2000 Nissan Frontier Xe King Cab 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.

Nissan BladeGlider Concept shows its inner DeltaWing

Just like the DeltaWing and ZEOD RC racecars, it takes seeing the Nissan BladeGlider concept live to get a true appreciation for its design. But that doesn't mean it's any less weird. The wedge-shaped, three-seat concept car hit the stage today at the Tokyo Motor Show, and Nissan says the car is an "exploratory prototype" for a future production model.
The BladeGlider is defined by its design with front wheels that are just about three feet apart, while the rear has a more conventional track. Opening the scissor doors reveals a center driving position flanked by two passenger seats with a cockpit-inspired design. Although no power figures were revealed for the conceptual vehicle, Nissan does say that the BladeGlider is an all-electric vehicle with its battery pack mounted toward the rear of the car helping to provide a 30/70 weight distribution front to rear.
Check out our live images of the BladeGlider as well as the Nissan press release below.

DC fast charging not as damaging to EV batteries as expected

As convenient as DC fast charging is, there have been lots of warnings that repeated dumping of so many electrons into an electric vehicle's battery pack in such a short time would reduce the battery's life. While everyone agrees that DC fast charging does have some effect on battery life, it may not be as bad as previously expected. Over on SimanaitisSays, Dennis Simanaitis, writes about a recent presentation by Matt Shirk of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) called DC Fast, Wireless, And Conductive Charging Evaluation Projects (PDF) that describes an ongoing test of four 2012 Nissan Leaf EVs that are being charged in two pairs of two. One pair only recharges from 50-kW DC fast chargers, which the other two sip from 3.3-kW Level 2 chargers exclusively. Otherwise, the cars are operated pretty much the same: climate is automatically set to 72 degrees, are driven on public roads around Phoenix, AZ and have the same set of dedicated drivers is rotated through the four cars. "Degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." What's most interesting are the charts on page seven of Shirk's presentation (click the image above to enlarge), which show the energy capacity of each of the four vehicles. When they were new, the four batteries were each tested to measure their energy capacity and given a 0 capacity loss baseline. They were then tested at 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 miles, and at each point, the DC-only EVs had roughly the same amount of battery loss as the Level 2 test subjects. The DC cars did lose a bit more at each test, but only around a 25-percent overall loss after 40k, compared to 23 percent for the Level 2 cars. Simanaitis' takeaway is that, "INL data suggest that the amount of degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." The tests are part of the INLs' Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity work and a final report is forthcoming. These initial numbers from IPL do mesh with other research into DC fast charging, though. Mitsubishi said daily fast charging wouldn't really hurt the battery in the i-MiEV and MIT tests of a Fisker Karma battery showed just 10-percent loss over 1,500 rapid charge-discharge cycles.