2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Lt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video:

Nissan Leaf has 2nd-best sales month ever, Chevy Volt does a 2013 repeat [UPDATE]

UPDATE: The official press release says that "Volt [sales were] up 7 percent," but Randy Fox let AutoblogGreen know that this is simply due to a change in the fleet/retail mix between March 2013 and 2014. The actual number sold was exactly the same in the two months. A month ago, Nissan's director of EV sales and marketing, Toby Perry, said he expected to see the Leaf's sales momentum continue into March. It wasn't a big leap, since January and February were slow sales months in 2013 (around 640 each) before a big climb to 2,200 in March. In 2014, the first two months of the year were better (around 1,300 each) but Nissan can still be happy that the Leaf just had the best March ever and its second-highest sales month ever, with 2,507 sold. That's a 12.1 percent increase from 2013 and Perry said in a statement to AutoblogGreen that one reason is all of the buyers who are becoming evangelists for the vehicle. "We've also seen an increase in showroom traffic as we enhanced our marketing presence in March," he said. Nissan pointed to cities like Washington, DC, Raleigh-Durham, NC and urban areas in Texas as strong Leaf markets last month. On the Chevy Volt front, January and February were also slow months in 2014, down roughly half from the 2,000-ish the plug-in hybrid was selling at the end of 2013. For 2014, sales were up slightly from the first two months of the year and Chevy spokesman Randy Fox told AutoblogGreen that the March number was "pretty flat, year-over-year." Even with that warning, we were surprised to see the total come in at 1,478. Why's that? Because the total for March 2013 was ... 1,478. So, yeah, that's pretty steady even if there were 26 selling days in March period this year compared to 27 last year. As always, our more complete report of last month's green car sales will be coming soon. News Source: General Motors, Nissan Green Chevrolet GM Nissan Electric Hybrid PHEV ev sales

Our favorite mid-engine Corvette theories and rumors

The mid-engine Corvette! We just saw blurry photos through the foliage, and are hearts are all aflutter because it means that this car is real. And it's the most " never before" Corvette since 1984. Which leads us to all kinds of wacky theories and speculation. Everybody knows something or heard from a guy. None of those guys (or gals) from GM are talking to Autoblog, to be clear. But that won't stop us from stirring the pot. Let's go over a few point-by-point. The pushrod engine will be replaced by an overhead-cam V8 Car and Driver has repeatedly reported that an overhead-cam engine will come after the mid-engine Corvette's debut with an old-school pushrod. We've heard the same thing firsthand, albeit from a source with no connection to the development of the Corvette or powertrain. "At some point two valves can't pass future emissions regulations," said the guy we know. While the pushrod engine is compact, the design makes it difficult - if not impossible - for sophisticated variable valve timing (and lift) systems that control combustion with more precision. Hasty conclusion: The pushrod engine has a finite life in front of it. This one's a lock, it's a just a matter of when. Bowling Green's new paint shop is really the mid-engine assembly line Credit to Reddit for this one. Like we said, everybody knows a guy. But let's look deeper. The new paint facility costs $439 million dollars and adds 450,000 square feet, almost half the size of the existing plant. Plus GM announced another $290 million in upgrades at Bowling Green Assembly. That sure sounds like a lot of money, but you can actually spend that much on a paint booth. Porsche spent 500 million Euros (about $561 million dollars) to add the Macan assembly to its Leipzig, Germany plant in 2014. Chrysler shelled out $850 million for a paint shop in Sterling Heights, Michigan. GM spent $600 million for a new paint shop at the Fairfax (Kansas City) plant. Honda, on the other hand, is working on a thrifty $210 million project in Marysville, Ohio that includes a 300,000 square foot expansion, and the low-volume Acura NSX facility only cost $70 million. Hasty conclusion: The square footage and cost could easily mean a new assembly line instead of (or in addition to) a paint line. And if the NSX plant was really that cheap, GM could have hidden a similar sum in its existing announcements.