2003 Chevy Astro Cargo Van V6 Auto A/c Contractors Package Only 105k Miles on 2040-cars
Canandaigua, New York, United States
You are viewing a 2003 Chevy Astro Cargo Van V6 Auto A/C Contractors Package With Only 105K MILES!!!! This van is in good shape. The engine has plenty of power and the transmission shifts like it should. The exterior is in good condition. No noticeable dents. The interior is in good condition as well, no rips in the seats, all features function properly. These vans are getting very hard to find with this low mileage and good condition. This van has gone through our shop and all fluids have been changed. Yes all fluids, engine, transmission, rear differential, etc. The tires are at 50%+, front brakes have been replaced, this vehicle is mechanically sound!!!!!!!!!! This van does have a branded title. Salvage History which our shop has, made the proper repairs and this is an excellent running vehicle. This vehicle will be NYS inspected and ready to go to work today. Call (585)393-6400 with any questions. |
Chevrolet Astro for Sale
2001 chevrolet astro lt extended passenger van 3-door 4.3l
Beautiful custom van - w/ pronto wheelchair and bruno wheelchair lift(US $10,000.00)
2004 chevrolet astro base standard cargo van 3-door 4.3l(US $5,800.00)
1988 chevy astro conversion cargo van no reserve 4.3l v6 runs and drives!!!!(US $1,099.00)
2005 chevrolet astro cargo automatic 3-door van(US $6,495.00)
2002 chevrolet astro base extended cargo van 3-door 4.3l
Auto Services in New York
Xtreme Auto Sales ★★★★★
WaLo Automotive ★★★★★
Volkswagon of Orchard Park ★★★★★
Urban Automotive ★★★★★
Trombley Tire & Auto ★★★★★
Tony`s Boulevard Service Center ★★★★★
Auto blog
Next-gen GM SUVs caught wearing new boxy bodies [w/video]
Wed, 15 May 2013We recently drove the brand-new 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and found it to be vastly improved compared to the outgoing model. And now that The General's pickup trucks have been squared away, it's time to focus our attention onto their passenger-friendly companions, the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon (above).
Our spy photographers have passed along a huge smattering of photos (and a video), showing the new SUVs out testing. Both the short- and long-wheelbase models were spied, and while the overall shape of the vehicles hasn't changed all that much, we expect the updates to be substantial. In addition to new powertrain options, like GM's new small-block V8, we expect the interiors of both SUVs to get massive makeovers, providing better materials throughout their cabins and quieter, more refined environments. We even hear that some trick new suspension developments may be in store for upper-end models.
Visually, these spy shots allow us to see a couple of new details on the SUVs' front and rear fascias, including LED running lamps on the Yukon and some interesting LED taillamp treatments. Of course, the obvious third party missing from this set of photos is the Cadillac Escalade, but as we reported earlier, GM is working to further differentiate the 'Slade from the rest of the fullsize SUV lineup, and is working to make the new model "much less ostentatious."
Camaro spy shots show subtly different grille, front fascia
Sun, 03 Feb 2013It looks like there some changes in store for the Chevrolet Camaro - the only thing is that we just don't know what Chevy has up its sleeve. Looking at these spy shots, we'd initially be inclined to think that there is just a minor facelift or a new special edition, but upon closer inspection, there are a few oddities about this car that definitely have us intrigued.
The most obvious difference on this prototype is the slightly restyled front fascia with a smaller lower air inlet and the two-bar grille. Then we get to some of the car's mysterious details. For starters, this fascia has the SS vent above the grille, but it looks to be blocked off. Granted this could just be a one-off piece used for testing. What really piqued our interest was at the rear of the car where it has quad exhaust outlets that are used on the ZL1. Could this be the LS7-powered Camaro that we reported on back in December?
At this point, your guess is as good as ours as to what we're looking at here, so let us know in the comments what you think this could be.
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.