2010 Gmc Sierra 2500 Sle Z71 Off-road Crew Cab Diesel Short Bed 4wd One Owner on 2040-cars
Houston, Texas, United States
|
GMC Sierra 2500 for Sale
- Lifted 2009 gmc sierra 2500hd crew cab slt....lifted gmc sierra 2500hd...lifted(US $40,995.00)
- 2007 gmc sierra 2500hd ext cab 4x4 z71 duramax diesel long bed slt no reserve
- 2007 silver slt*lifted*crew*4x4*cust-chromes!!!!
- 07 gmc sierra 2500hd slt crew cab duramax diesel 4wd 6" lift kit bose heat seat(US $27,995.00)
- 2005 gmc sierra 2500 hd sle extended cab pickup 4-door 6.0l(US $13,900.00)
- 2006 gmc sierra 2500hd crew 4x4
Auto Services in Texas
Z`s Auto & Muffler No 5 ★★★★★
Wright Touch Mobile Oil & Lube ★★★★★
Worwind Automotive Repair ★★★★★
V T Auto Repair ★★★★★
Tyler Ford ★★★★★
Triple A Autosale ★★★★★
Auto blog
2019 GMC Sierra spied sporting just a thin wrapping
Mon, Nov 6 2017A new Chevy Silverado is on the way, and along with that comes it's fraternal twin, the GMC Sierra. We've seen spy shots before, but, like the Silverado we saw a few days ago, this is our best look yet. Nearly all of the loose-fitting camouflage has been removed, giving us a decent view of the bodywork. A brief look shows that the Sierra and Silverado will have significant styling differences for this generation. In the past, GMC trucks have been little more than rebadged Chevrolets. That's been changing in recent years, and the divide seems to be growing larger. The grille looks much larger than the Silverado's and there appears to be a small inlet right where the hood meets the front. From the side, we can see that the two trucks have different fenders and beds. The wheel wells on the GMC are squared off at the rear. Compare that to the round wells on the Chevy. Out back, the design is far more similar. Both trucks appear to have rear-facing exhaust outlets. The taillights, too, look to have close to the same shape. A big bulge in the center of the tailgate likely hides a large GMC badge. We still don't have a firm reveal date, but look for some further news this auto show season. Related Video:
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.
GM’s Charlie Wilson was right: Stronger regulations can help U.S. automakers
Fri, Oct 26 2018Charlie Wilson had been the president and CEO of General Motors before being nominated to become secretary of defense by Dwight Eisenhower. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he controversially said, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." And he was right. While car companies aren't necessarily the most progressive when it comes to things that might have the slightest possibility of political blowback, General Motors should be credited for doing something absolutely forthright in this regard with its announcement that it wants the federal U.S. government not to squash the California Air Resources Board's emissions requirements but to actually create a 50-state "National Zero Emissions Vehicle" program that, in the words of Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac, "will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emission future." Filing comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks is one thing. But a graphic the company developed for this announcement — shown above — is something else entirely, something that is absolutely credible, creative and clever. There is a photo of a Chevrolet Bolt EV driving along a highway, which seems to be in Marin County (based on the blurred San Francisco skyline in the background). Text on the photo states: "It's Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles." It seems to say, in effect, "If we want to make America great again, then we're going to do it by leading in technology, not by retreating behind weakened regulations." General Motors understands that the auto market is globally competitive, and if U.S.-based companies are going to be in the game, then they'd better be able to out-innovate the companies based elsewhere, where emissions and economy standards are not being weakened. What's good for our country ... Related Video: