1987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 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.

Consumer Reports digs Mazda3, disses Jeep Cherokee

Consumer Reports has just rendered its verdict on two of the more important cars to launch this year - the Mazda3 and the Jeep Cherokee. Considering the value a "Recommended" rating carries with the public and the viciously competitive markets these two cars compete in, Consumer Reports' view could have some impact on their initial success.
For Mazda, that's a good thing. CR spoke quite highly of the Zoom-Zoom brand's compact sedan and hatch, testing both models, and citing the excellent fuel economy and snickety-snack manual shifter as high points. Downsides to the 3 included a ride that is agile but "nervous," a bit too much noise and a cramped back seat. Still, the 3 was good enough to earn its place in the ranks of the "Recommended."
The Jeep didn't fare quite so well, with CR calling the polarizing CUV "half-baked." Although both engines were tested, the magazine called the 2.4-liter four-pot underpowered and its nine-speed automatic unrefined and unresponsive. That's particularly damning, considering the 9AT's role in future Chrysler products, including the extremely important 200. Overall, the Cherokee missed out on the coveted "Recommended" rating.

Georgia judge slashes verdict to $40M in Jeep fire case

A judge in Georgia has drastically reduced the damages that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will have to pay to the family of Remington Walden, who a court said died as a result of the unsafe design of one of its vehicles. While the jury originally awarded the family $150 million at FCA's expense, Judge J. Kevin Chason cut that amount to $40 million, the Detroit News reported. The automaker may still appeal the verdict. The case dates to March 2012, when a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee in which four-year-old Walden was riding was rear-ended by another vehicle. Due to what the jury ruled was an unsafe fuel tank, a fire erupted, and Walden died in the fire. The family's lawyers successfully argued that the automaker knew there was a problem and didn't take sufficient action to address the issue, while FCA countered that its vehicles met the applicable safety standards when they were built. The jury found FCA 99 percent responsible for the fire and Walden's death, reserving the final one percent for the driver who caused the crash. The court awarded the Waldens $150 million in damages to be paid by the automaker: $120 million for wrongful death, and a further $30 million for pain and suffering. FCA, however, argued that the damages were disproportionate to the incident, noting that the $120 million was 11 times higher and the $30 million four times higher than any comparable awards upheld on appeal in the state. Chason agreed and cut the penalties extensively. The Walden family has reportedly accepted the reduced verdict. But according to the News, company spokesman Michael Palese said, "The reduction in the damage awards does not cure the many errors that tainted this verdict and denied FCA US a fair trial. We are considering our legal options." News Source: The Detroit NewsImage Credit: Jeep Government/Legal Recalls Jeep lawsuit court