2004 Audi A6 2.7t S-line Quattro on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The next-generation wearable will be your car

This year's CES has had a heavy emphasis on the class of device known as the "wearable" – think about the Apple Watch, or Fitbit, if that's helpful. These devices usually piggyback off of a smartphone's hardware or some other data connection and utilize various onboard sensors and feedback devices to interact with the wearer. In the case of the Fitbit, it's health tracking through sensors that monitor your pulse and movement; for the Apple Watch and similar devices, it's all that and some more. Manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality. As evidenced by Volvo's newly announced tie-up with the Microsoft Band 2 fitness tracking wearable, car manufacturers are starting to explore how wearable devices will help drivers. The On Call app brings voice commands, spoken into the Band 2, into the mix. It'll allow you to pass an address from your smartphone's agenda right to your Volvo's nav system, or to preheat your car. Eventually, Volvo would like your car to learn things about your routines, and communicate back to you – or even, improvise to help you wake up earlier to avoid that traffic that might make you late. Do you need to buy a device, like the $249 Band 2, and always wear it to have these sorts of interactions with your car? Despite the emphasis on wearables, CES 2016 has also given us a glimmer of a vehicle future that cuts out the wearable middleman entirely. Take Audi's new Fit Driver project. The goal is to reduce driver stress levels, prevent driver fatigue, and provide a relaxing interior environment by adjusting cabin elements like seat massage, climate control, and even the interior lighting. While it focuses on a wearable device to monitor heart rate and skin temperature, the Audi itself will use on-board sensors to examine driving style and breathing rate as well as external conditions – the weather, traffic, that sort of thing. Could the seats measure skin temperature? Could the seatbelt measure heart rate? Seems like Audi might not need the wearable at all – the car's already doing most of the work. Whether there's a device on a driver's wrist or not, manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality.

Don't hold your breath for an Audi RS8

There was a time not so long ago when Quattro GmbH produced essentially one model at a time. But that time is behind us. These days it's expanding into a full-fledged performance division to rival Mercedes-AMG and BMW's M department. Quattro GmbH is currently building the Audi RS4 Avant, RS5 coupe and cabrio, RS6 Avant, RS7, RS Q3 and the TT RS coupe and roadster - not to mention the R8. And while it's showing no signs of slowing down, but the latest intel from across the pond suggests we shouldn't count on an RS version of Audi's flagship sedan.
This according to Car and Driver, which spoke to Stephan Reil, the chief engineer at Quattro GmbH. Reil says Audi works on a teutonically rigid performance formula: an RS model has to have 20 to 25 percent more power than the existing S version. Considering that the existing S8 makes 512 horsepower and the RS7 a solid 553, we're not sure Audi really needs anything more powerful. But by Reil's calculations, the RS8 would need to pack between 630 and 655 hp, which would put it well ahead of rivals like the 550-hp Jaguar XJR, the 540-hp BMW Alpina B7, the 523-hp Maserati Quattroporte and even the new 577-hp Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG - and in league only with the even more powerful S65 AMG, which in its outgoing form produced 630 hp.
The question then comes down to whether there are enough customers lining up for the S65 that Audi would want to poach away from Mercedes. Or perhaps more pertinently, whether it might end up just taking customers from the new Bentley Flying Spur, which is already offering 616 horsepower in an even more prestigious, if less performance-focused package. Either way you look at it, Audi is apparently steering clear.

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.