Sedan I4 Cvt Certified 2.5l Cd 5 Passenger Seating Am/fm Stereo Bucket Seats 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:

Mitsubishi cheated on Japanese fuel economy test since 1991

Mitsubishi now says that its cheating on Japanese fuel economy tests stretches as far back as 1991. The automaker has hired an independent panel of investigators to get to the bottom of what happened, and the company will give them three months to prepare a report about the deception. Mitsubishi's cheat involves how the company calculated driving resistance to determine fuel economy. In 1991, Japan's Road Transport Vehicle Act established a coasting test to establish the driving resistance, but Mitsubishi's engineers used their own "high-speed coasting test," according to its statement. In 2007, the company decided to only use the country's mandated evaluation, but the employees kept utilizing the high-speed test in the field. In the most recent scandal, workers selected low values for driving resistance from the results, which made the fuel economy look better. Mitsubishi's presented these details in a report to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism. "We are currently investigating the reasoning behind each of the decisions," the company said in a statement. It also hired three former prosecutors to figure out why this happened for so long. At this time, Mitsubishi only confirms the incorrect figures for some of the company's minicars, but this investigation could discover more transgressions. This fiasco started when Nissan discovered fuel economy discrepancies in some of its Mitsubishi-made tiny kei-class cars in Japan. Mitsubishi came clean and admitted the problem affected about 625,000 vehicles in the country. Japanese media have alleged more vehicles have incorrect mileage, including the Outlander. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the US has also requested data from the Japanese automaker to confirm similar deceptions didn't happen for vehicles here. Related Video: Regarding the Report to MLIT Concerning Improper Conduct in Fuel Consumption Testing of Vehicles Manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Tokyo, April 26, 2016 The following is a summary of the report submitted by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) today, pursuant to instructions received from MLIT on April 20 to investigate improper conduct in fuel consumption testing of vehicles manufactured by MMC. Report Summary 1.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.