1968 Camaro Z28 Coupe - Real Z-28 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.

Ford Police Interceptors dominate Michigan State Police testing

Once again, Ford Motor Company builds the fastest police vehicles. The Blue Oval touted the news in an official release following Michigan State Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department testing. Ford did very well. Except for one acceleration metric – zero to 10 miles per hour – the Blue Oval's Taurus and Explorer-based cop cars were the quickest, with particular praise coming for the EcoBoost-powered models, which bested Chevrolet and Dodge's V8-powered variants. Dearborn's products also posted the fastest average times around MSP's vehicle dynamics course. But it wasn't all positive for Ford. The only four-cylinder in the contest, the 2.0-liter, EcoBoost Ford SSP Sedan, had both the lowest top speed, 120 mph, and the slowest acceleration figures. It was also the slowest in track testing. Ford's products also failed to match the braking and top speeds of its rivals from Detroit and Auburn Hills – the rear-drive Charger Pursuit posted the best braking stats of the entire test, while the V8-powered Chevrolet Caprice hit the highest top speed, at 155 mph. Ford did score a top speed award, among SUVs, but at 132 mph, the naturally aspirated Police Interceptor Utility had to share its award with the equally fast, rear-drive Chevrolet Tahoe. The LA County Sheriff's timing isn't publicly available, but according to Ford, the EcoBoost-powered police cars put on a similarly impressive show for cops on the West Coast. We've assembled a spreadsheet on Google Docs that offers an easy to browse comparison of the different stats assembled by the Michigan State Police, and divided the vehicles between standard V6-powered sedans, high-performance sedans (EcoBoost and V8 models), and SUVs. You can check it out here. Related Video:

EcoCar2 is on the hunt for a better, cleaner Chevy Malibu [w/video]

The students spent three years transforming an ordinary Chevy Malibu into a revolutionary vehicle. Not far from the building where General Motors once invented the Chevy Volt, a dozen or so college students are standing on the blacktop alongside a test track, watching a professional driver push the limits of a plug-in hybrid car they've built that's far more radical. These students, from Colorado State University, have spent the past three years transforming an ordinary Chevy Malibu into a revolutionary vehicle. At first glance, it still looks like a regular sedan. But under the hood, they've installed a hybrid powertrain that contains both hydrogen and electric power sources. Even by the standards of the Department of Energy competition they're participating in, it's an outlier. That's exactly what they had in mind. "We didn't want to come here and tell them how to build a better Volt," said Tom Bradley, faculty adviser for the Colorado State team. "They already know how to do that. We can tell them how to think about these possibilities in a whole new way." After three years of work, it all comes down to this. The Colorado State team was one of 15 that came to GM's Milford Proving Grounds last week for the final stretch of the EcoCar2 competition, which challenges regular college students who have no automotive experience to do nothing less than reinvent the American car. The teams have come from across North America, and include schools like Ohio State and Virginia Tech that have a long history of participating in similar competitions, and schools like the University of Washington and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University that are here for the first time. After three years of work, it all comes down to this. The teams have operated 24 hours a day for almost two weeks here at the Proving Grounds, running a gamut of tests that include a 310-point safety inspection, emissions and energy-consumption tests and road tests, in which professional GM drivers ensure they're road worthy. The winning team will be announced tonight in Washington D.C. Revolutionary cars, ordinary package While other green-car competitions encourage extreme designs, this one comes with a somewhat constraining twist: Yes, students must improve fuel economy and reduce emissions, but in the end, they still have to have a car that would appeal to mainstream customers. In practical terms, that means they must keep conveniences like air conditioning and trunk space.