*no Reserve* *clean Carfax* *one Owner* 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.

How Mini shacked up with John Cooper

The late Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis, Alec Issignonis to his Internet friends, designed a car that was sold as the Morris Mini-Minor, the Austin Seven and later the Austin Mini. Go to the Mini USA website and check out the models, though, and every one of them is called a Cooper of some sort, e.g., Mini Cooper Paceman or Mini Cooper S Roadster. So who is Cooper?
It's probably obvious that it's the same Cooper we get in "John Cooper Works," those JCW Minis that always make up the top of the line. But many probably don't know that that John Cooper, founder of John Cooper Cars, is the same man who accidentally got the motorsports world to switch to rear-engined race cars and the same Formula One constructor who won two titles in 1959 and 1960 and who fielded drivers like Bruce McLaren and Stirling Moss.
On its way to driving the Mini John Cooper Works GP II, XCAR goes back to the beginning to find out when Alec met John, and how the first Mini Cooper came out in 1961, two years after the first Mini. You can watch the story and the car review in the video below.

Mini has become the Rover that BMW always wanted

BMW has been working for 20 years to build a successful line of British cars, and on the evidence of the second-generation Mini Clubman, it may have finally done it. That means it's time for all of us to get used to the fact that Minis aren't going to be that small anymore. Case in point is this new Mini Clubman, introduced last month and conspicuous by its size. Many of us who've pointed to BMW's stewardship of Mini as an example of retro done right bemoaned the Countryman subcompact SUV – a concept actually ahead of its time. The Coupe and Roadster, perhaps rightfully, deserved (and received) an eye roll. But now there's a so-called four-door hardtop that went on sale this year and this forthcoming, six-door Clubman that approaches the compact hatchback class in size. These vehicles actually look like practical moves at keeping buyers from defecting to larger cars made by someone else, rather than vain attempts at maximizing investment in a set of parts. And in an interesting twist, Mini is turning into one of its ancestors – minus the feeling of inevitable doom. Many of us were led to believe somewhere since Mini's relaunch about 15 years ago that the brand would be a stepping stone into the greater BMW fold. But in reality, it's done exactly the opposite, creating a parallel brand for those not willing to embrace the BMW image, but leaning heavily on British nostalgia. That was sort of the reasoning used when BMW pulled the Rover Group of England away from a fruitful partnership with Honda in 1994 and absorbed it all. In the consolidate-or-die '90s, it made sense. BMW had a small, but successful, line of sedans. Rover had no success outside of Western Europe (its last US attempt at selling cars, the Sterling, ended three years earlier). Yet its Land Rover line of SUVs was just right for the time and the 35-year-old Mini still had image-conscious clout. With every passing day, the brilliance of BMW's move to abandon Rover in 2000 seems brighter. Even ditching Land Rover made sense in the long run (and probably saved Jaguar in the process). With every passing day, the brilliance of BMW's move to abandon Rover in 2000 seems brighter. During a chat with Mini USA VP David Duncan this summer, it became clear the Mini of the past is probably gone. A small, city-sized Mini is not necessarily off the table, but larger and more profitable models are coming first.