2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Ls Coupe 2-door 3.4l 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.

Junkyard Gem: 1986 Chevrolet Sprint Plus

General Motors sold second- and third-generation Suzuki Cultuses with Geo or Chevrolet Metro badging in the United States from 1989 through 2001 model years, and we've all seen plenty of those cars on the street over the years. The first-generation Cultus was sold here as well, with Chevrolet Sprint badges, and I've found a rare example of the Sprint five-door hatchback in a Northern California car graveyard. The Chevy Sprint first appeared on the West Coast as a 1985 model, then became available everywhere in the United States for the 1986 through 1988 model years (in Canada, it was sold as the Pontiac Firefly). It was available here as a hatchback with three or five doors; for 1986 only, the five-door was badged as the Sprint Plus. Soon enough, The General would be selling many more Asian-built cars with Detroit badges here. Isuzu I-Marks were sold as Chevrolet/Geo Spectrums starting in the 1986 model year, while Daewoo provided the Pontiac LeMans two years later. Under the hood, a 1.0-liter three-cylinder rated at 48 horsepower. The five-door Sprint cost $5,580 in 1986, which was $200 more than the three-door (those prices would be $15,445 and $14,891 in 2023 dollars). I've documented seven discarded Sprints prior to this one (including an extremely rare Turbo Sprint), and all of them were three-doors; we can assume that price was the most important factor for Sprint buyers. Gasoline prices were crashing hard during the middle 1980s, but memories of gas lines and odd-even-day fuel rationing from 1979 remained strong. What cars competed with the '86 Sprint on sticker price? Well, there was no way to undercut the hilariously affordable (and terrible) Yugo GV, which cost $3,990. The much bigger (but still pretty bad) Hyundai Excel listed at $4,995, while Toyota would sell you a sturdy (but zero-fun) Tercel starting at $5,448. Even the wretched Chevy Chevette — yes, it was still available in 1986 — cost $5,645. The original buyer of this car was willing to shell out an extra $395 to get an automatic instead of the base five-speed manual. That's about $1,093 in today's money. This car must have been slow. By the end, the doors were held shut with duct tape, but it still stayed alive until age 37. 53 miles per gallon on the highway! It does everything. The camels of the highway.

GM executive chief EV engineer says reducing cost of plug-in vehicles is 'huge priority'

As we know, another major automaker investing heavily in electrified vehicles is General Motors, and it's doing things much differently than rivals BMW, Ford or Nissan. The Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV is a modest seller at its $35,000 sticker price but a huge hit with owners. The Chevy Spark BEV, still in limited availability, puts smiley faces on its owners and drivers. The just-introduced Cadillac ELR, a sharp-looking, fun-driving $76,000 luxocoupe take on the Volt's EREV mechanicals, has admittedly low sales expectations. With this interesting trio in showrooms and much more in the works, the third vehicle electrification leader I collared for an interview at Detroit's North American International Auto Show (see #1 and #2) was Pam Fletcher, GM's executive chief engineer, Electrified Vehicles. ABG: Why do your EREVs need four-cylinder power to extend their range when BMW's i3 makes do with an optional 650 cc two-banger? "We designed [the Volt and the ELR] to go anywhere, any time" - Pam Fletcher PF: I get that question all the time: why not something smaller? You don't really need that much. You use the electric to its ability, then you just need to limp. But we designed those cars to go anywhere, any time, and we don't want their performance to be compromised. If you're driving through the mountains, we don't want you to be crawling up grades, or to be limited on any terrain. So it's optimized to be able to travel literally the biggest grades and mountain roads around the globe at posted speeds. Because what if you can't? Another good reason: when the engine is on, you have to run it wide open throttle, max speed, most of the time. And while we can do a lot with acoustics, and the ELR has active noise cancelation, a small-displacement, low cylinder-count engine at high speed, high load all the time isn't something you want to live with. That's how we came up with the balance we did among the key factors of performance, NVH [noise, vibration and harshness] and range. ABG: Where you go from here? Is the range-extender engine due for an update? PF: We know and love the current Volt, and there is still a lot of acclaim about it, so we think it's a good recipe. But we are heavily in the midst of engineering the next-generation car, which I think everyone will love and be excited about.