2014 Chevrolet Traverse 1lt on 2040-cars
1919 N. Dixie Freeway, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, United States
Engine:3.6L V6 24V GDI DOHC
Transmission:6-Speed Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1GNKRGKD0EJ293043
Stock Num: J293043
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Traverse 1LT
Year: 2014
Exterior Color: Silver Ice Metallic
Interior Color: Ebony
Options: Drive Type: FWD
Number of Doors: 4 Doors
Our commitment to customer service is second to none. We offer Genuine GM Parts and one of the most comprehensive parts and service departments in New Smyrna Beach, Edgewater, Oak Hill, Daytona Beach, Port Orange, South Daytona, Ormond, Ormond Beach, Deland, Deltona, Debary, Orange City, Sanford, Orlando, and all surrounding areas. Our primary concern is the satisfaction of our customers.
Chevrolet Traverse for Sale
2014 chevrolet traverse 1lt(US $35,450.00)
2014 chevrolet traverse ls(US $31,539.00)
2014 chevrolet traverse ltz(US $36,490.00)
2014 chevrolet traverse 2lt(US $40,580.00)
2014 chevrolet traverse 1lt(US $34,649.00)
2014 chevrolet traverse 1lt(US $35,370.00)
Auto Services in Florida
Xtreme Auto Upholstery ★★★★★
Volvo Of Tampa ★★★★★
Value Tire Loxahatchee ★★★★★
Upholstery Solutions ★★★★★
Transmission Physician ★★★★★
Town & Country Golf Cars ★★★★★
Auto blog
Junkyard Gem: 1986 Chevrolet Sprint Plus
Fri, Jun 16 2023General Motors sold second- and third-generation Suzuki Cultuses with Geo or Chevrolet Metro badging in the United States from 1989 through 2001 model years, and we've all seen plenty of those cars on the street over the years. The first-generation Cultus was sold here as well, with Chevrolet Sprint badges, and I've found a rare example of the Sprint five-door hatchback in a Northern California car graveyard. The Chevy Sprint first appeared on the West Coast as a 1985 model, then became available everywhere in the United States for the 1986 through 1988 model years (in Canada, it was sold as the Pontiac Firefly). It was available here as a hatchback with three or five doors; for 1986 only, the five-door was badged as the Sprint Plus. Soon enough, The General would be selling many more Asian-built cars with Detroit badges here. Isuzu I-Marks were sold as Chevrolet/Geo Spectrums starting in the 1986 model year, while Daewoo provided the Pontiac LeMans two years later. Under the hood, a 1.0-liter three-cylinder rated at 48 horsepower. The five-door Sprint cost $5,580 in 1986, which was $200 more than the three-door (those prices would be $15,445 and $14,891 in 2023 dollars). I've documented seven discarded Sprints prior to this one (including an extremely rare Turbo Sprint), and all of them were three-doors; we can assume that price was the most important factor for Sprint buyers. Gasoline prices were crashing hard during the middle 1980s, but memories of gas lines and odd-even-day fuel rationing from 1979 remained strong. What cars competed with the '86 Sprint on sticker price? Well, there was no way to undercut the hilariously affordable (and terrible) Yugo GV, which cost $3,990. The much bigger (but still pretty bad) Hyundai Excel listed at $4,995, while Toyota would sell you a sturdy (but zero-fun) Tercel starting at $5,448. Even the wretched Chevy Chevette — yes, it was still available in 1986 — cost $5,645. The original buyer of this car was willing to shell out an extra $395 to get an automatic instead of the base five-speed manual. That's about $1,093 in today's money. This car must have been slow. By the end, the doors were held shut with duct tape, but it still stayed alive until age 37. 53 miles per gallon on the highway! It does everything. The camels of the highway.
