1978 Cadillac Eldorado Barritz All Original Car In And Out Beautiful on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Cadillac Super Cruise, a hands-off review

Cadillac Super Cruise won't let you eat breakfast behind the wheel, climb in the back seat or any of the other stupid human tricks displayed on YouTube by Tesla owners. It even won't allow the car to change lanes on its own, like Tesla Autopilot. But it's a big step on the road to full autonomy, a huge convenience on long-distance road trips and a substantial technological triumph for Cadillac. In the simplest terms, Super Cruise is a lane-centering enhancement to adaptive cruise control (ACC). But Super Cruise is anything but simple. Its technical complexity — hence its long delay after first being unveiled five years ago — belies its straightforward operation and intuitive user interface, which I discovered on an almost 750-mile, 11-hour drive in a 2018 Cadillac CT6 between Dallas and Santa Fe to test the system. LOADS OF LIMITATIONS First, let's dispense with the details and disclaimers. Super Cruise is standard on the 2018 CT6 Platinum and a $5,000 option on other trim levels. Because Super Cruise is supported by OnStar — an OnStar operator will call to find out if first responders need to be sent in a worst-case scenario — a three-year OnStar Super Cruise Package is included with the system. Super Cruise has loads of limitations that are probably more concerning to GM's legal counsel than they were to me during my long drive. Some are no-brainers, such as not for use in construction zones or for driving on the shoulder. But the system can also be stymied by adverse weather, poor visibility and faded lane markings. Super Cruise only works on freeways with on and off ramps and a center divider. ACC and forward collision warning also need to be engaged, and the system's cameras and radar sensors can't be obstructed. To keep drivers from looking away from the road for too long — and to keep the system active — an infrared camera on top of the steering column keeps an electronic eye on the driver's seat. GM has over 100 patents alone on this Driver Attention System, including an algorithm that triangulates the nose, eyes and ears in case the camera can't see through sunglasses to make sure you're not nodding off. In addition to the car's visible sensors, another major component of the system is something you don't see: mapping software. But not the kludgy kind that powers in-dash navigation systems.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.