2013 Ford Focus Se 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 Mustang chief engineer, mid-engine Corvette | Autoblog Podcast #488

Note: There were some technical difficulties that prevented some of you from downloading this week's podcast. The player and link below should be working now, and the file has reached iTunes and other feeds as well. Thanks to everyone who wrote in to let us know of the issues! On the podcast this week, we have some questions for Ford Chief Engineer Carl Widman. Plus, Associate Editor Reese Counts joins Mike Austin to talk about the latest news, most notably the spy photos of the upcoming mid-engine Corvette. We also chat about the Jaguar F-Type Coupe, the Nissan Armada, and why 0-60 mph is a stupid performance figure. And, of course, we get into some Spend My Money advice, telling strangers what car to buy. And new this week is a cost-no-object what-cars-would-you-buy game. The rundown is below. And don't forget to send us your questions, money-spend or otherwise, to podcast at autoblog dot com. Autoblog Podcast #488 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention Mid-engine Chevrolet Corvette spied Chevy Bolt EV comes with 238 miles of range Ford will sell self-driving cars by 2025 Jaguar F-Type Coupe 2017 Nissan Armada (yes, Mike knows it's not a Patrol) Ford Mustang Chief Engineer Carl Widman interview Spend My Money - we give purchase advice Why 0–60 mph is a stupid performance test Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 03:30 What we've been driving - 16:20 Carl Widman - 26:44 Spend my money - 37:03 New fun game - 51:48 0–60 mph is overrated - 56:50 Total Duration: 1:04:57 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Chevrolet Ford Jaguar Nissan Car Buying nissan armada mid-engine corvette jaguar f-type coupe

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.