Classic Oldie Antique on 2040-cars
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Body Type:Sedan
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:327 HP V8
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Malibu
Drive Type: RWD
Mileage: 11,569
Number of Doors: 4
Exterior Color: Gold
Trim: gold
Number of Cylinders: V8
Great Condition! this 1965 Chevrolet Malibu SS is ready to go!!!
Chevrolet Malibu for Sale
- White,v6,leather,heated seats,stearing wheel mounted controls,carfax noaccidents
- 2002 chevrolet malibu
- Leather malibu ltz power sunroof alloy wheels
- Automatic alloy wheels factory warranty cruise control off lease only(US $14,999.00)
- Chevrolet malibu 1982 classic(US $6,000.00)
- 2010 chevy malibu lt sedan salvage repairable project flood loaded water damage
Auto Services in Arizona
Valleywide TV Repair ★★★★★
Ultimate Imports ★★★★★
Tucson Auto Collision Center ★★★★★
ToyoMotors Service and Repair ★★★★★
The Auto Shop Inc. ★★★★★
Tech 1 Auto ★★★★★
Auto blog
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.
2016 Tech of the Year | Autoblog Minute
Thu, Oct 29 2015Deliberation on the winners of Autoblog's Tech of the Year Award is under way. Nominees for best car in 2016 are: the Tesla Model S, the Chevy Volt and the BMW 7 series. Nominees for best tech in 2016 are: Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, VW's MiB II with AppConnect, Ford Sync 3, Audi Virtual Cockpit, the Smart Cross Connect App, and Volvo Sensus. Autoblog's Chris McGraw reports on this edition of Autoblog Minute. Audi BMW Chevrolet Ford smart Tesla Volvo Technology of the Year Autoblog Minute Videos Original Video volt android auto ford sync 3
Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans
Thu, Apr 30 2020Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.