2006 Acura Tl...fully Loaded With Leather, Navigation, Bluetooth...custom Wheels on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Russian videographer nails this real-life 'Need for Speed' recreation

Aaron Paul and Kid Cudi tried. They really did. They put forth a decent acting effort, played with some incredible replica supercars, and filmed at some remarkable settings. But it's 2019, and 2014's "Need for Speed" sits at a 6.5/10 on IMDB, a 39 on Metacritic, and a 57% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. The studio attempt to bring "Need for Speed" to life was lukewarm, so a Russian videographer took a shot at the idea with this impressive digital short. Unearthed by Reddit user, AbuDab1, the clip is the work of Russia-based videographer @Chekunov_v. Clearly a fan of all things fast and fancy, as seen by his Instagram, Chekunov recreated the start screen, the garage with car and mod selection, and the race sequences from the video game. The video starts with an Acura RSX Type-S (labeled as the Integra Type R) with familiar theme music playing in the background. Accompanied by video game sound effects, the spotlight switches between a Toyota Celica, a Toyota Supra and a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. The Supra and Evo are locked, so the user settles on the Celica. He goes on to select mods, including a new spoiler, new wheels and a new color, again to the tune of the proper sound effects, menus and camera views. The car exits the garage and rolls onto the road, where the screen now shows a tachometer and an N2O gauge. The Celica is met with a race challenge, and the car lines up with a Mazda RX-8, an Acura RSX Type-S and a Subaru WRX STI. After a terrible launch, the Celica uses some NOS and takes the victory. Unfortunately, the video is a bit 2 fast, 2 short for our taste. It's well done, has some unique video work, and takes us back into one of our favorite video game series. Maybe this guy can direct the studio sequel.

Top 10 small cars with the longest total driving range

Editor's Note: Since this article was originally posted in the spring of 2015, much has changed in the automotive landscape, especially among those shopping for small car economy. With thanks to Volkswagen for their blatant cheating – and subsequent cover-up – on diesel emissions, the largest player in the diesel passenger car segment isn't playing – they're paying; billions are going for both car buybacks and federally-imposed penalties. And for a few VW execs there exists the very real possibility of jail. With the absence of a big player and the abrupt entrance – via Chevy's new Bolt – of an affordable EV with 200+ miles of range, we've limited the diesel listings to Jaguar's new XE. And for those wanting an updated look at efficiency and range, Autoblog has it – or the EPA has it. Long before electric vehicles were part of the mainstream conversation, car lovers and skinflints alike would boast about the total range of their vehicles. There's something about getting farther down the road on one tank of gas that inflames the competitive spirit, almost as much as horsepower output or top speed. Of course, the vehicles with the very best range on today's market are almost all big trucks and SUVs; virtually all have the ability to carry massive reserves of fuel. Top up a standard Chevy Suburban and you can expect to travel almost 700 miles (you'll need to stop before the Suburban stops...), while a diesel-fed Jeep Grand Cherokee manages almost as many. But what about vehicles that are smaller? The EPA has, essentially, three classifications for 'small' vehicles: Minicompact, Subcompact and Compact. All three are measured based on interior volume, meaning that some cars with rather large exterior dimensions and engines slot in next to traditional small cars. But even though impressive GT coupes from Porsche, Bentley and Mercedes-Benz may have much larger gas tanks to feed their powerful engines, that capacity is offset by higher rates of consumption... in most cases. We used the EPA's Fuel Economy Guide for model year 2017 cars as a start, calculating the official highway miles per gallon rating with each vehicle's tank capacity. The resulting numbers aren't necessarily real world, but they do offer a spectrum for total theoretical range. The eventual top ten surprised me on a few occasions, and comprised quite a varied list of vehicles. 10.

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.