2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Work Truck on 2040-cars
191 Crossroads Blvd, Mount Hope, West Virginia, United States
Engine:Gas/Ethanol V6 4.3L/262
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1GCNKPEH0EZ255788
Stock Num: 140780
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Silverado 1500 Work Truck
Year: 2014
Exterior Color: Victory Red
Interior Color: Jet Black/Dark Ash
Options: Drive Type: 4WD
Number of Doors: 2 Doors
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 for Sale
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 work truck(US $37,535.00)
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 lt(US $38,819.00)
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 work truck(US $38,995.00)
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 work truck(US $39,250.00)
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 work truck(US $40,120.00)
- 2014 chevrolet silverado 1500 lt(US $44,405.00)
Auto Services in West Virginia
Total Care Auto Repair ★★★★★
Pifer`s Service Center, LLC ★★★★★
NAPA Auto Parts ★★★★★
Lemon`s Mobile Auto Repair Service ★★★★★
Gill`s Automotive ★★★★★
Bill`s Towing/Auto Repair ★★★★★
Auto blog
Buick Encore, Chevy Trax earn Top Safety Pick from IIHS [w/video]
Thu, Feb 12 2015The Buick Encore has been a massive sales success practically from the moment it debuted, and Buick recently decided to increase production to keep up with demand for the premium compact crossover. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently put one to the test again, and the Encore earned a Top Safety Pick award. It's the first model from the brand to score the nod since 2013, according to the IIHS, and the rating also carries over to the 2015 Chevrolet Trax. The 2015 Encore scored a Good rating in all of the IIHS' evaluations, including the 40-mile-per-hour, small overlap front crash test. That was a big improvement over the previous model the institute tested, which scored a Poor result in the overlap test. In the first test, about 13 inches of the lower door hinge pillar came into the passenger compartment, and the steering wheel airbag moved too far to protect the dummy's head. Improvements for the latest model year showed six inches of intrusion this time, and the airbags caught the dummy's head well. The dummy's sensors also indicated a low risk of injury. The two CUVs missed out on the full Top Safety Pick+ because the IIHS scored the Encore as only having a basic front crash prevention system, and there was no such equipment for the Trax. To earn the highest mark, models need at least an advanced rating by the institute for this technology. Buick Encore, Chevrolet Trax earn 2015 TOP SAFETY PICK award ARLINGTON, Va. - A small SUV is the first vehicle from the Buick brand to qualify for a TOP SAFETY PICK award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety since 2013. The Buick Encore's newly introduced, lower-priced twin, the Chevrolet Trax, also qualifies for the honor. The Encore's award follows improvements to the SUV's structure for better small overlap front protection. The 2015 model earns a good rating in the small overlap test. In contrast, the 2013-14 Encore rated poor in the test. The driver's space was seriously compromised with intrusion measuring as much as 13 inches at the lower door hinge pillar. The dummy's head barely contacted the front airbag before sliding off the left side, as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain airbag deployed too late and didn't have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head. In the latest test, the driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of 6 inches at the door hinge pillar and instrument panel. The dummy's movement was well-controlled.
Porsche, Jaguar continue dominance in 2015 JD Power APEAL study
Wed, Jul 22 2015The top of JD Power's 2015 APEAL Study has not changed much in the last year. Porsche remains No. 1 with Jaguar nipping at its heels, although both premium brands saw their overall score fall compared to 2014. For those that need a refresher, the APEAL Study looks at how "gratifying" a vehicle is to own and drive, rating cars and brands on a 1,000-point scale. The industry average for 2015 has increased from 794 to 798, while the total number of automakers that finished above the curve increased from 16 to 20. While Porsche and Jaguar finished at the top, their scores dropped eight and seven points, respectively, to 874 and 855. The top "non-premium" brand was Mini, which scored an impressive 825, up from 795. If the BMW-owned British marque is still a bit too premium for your tastes, last year's non-premium winner, Hyundai, did climb five points and is this year's runner up. At the opposite end of the scale, Smart sits at the very bottom of the rankings, with a score of 683 (it didn't appear on the 2014 rankings). Fiat also dropped, from fourth worst in 2014 to second worst in 2015, despite the 500 being named most appealing city car. Subaru made an impressive climb, from third worst to seventh, falling just 10 points shy of the industry average and two points south of the non-premium average. In the individual vehicle segments, eight brands earned multiple awards, with Ford, Chevrolet, and Porsche earning three apiece. Surprise segment victories included the new Ford Expedition, which beat out Chevy's popular Suburban. The Infiniti QX80 bested the likes of the Cadillac Escalade and Range Rover for best large luxury SUV, and the Dodge Challenger beat its muscle car rivals from Ford and Chevy. Most of the victories, though, were quite predictable. The Mazda6 and CX-5 took wins for the midsize sedan and compact SUV categories respectively, while the Volkswagen Golf captured the compact car win. The Ford F-150 won the large pickup category, while the Porsche Cayman was named most appealing compact premium sporty car. Check out the official release on the 2015 APEAL Study, available below, from JD Power. 2015 U.S. APEAL Study Results The latest safety-related technologies are among the drivers of customer satisfaction with new vehicles, according to the J.D. Power 2015 U.S.
Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000
Fri, Jan 10 2014There'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.