2012 Chevrolet Avalanche Lt 5.3l Leather Dvd Backup Cam on 2040-cars
Burkburnett, Texas, United States
Chevrolet Avalanche for Sale
- 2004 chevrolet avalanche 1500 automatic 2-door truck(US $10,850.00)
- Wow!2005 chevy avalanche 2500 lt 4x4.3/4 ton with 8.1 v8!.a show dog* 78k miles*
- 2003 z71 heated leather sunroof bose towing 5.3 vortec v8 4wd used v silverado
- 2008 chevrolet avalanche ls clean car fax-new tires-2 owner
- Beautiful blue 2007 chevrolet avalanche(US $18,000.00)
- 2011 avalanche ltz 2wd blk/blk lthr roof nav tv 53k 20's immaculate(US $30,990.00)
Auto Services in Texas
Wynn`s Automotive Service ★★★★★
Westside Trim & Glass ★★★★★
Wash Me Car Salon ★★★★★
Vernon & Fletcher Automotive ★★★★★
Vehicle Inspections By Mogo ★★★★★
Two Brothers Auto Body ★★★★★
Auto blog
General Motors Recalls Nearly 780,000 Cars To Fix Deadly Problem
Thu, Feb 13 2014General Motors is recalling nearly 780,000 compact cars in North America because the engines can shut down unexpectedly and cause crashes. The company says six people have been killed in crashes related to the problem. The recall affects Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac G5s from the 2005 through 2007 model years. U.S. safety regulators say the weight of the key ring and rough roads can move the ignition switch out of the run position, cutting the engine and electricity. If that happens, air bags may not work. GM says there have been 22 crashes from the problem. All happened at high speeds. Dealers will replace the ignition switch for free. GM says owners should remove nonessential items from key rings until the problem is fixed. Related Gallery Chevy Impala Earns Highest Accolades From Consumer Reports Recalls Chevrolet GM Pontiac Cobalt
GM isn't liable for punitive damages in ignition switch cases
Wed, Nov 20 2019NEW YORK — A federal appeals court said General Motors is not liable for punitive damages over accidents that occurred after its 2009 bankruptcy and involved vehicles it produced earlier, including vehicles with faulty ignition switches. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said on Tuesday that the automaker did not agree to contractually assume liability for punitive damages as part of its federally-backed Chapter 11 reorganization. GM filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, and its best assets were transferred to a new Detroit-based company with the same name. The other assets and many liabilities stayed with "Old GM," which is also known as Motors Liquidation Co. Tuesday's 3-0 decision may help GM reduce its ultimate exposure in nationwide litigation over defective ignition switches in several Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn models. It is also a defeat for drivers involved in post-bankruptcy accidents, including those who collided with older GM vehicles driven by others, as well as their law firms. The ignition switch defect could cause engine stalls and keep airbags from deploying, and has been linked to 124 deaths. A lawyer for the drivers and their law firms did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GM had no comment. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said GM's agreement to acquire assets "free and clear" of most liabilities excused it from punitive damages claims for Old GM's conduct. He also noted that the judge who oversaw the bankruptcy concluded that the new company could not be liable for claims that the "deeply insolvent" Old GM would never have paid. The decision upheld a May 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, who oversees the ignition switch litigation. Drivers have sought a variety of damages in that litigation, including for declining resale values. GM has recalled more than 2.6 million vehicles since 2014 over ignition switch problems. It has also paid more than $2.6 billion in related penalties and settlements, including $900 million to settle a U.S. Department of Justice criminal case. The case is In re: Motors Liquidation Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-1940. Government/Legal Chevrolet Pontiac Saturn Safety gm ignition switch
BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index
Mon, Oct 10 2016While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.