This map reveals the cleanest vehicles based on location
Thu, Apr 28 2016Naysayers love to point out how dirty the electricity grid mix is when it comes to charging electric vehicles. Curmudgeons are eager to jump into any conversation about EVs to enlighten the lucky listeners about how plug-in cars contribute to pollution, sometimes even throwing in a dash of climate-change denial for good measure. (Thanks, buddy. Pray, tell me more about the plight of oppressed SUV owners.) Unless someone buys an EV just because they think they're cool (which, yeah, they often are), they probably have at least a passable understanding of their environmental pros and cons. As many EV owners are already aware, location has a lot to do with any particular plug-in car's carbon footprint. Still, there's always more to know, and knowledge is not a bad thing, especially if one uses it to do the right thing. That's why this handy-dandy map from Carnegie Mellon University is so interesting. CMU researchers have compiled information about the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various EVs based on where they're charged, as compared to gasoline-powered vehicles. The researchers looked at the Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, and Prius Plug-In Hybrid versus the gasoline-dependent Toyota Prius hybrid and the stop-start-equipped Mazda3 with i-ELOOP and compared grams of CO2 emitted per mile. CMU takes into account the grid mix, ambient temperature, and driving patterns. CMU takes into account the grid mix based on county, as well as ambient temperature and driving patterns in terms of miles traveled on the highway or in the city. For instance, if you drive a Nissan Leaf in urban areas of California, Texas, or Florida, your carbon footprint is lower than it would be if you were driving a standard Toyota Prius. However, if you charge your Leaf in the Midwest or the South, for the most part, you've got a larger carbon footprint than the Prius. If you live in the rural Midwest, you'd probably even be better off driving a Mazda3. Throughout the country, the Chevrolet Volt has a larger carbon footprint than the Toyota Prius, but a smaller one than the Mazda3 in a lot of urban counties in the US. The Prius and Prius Plug-In are relatively equal across the US. Having trouble keeping it straight? That's not surprising. The comparisons between plug-in and gasoline vehicles are much more nuanced than the loudest voices usually let on.
Buick Encore, Chevy Trax earn Top Safety Pick from IIHS [w/video]
Thu, Feb 12 2015The Buick Encore has been a massive sales success practically from the moment it debuted, and Buick recently decided to increase production to keep up with demand for the premium compact crossover. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently put one to the test again, and the Encore earned a Top Safety Pick award. It's the first model from the brand to score the nod since 2013, according to the IIHS, and the rating also carries over to the 2015 Chevrolet Trax. The 2015 Encore scored a Good rating in all of the IIHS' evaluations, including the 40-mile-per-hour, small overlap front crash test. That was a big improvement over the previous model the institute tested, which scored a Poor result in the overlap test. In the first test, about 13 inches of the lower door hinge pillar came into the passenger compartment, and the steering wheel airbag moved too far to protect the dummy's head. Improvements for the latest model year showed six inches of intrusion this time, and the airbags caught the dummy's head well. The dummy's sensors also indicated a low risk of injury. The two CUVs missed out on the full Top Safety Pick+ because the IIHS scored the Encore as only having a basic front crash prevention system, and there was no such equipment for the Trax. To earn the highest mark, models need at least an advanced rating by the institute for this technology. Buick Encore, Chevrolet Trax earn 2015 TOP SAFETY PICK award ARLINGTON, Va. - A small SUV is the first vehicle from the Buick brand to qualify for a TOP SAFETY PICK award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety since 2013. The Buick Encore's newly introduced, lower-priced twin, the Chevrolet Trax, also qualifies for the honor. The Encore's award follows improvements to the SUV's structure for better small overlap front protection. The 2015 model earns a good rating in the small overlap test. In contrast, the 2013-14 Encore rated poor in the test. The driver's space was seriously compromised with intrusion measuring as much as 13 inches at the lower door hinge pillar. The dummy's head barely contacted the front airbag before sliding off the left side, as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain airbag deployed too late and didn't have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head. In the latest test, the driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of 6 inches at the door hinge pillar and instrument panel. The dummy's movement was well-controlled.