1986 Chevy 1-ton Pickup With 4bt Cummins Engine 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.

GM, Pilot will build EVgo fast chargers at 500 truck stops across U.S.

All of our maps showing electric vehicle charging stations across the U.S. are going to need an update. Today, General Motors, Pilot and EVgo announced plans to work together on a nationwide DC fast charging network. The plan calls for 2,000 charging stalls that can deliver up to 350 kW to be installed at up to 500 Pilot and Flying J travel centers in the U.S. The goal is to have DC fast chargers available in 50-mile intervals across the country. The new charging stations will feature GM's "Ultium Charge 360" branding and "Pilot Flying J" logos but will not be limited to drivers of GM EVs. The plugs will use CCS connectors and be available to anyone. GM EV owners can take advantage of benefits, including the ability to make exclusive reservations, get discounts on charging costs and streamline the charging process with Plug and Charge and in-vehicle apps that can provide real-time charger availability. The first installation phase will take place in 2023, and "the bulk of the installations" should be completed by 2025, EVgo CEO Kathy Zoi said during a conference call with reporters announcing the plan. "We're gonna get going immediately and commence all of that engineering and planning stuff," she said. "We've got a pretty orderly plan." Pilot CEO Shameek Konar said the company expects the new EV charging stations to coexist with the current fuel infrastructure. "An average Pilot Flying J location is about 10 acres," Konar said. "This will be in addition to all of our gas pumps. The way I think about it is, this is a new source of energy that is going to coexist with gas for quite some time. We can debate how long, but we need to serve both groups of customers." Installing DC fast chargers at hundreds of Pilot's travel centers — aka truck stops — means there should be food, drinks, restrooms, WiFi and even showers available while you wait for an EV to charge. Pilot recently announced its “New Horizons” plan that will invest $1 billion in upgrading Pilot travel centers with more premium amenities, including expanded seating and lounge areas. While the exact amount of time it will take to charge an EV using these new stations will vary on the EV and its current state of charge, most EVs can refill from a low state of charge to around 80 percent in 20-30 minutes on a fast charger. The new stations are future-proofed to deliver up to 350 kW, a charge rate that few EVs today can handle.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.