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

2004 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 Ls 5.3l 8 Passenger! on 2040-cars

US $7,987.00
Year:2004 Mileage:141136 Color: Gray /
 Black
Location:

Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:Sport Utility
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:5.3L 323Cu. In. V8 GAS OHV Naturally Aspirated
Fuel Type:GAS
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN: 3GNEC16Z74G344359 Year: 2004
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Suburban 1500
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Trim: LS Sport Utility 4-Door
Options: CD Player
Drive Type: RWD
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Mileage: 141,136
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows
Exterior Color: Gray
Interior Color: Black
Number of Cylinders: 8
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. ... 

Auto Services in Arkansas

Roberts Brothers Tire Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Brake Repair, Wheels-Aligning & Balancing
Address: 1415 E Harding Ave, Pine-Bluff
Phone: (870) 534-2911

Precision Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 2863 S 2nd St, Holland
Phone: (501) 605-1911

Money Tree ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers, Tax Return Preparation-Business, Financial Services
Address: 8700 Warden Rd, Little-Rock-Afb
Phone: (501) 835-8868

Meineke Car Care Center ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Electrical Equipment, Brake Repair
Address: 2666 Lamar Ave, West-Memphis
Phone: (901) 881-5964

Marks Auto Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 1117 S Oak St, Little-Rock
Phone: (501) 771-2341

Hodges Wrecker Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Towing
Address: Wiederkehr-Village
Phone: (479) 968-5111

Auto blog

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Tue, May 17 2016

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

GM is the latest automaker accused of diesel emissions cheating

Thu, May 25 2017

Volkswagen and Ram need to make room on the diesel-emissions bench for General Motors. America's largest automaker was accused in a lawsuit on Thursday of rigging hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks with at least three so-called defeat devices to ensure that the trucks would meet federal and state emission standards, even if they generated more pollution in real-world driving. According to the complaint, on-road emissions testing conducted for the plaintiffs found that Duramax-equipped trucks produced NOx pollutants, comprised of nitrogen and oxygen atoms, two to five times higher than legally permitted, and "many times" higher than their gasoline counterparts. The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Detroit on behalf of people who own or lease more than 705,000 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks fitted with "Duramax" engines from 2011 to 2016 model years. The lawsuit seeks remedies including possible refunds or restitution for lost vehicle value, plus punitive damages. It adds to legal problems for Detroit-based GM, which has already paid about $2.5 billion in penalties and settlements over faulty ignition switches linked to 124 deaths. GM joins at least five automakers whose diesel emissions have been scrutinized by regulators or consumers. They include VW, which has admitted to cheating; Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler; Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Peugeot and Renault. GM spokesman Dan Flores called the claims "baseless," and said the trucks comply with US Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards and California's own tough standards. Shares of GM were down 69 cents, or 2.1 percent, at $32.50 in afternoon trading, after earlier falling to $31.93. The GM lawsuit was filed by several law firms, including Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which helped reach multibillion-dollar settlements with VW on behalf of drivers and dealers. The case is Fenner et al v General Motors LLC et al, US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 17-11661. The named plaintiffs are Andrei Fenner of Mountain View, California and Joshua Herman of Sulphur, Louisiana. They said they would not have bought their respective 2011 Sierra and 2016 Silverado trucks, or would have paid less for them, had they known about the alleged rigging. Joseph Spak, an RBC Capital Markets analyst, in a research report said "negative publicity" from the lawsuit could drive buyers to trucks from Ford or even Fiat Chrysler's Ram.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Mon, Aug 6 2018

Over 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.