2003 Chevrolet Venture Value Mini Passenger Van 4-door 3.4l on 2040-cars
Alpharetta, Georgia, United States
Body Type:Mini Passenger Van
Engine:3.4L 207Cu. In. V6 GAS OHV Naturally Aspirated
Vehicle Title:Clear
Fuel Type:GAS
For Sale By:Private Seller
Number of Cylinders: 6
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Venture
Trim: Value Mini Passenger Van 4-Door
Warranty: One week
Drive Type: FWD
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Mileage: 144,000
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Power Locks, Power Windows
Sub Model: 4Door Extended Van
Exterior Color: Green
Interior Color: Gray
Chevrolet Venture for Sale
- 2001 chevrolet venture warner bros. mini passenger van 4-door 3.4l v6(US $1,700.00)
- 1999 chevy venture, no reserve
- 2001 chevy venture(US $2,500.00)
- 2000 chevrolet venture ls mini passenger van 4-door 3.4l
- 2000 chevrolet venture ls mini passenger van 4-door 3.4l
- 2000 chevrolet venture ls mini passenger van 4-door 3.4l
Auto Services in Georgia
Wright`s Car Care Inc ★★★★★
W And R Automotive ★★★★★
US Auto Sales - Lithia Springs ★★★★★
Unity Auto Body & Mechanic ★★★★★
United Brake & Muffler Inc ★★★★★
Tri Star Automotive ★★★★★
Auto blog
GM Recalls 218,000 Chevy Aveo Models Over Fire-Prone Lighting
Wed, May 21 2014The recall train keeps on rolling for General Motors. Hot on the heels of its recent 2.4 million-vehicle recall of various models, it's now calling in 218,000 Chevrolet Aveo units from the 2004-2008 model years because they could catch fire. The problem concerns the daytime running light module in the instrument panel. It could overheat, melt and cause a fire. According to GM spokesperson Alan Adler, "We are aware of some fires," and the company "is still investigating." Adler wouldn't comment about how many fires were reported or when the automaker was first aware of this issue because of the ongoing analysis. However, he said the issue has not caused any injuries or fatalities. GM also doesn't have a fix for the problem with the DRL module yet. The company says in its recall statement to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the remedy "is still under development." Adler wasn't sure when it would be ready, but he said Aveo owners would receive notification in the mail "relatively soon." They will receive a second letter later to schedule the repair. In a separate letter about the Aveo's problem to NHTSA (viewable here as a PDF), GM said its Executive Field Action Decision Committee decided to conduct the recall on May 16. Scroll down for the recall report. RECALL Subject : Daytime Running Light Module Overheating Report Receipt Date: MAY 19, 2014 NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V261000 Component(s): Potential Number of Units Affected: 218,000 Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors is recalling certain model year 2004-2008 Chevrolet Aveo vehicles equipped with daytime running lights (DRL). In the affected vehicles, there may be heat generated within the DRL module located in the center console in the instrument panel, which could melt the DRL module. CONSEQUENCE: If the DRL module melts due to the heat generation, it could cause a vehicle fire. REMEDY: The remedy for this recall campaign is still under development. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet). General Motors recall number for this campaign is 14236. NOTES: Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.
Ford GT dominates Le Mans qualifying, gets slapped with performance adjustment
Fri, Jun 17 2016Fifty years after Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon drove the Ford GT40 to victory at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, Ford is poised for a historic return to the Circuit de la Sarthe. The new Ford GT took the top two qualifying positions in the LMGTE Pro class, and four of the top five. Ferrari's 488 filled in the rest of the spots in the top seven, the first two from AF Corse. In other words, we're primed for a reboot of the classic Ford-Ferrari feud at this year's race. Or not, as the ACO, which organizes the 24 Hours of Le Mans, announced sweeping pre-race Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments this morning that make this year's GT class anybody's race. In LMP1, last year's overall winner Porsche locked up the top two spots with the 919 Hybrid and will lead the entire field at race start. Toyota's two-car factory effort followed with qualifying times 1.004 and 2.170 seconds behind the pole lap. Audi rounds out the manufacturer-backed LMP1 class in fifth and sixth. Full qualifying results can be found here. The storyline for the GT cars is perfect - some say too perfect. Ford's class-leading times came after BOP adjustment to the Corvette Racing C7.R before qualifying. BOP is intended to level the playing field in the class by adjusting power, ballast, and fuel capacity. (Check out this explainer video for more, or even just if you love French accents.) But the process is riddled with unknowns and ripe for accusations of sandbagging. That is, if the Ford cars were intentionally slow in practice they could hope for BOP adjustment to improve their race chances. On the Corvette side, last year's GTE Pro winner went from the top of the field to the bottom, barely improving from practice to qualifying. If you think Le Mans is as rigged at the NBA Playoffs, well, it's not that simple. Because if Ford and Ferrari held back until qualifying - the eighth-place Porsche 911 RSR is three-and-a-half seconds off the class pole time - it was a pretty dumb strategy. This morning, the ACO tried to put things back in order by limiting the boost in the Ford GT's twin-turbo V6 and adding 11 pounds of ballast. Ferrari was also given extra weight but allowed more fuel capacity. The Corvette and Aston Martin teams were both given breaks on their air restrictors, which will allow their engines to make more power. Both Ford and Porsche also received extra fuel capacity.
IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving
Tue, Oct 11 2022WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.