1966 Chevy C-10 In Blue And White 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.

1983 Motorweek showdown pits Porsche 928S vs. Chevy Camaro Z28

Last month, Motor Trend threw the Camaro Z/28 and Porsche 911 GT3 into the bear pit and let them fight it out. Way back in 1983, MotorWeek had the same idea, comparing the Camaro Z/28 to the Porsche 928S. At the time, the Camaro was America's best selling sports coupe, the 928S was Porsche's top-of-the-line model that also had the highest top speed of any car sold here. And the price differential was even more stark then: $13,600 for the Camaro, $45,000 for the Porsche. That put the Z/28's cast-iron, 5.0-liter V8 with 190 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque against the all-aluminum 4.7-liter V8 with 234 hp and 263 lb-ft in the 928S. Even with that and the Camaro being 14 inches longer than the Porsche, the American was a surprising 40 pounds lighter than the German. The show took them to Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia to see how close a relative performance bargain could hang with a the German GT. Both had five-speed manual transmissions, but the high-speed corners and tight sections of Summit Point would test other handling variables, including the "bone-rattling" Camaro's solid rear axle and disc and drum brake setup vis-a-vis the four-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension on the "firm-but-smooth" Porsche. Paradoxically, the larger disparity 22 years ago resulted in a closer result. Check out the video to see how the Summit was won. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Porsche Coupe Luxury Performance Classics Videos chevy camaro z28 porsche 928 retro review

2019 Toyota Avalon vs. full-size sedans: How they compare on paper

Full-size sedans aren't exactly in great demand at the moment, and at least one of the vehicles in this comparison has been rumored to be on the endangered species list. Yet, we've just had our first drive in the 2019 Toyota Avalon, and if anything has a chance of rejuvenating the segment a bit, it's an all-new version of what has long been the segment's benchmark. To see how the new Avalon compares, we've put together the below spreadsheet featuring the Avalon's primary apples-to-apples rivals, the Buick LaCrosse and Chevy Impala. We also included the Nissan Maxima, which is comparable in price, sales and non-luxury badge, and which offers the sort of increased driver engagement promised by the new Avalon XSE and Touring trim levels. We also included the outgoing Avalon for reference as well as that car's luxury cousin, the Lexus ES, which can definitely be cross-shopped with the luxuriously trimmed Avalon Limited. You can use our Compare Cars tool to create your own comparison, such as one featuring the rear-wheel-drive Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger or even Kia Stinger. Alright, enough chit chat. On to the spreadsheet. Performance and fuel economy The GM sedans may come standard with four cylinders, including a mild hybrid system in the LaCrosse, but puh-lease. The V6 is the name of the game in this segment, with outputs now surpassing the 300-horsepower mark. The LaCrosse is the horsepower and torque champ, though it also weighs a bit more than the new 2019 Avalon, so acceleration is likely to be comparable. The Impala weighs a lot more and has only a six-speed automatic, so despite having a wee bit more power, one should expect it to be pokier (not a good sign for a car rumored to be on the chopping block). One would expect the Maxima's 300 hp and lowest curb weight to result in the quickest acceleration, but then it's also strapped to a CVT, which despite being better than ever, is still a CVT. Things get worse for Chevy when you consider the Impala's base four-cylinder gets the same 25 mpg combined as the Avalon's V6 — once again a segment best. Now, should you really prioritize fuel economy, the 2019 Toyota Avalon Hybrid really stands out with a 43 mpg rating (or 44 with the base XLE trim) that bests the outgoing Avalon Hybrid. Honestly, after driving this new Hybrid, it actually seems like it would be the best bet for most buyers. There's sufficient power, and it only costs $1,000 more than the comparable V6 version.