGreen. "As for the performance of the 2014 Leaf in the 'small overlap frontal test,' Nissan will continue to review these and other results from the IIHS 'small overlap frontal test' as we seek opportunities for improvement." Check out the IIHS's press release and small car crash-test video footage below. Range of ratings: Small car ratings run the gamut in challenging small overlap front test The Mini Cooper Countryman is the only small car to earn a good rating among the latest group of 12 cars subjected to the Institute's small overlap front crash test. Two electric models and a hybrid also are in the mix, with varied results. The electric-powered Chevrolet Volt (with a gasoline engine "range extender") earns an acceptable rating, while its battery-electric rival, the Nissan Leaf, earns a poor rating.
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.