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

1968 Chevrolet Camaro on 2040-cars

US $12,675.00
Year:1968 Mileage:1865 Color: Blue /
 Black
Location:

Loco, Oklahoma, United States

Loco, Oklahoma, United States

Custom Restomod 1968 Camaro
Completely done frame off to show quality
LS Fuel Injected Engine
Be Cool Aluminum Radiator to keep her cool
Termec T56 6 speed Manual Transmission
Ford 9” rear end
Deluxe interior in Hounds Tooth black white
Custom Alpine Stereo with Kicker SUB/AMP
RideTech shocks on all 4 corners
Detroit Speed 2” front drop coil springs
Detroit Speed 2” lower Leaf Springs
Ride Tech fender braces
Full Willwood disc brake system Front & Rear
Boss 338 18x8 in the Front 18x10 Rear
New tires
Fessler Built Billet tail lights

Auto Services in Oklahoma

Xtreme Lube ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Oil & Lube
Address: 8613 N Council Rd, The-Village
Phone: (405) 384-5823

Wesco Classic Chevy Parts ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Restoration-Antique & Classic
Address: 825 N Portland Ave, Edmond
Phone: (405) 943-9859

Weaver Brothers Garage ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 3540 NW 39th St, Oklahoma-City
Phone: (405) 942-4424

Skyyline Dent & Hail Repair ★★★★★

Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Dent Removal
Address: 9301 S Sunnylane Rd, Bethany
Phone: (405) 664-2033

Schulte Automotive & Radiator ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 701 SW 59th St, Bethany
Phone: (405) 635-8888

Ricky`s Body & Glass ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Parts & Supplies
Address: 202 N Lakeside Dr, Eagletown
Phone: (870) 642-2811

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

Recharge Wrap-up: Ford steals Best Green Brand spot from Toyota, EV buyer survey goes online

Wed, Jun 25 2014

Chevrolet is one of the Top Global Green Brands of 2014, according to brand consultancy firm Interbrand. Chevy ranks number 32 on the list, which cover brands across a wide variety of segments. The report measures brand perception and brand performance, and the gap between the two is small for Chevrolet. "The company is not only actively demonstrating its environmental commitment," says Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton. "It's communicating those efforts in an authentic way that resonates with customers." Chevrolet cites its Spark EV, Volt and Cruze models as reason for its green cred. This is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Being 32nd is good and all, but other automotive brands ranked much higher than the Bowtie. Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan took the top four spots in the report, respectively, with BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz all besting Chevrolet. The big takeaway here is that Ford topped the list. In the Top Global Green Brand list's four-year history, this is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Ford was second on the list last year, and 15th in 2012. "Ford embodies everything the business of the future must be: efficient, visionary, flexible, adept at problem-solving, cooperative, and focused on creating shared value," Interbrand says on its website. "From unveiling a first-of-its-kind solar-powered vehicle, the C-MAX Solar Energi Concept, to partnering with peers across sectors to do the seemingly impossible - like creating bio-plastic out of tomato fiber with Heinz-Ford is showing us what's possible." It bears mentioning that Ford's most recent MPG adjustments came after the study was conducted. Ford is also making the news for its 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine earning International Engine of the Year for the third straight year. Awarded Best Engine Under 1.0 Liter, the turbocharged three-cylinder motor earned high praise from judges. "This year's competition was the fiercest yet, but the 1.0-liter EcoBoost continues to stand out for all the right reasons – great refinement, surprising flexibility and excellent efficiency," said International Engine of the Year co-chairman Dean Slavnich. "The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is one of the finest examples of powertrain engineering." The 123-horsepower engine powers the Fiesta 1.0-liter EcoBoost, and will be available in a version of the Ford Focus in the US later this year. See more about the award in the press release, below.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

Mon, Oct 10 2016

While 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.