2009 3.2l Used 3.2l V6 24v Awd Coupe Premium on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Car cocktails and Risky Business Porsches with Brett Berk | Autoblog Podcast #502

On this week's podcast, Mike Austin and David Gluckman are joined by a special guest, Autoblog contributor Brett Berk. The three discuss cars in film and TV as well as Brett's series on car-themed cocktails. There is of course a recap of what they've all been driving lately, and the episode wraps up with Spend My Money buying advice to help you, our dear listeners. The rundown is below. Remember, if you have a car-related question you'd like us to answer or you want buying advice of your very own, send a message or a voice memo to podcast at autoblog dot com. (If you record audio of a question with your phone and get it to us, you could hear your very own voice on the podcast. Neat, right?) And if you have other questions or comments, please send those too. Autoblog Podcast #502 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV - Autoblog's 2017 Technology of the Year Car award winner 2017 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350R 2016 Kia Soul EV 2017 Audi A4 sedan The story of the Risky Business Porsche 928 The Taxi Cocktail took us for a ride The myth and mystery of The Bentley Cocktail Used cars! Rundown Intro - 00:00 What we're driving - 01:50 Brett Berk interview - 21:12 Spend My Money - 39:44 Total Duration: 54:02 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show on iTunes Podcasts Audi Bentley BMW Chevrolet Maserati Mercedes-Benz Porsche kia soul ev Chevrolet Bolt porsche 928 ford shelby mustang gt350r cocktails

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Delphi thrilled with results from autonomous car's cross-country trip

In the first trip across the United States ever made by an autonomous car, engineers from Delphi Automotive were surprised to learn that, in some cases, their vehicle behaved a lot like a human driver. "The car was scared of tractor trailers," said Jeff Owens, the company's chief technology officer. "The car edged to the left just a little bit when it would pass trucks, and that was an interesting observation." Engineers made hundreds of notes throughout the drive, as the autonomous car covered 3,400 miles through 15 states en route to a showcase near the New York Auto Show. Overall, company officials said the car performed better than anticipated in a variety of road and weather conditions. In the course of the cross-country drive, drivers actually controlled the car only for about 50 miles, and those cases were limited to on-and-off ramps and the occasional construction zone where lanes were not marked or only sporadically marked. The purpose of the trip was to glean information on how the autonomous car worked in a real-world environment. Google and others have tested autonomous cars and autonomous features in select real-world environments before, but Delphi's adventure was the first to trek into a test with such varied challenges over a nine-day trip that began near the Golden Gate Bridge on March 22. There are some things the engineers have already learned, like the fact the camera systems had the occasional blip when the sun-angle was low. And there are some things to still be learned, as they pour over three terrabytes worth of data from cameras, radar and lidar sensors in the weeks ahead. "It's going to take us a couple weeks to digest all this," Owens said. "But we had all the data from tests. It was time to put this on the road." Built into an Audi SQ5, the vehicle was striking, if only for the fact it looked like a normal car. Many other autonomous vehicles have quirky sensors atop the roof or other features that make them stand out as experiments. Delphi arranged this one to look as much like a normal car as possible, right down to stowing an army of computers under cargo mats, so the rear contained as much trunk space as the production model. If a fellow motorist didn't know where to look -- or take the time to notice the person in the driver's seat didn't have their hands on the wheel -- there was no reason to suspect this was anything other than a regular car.