2005 Volvo S60 2.5t Awd Sedan 4-door 2.5l 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.

Geely plans to launch hundreds of satellites to guide autonomous cars

BEIJING — China's Zhejiang Geely Holding Group said on Tuesday it was investing 2.27 billion yuan ($326 million) in a new satellite manufacturing plant, where it plans to build low-orbit satellites to provide more accurate data for self-driving cars. Geely, one of China's most internationally-known companies due to its investments in Daimler, Volvo and Proton, is building the facilities in Taizhou, where it has car plants. It aims to produce 500 satellites a year by around 2025, with around 300 highly-skilled staff, it said in a statement. Geely's technology development arm, Geely Technology Group, launched Geespace to research, launch, and operate low-orbit satellites in 2018. Geespace will begin the launch of its commercial low-orbit satellite network by the end of this year, Geely said. Geely said low-orbit satellites would offer high speed internet connectivity, precise navigation, and cloud computing capabilities to cars with autonomous driving technology. Geely, which sold 2.18 million cars last year, is among global automakers from Tesla to Toyota to pursue autonomous driving technologies. It is building low-orbit satellites to meet demand for high-speed connectivity capabilities that can deliver fast software updates. From around 2025, Geely's cars will have more functions to connect to the satellites. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.     Green Plants/Manufacturing Mercedes-Benz Volvo Emerging Technologies Autonomous Vehicles

Lotus' new position: Much improved, if Volvo's experience is a guide

Out today is the news that Geely Holding will acquire controlling interest in British sports car maker Lotus Cars. While some 20 years ago the Chinese acquisition of a British automaker might have inspired grumbling from aggrieved Brits (and the handful of Lotus enthusiasts), the world has moved on. And so – thankfully – can Lotus. To suggest Lotus' business history has been checkered is to broaden the definition of "checkered." With its beginnings in the early '50s as a maker of component cars for competition, Lotus founder Colin Chapman – in a manner not unlike his postwar contemporary, Enzo Ferrari – was always hustling, living a hand-to-mouth existence in the production of road cars to support a racing program. Regrettably, Chapman never found a Fiat, as Ferrari did toward the end of the 1960s. Lotus had Ford in its corner for racing and as a resource for powertrains, and later benefited from the corporate support of both GM and Toyota for relatively short periods. Lotus Cars, however, never enjoyed the corporate buy-in that would have allowed Chapman to race and let someone else build the cars. Regardless of what Consumer Reports or Kelley Blue Book might have thought (if they had ...) about those early Lotus cars, a great many are now regarded as classics. My first knowledge of a production Lotus was when Tom McCahill, the 'dean' of automotive journalists in the US, tested an early Elan for Mechanix Illustrated. While we're still not sure, some 50 years later, how McCahill's XXL frame fit into the tiny roadster, he had nothing but praise for the Elan's athletic chassis and now-timeless design. In today's Lotus portfolio, the Elise and Exige continue that light, athletic tradition, while the larger Evora seems to strike wide – literally and figuratively – of the "less is more" ideal. With the Toyota-powered Evora, more is more. But in an eco-sensitive era demanding more of the original Chapman mantra – add lightness – there's little reason that Lotus can't regain relevance if given the financial resources. Geely's acquisition of Volvo, the fruits of which appear regularly not only in the news but on the streets, suggests the Chinese investment will provide strategic vision (along with money) while allowing Lotus talent to do what it does best: Create an exciting product. And while at various periods in its history the product has been worthy, Lotus in the US has been ill-served by a flailing dealer network.