Leather Custome Paint Sunroof Navigation on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 Cupholder Mega Test: Will the Nalgene bottle fit?

I absolutely adore the Hyundai Ioniq 5, and so was excited to spend a week with it when the EV landed in my driveway. When I first drove the Ioniq 5 in San Diego, though, I hadn't packed my favorite style water bottle: the big 32-ounce Nalgene. Despite it being the best, its sheer size makes it less ideal when trying to pack light for a short trip. It also means it doesn't fit in most cars' cupholders, but, without the bottle on hand, I'd have to wait until this new opportunity with the Ioniq 5 to find out if it passes the Nalgene check. So, let's get to it. Starting at pole position — the front cupholders — we find ourselves unlucky so far. It's not even close to fitting. Not unusual, but our first option for convenient access to megahydration is denied. In most instances, our next best bet is the molded pockets in the front door panels. Here we have success. It's quite a tight fit, so while our drink won't be knocking or rolling around, it's not as easy as it could be to retrieve while driving, and I'll probably eventually wear out the little plastic tether connecting the lid to the bottle, as that's the easiest thing to grab without looking. Still, I'll give these door holders a pass. How about the folks sitting in back? Where can they stash their Nalgenes? No surprise about it not fitting in the center armrest cupholders after our inauspicious start with the fronts. The fact that it won't fit in the door panels is disappointing. C'est la vie. But one more thing ... you might have noticed another potential stash up front in the storage cubby below the center stack. The Nalgene fits in there just fine, but a little bit of extra room means the bottle will be knocking around. It's actually a decent spot, and more accessible than the doors.

Texas sues GM, saying it tricked customers into sharing driving data sold to insurers

Texas filed a lawsuit Tuesday against GM over years of alleged abuse of customers' data and trust. New car owners were presented with a "confusing and highly misleading" process that was implied to be for their safety, but "was no more than a deceptively designed sales flow" that surrendered their data for GM to sell. The suit contends that at no point was selling driving data ever even suggested as a possibility, putting GM in violation of the state's consumer protection laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is seeking a jury trial and at least $10,000 per offense (every GM car sold in the state since 2015) and a hefty add-on of $250,000 in cases where the victim was over 65. Texas seems to be flying high after a recent $1.4 billion settlement from Meta over other privacy concerns. This may well be a way to solve any pending budgetary issues in the Lone Star State.

Why didn't GM recall fire-prone Hummers earlier?

As early as 2009, motorists reported fires in the Hummer H3. In a complaint filed that March with the regulatory agency in charge of vehicle safety, one motorist said they leaped into a smoldering vehicle and drove it away from gas pumps moments before it was engulfed in flames. Three months later, another motorist described how a fire spread from behind the glove box and consumed their H3. Dozens of car owners filed similar complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the six years that followed, detailing car fires of varying severity that originated in the HVAC systems of their Hummer H3s. But General Motors didn't issue a recall for any of the affected cars until last week, prompting fresh questions about how the company treats safety concerns in the wake of an ignition-switch flaw that went unaddressed for years and, at latest count, is responsible for killing at least 124 motorists. In recall documents filed with NHTSA last week, GM initially said it knew of three fires associated with the defect. Within hours, the company said it knew of 42 fires associated with the problem and three injuries sustained by vehicle occupants. A company spokesperson attributed the inconsistency to a "misstated" number in the original documents and that the higher number comes from NHTSA complaints, reports to GM and TREAD data. Beyond that discrepancy, the documents show General Motors, which has touted a revitalized attitude toward safety concerns since the ignition-switch recalls, did nothing upon determining there was a problem with the H3s. Prompted by two complaints the company received in September 2014, General Motors says it launched an internal investigation related to melting blowers in the HVAC system on December 8, 2014. In that investigation, the company says it confirmed a problem existed, finding that "mismatched electrical conductivity could result in overheating and melting of the blower motor connector module." But even with that conclusion, the company opted to close its internal investigation on April 29, 2015, without taking any action. It wasn't until NHTSA officials met with GM representatives in a meeting on June 18, 2015, that General Motors was prompted to reconsider.