1979 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham Sedan 4-door 7.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac issues stop sale on ATS to recall 82k units

Cadillac is issuing a recall on 82,620 examples of the 2013-2016 ATS worldwide to fix a compliance issue with the sunroof controls. Until a service bulletin goes out to take care of things, there's also a stop sale on the luxury compact in the United States, The Detroit News reports. Of the affected models, 63,665 are in the US, according to a statement sent to Autoblog, and 7,922 of them are in Canada. The problem is actually the same issue as a recall on nearly 59,000 examples of the 2013-2015 ATS in the US in February. In them, the controls for the tilt and slide of the roof aren't recessed enough to meet government standards for the force necessary to operate the buttons. The Feds believe that someone could accidentally activate the auto-close and potentially be at risk. At the time, Cadillac dealers installed a new trim plate to add the needed clearance. In the latest update, the company is adding the 2016 model year, and according to The Detroit News, 70 percent of the cars from the original campaign also need another new trim plate. Unsurprisingly for such a minor defect, there are no known crashes, injuries, fatalities, or customer complaints related to this issue, according to the announcement by General Motors. Cadillac ATS Statement: General Motors is recalling 63,665 Cadillac ATS sedans in the United States from the 2013-2016 model years because the power-operated roof panel systems on these vehicles will auto-close when the non-recessed portion of the "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed and the roof panel is open. Because these switches are not fully recessed, they can be actuated with less force than required to comply with applicable federal standards. GM knows of no crashes, injuries or fatalities related to this issue and has received no customer complaints. The total population of the recall including Canada, Mexico and exports is 82,620. Transport Canada Recall # 2015322 Recall Date 2015/07/21 Notification Type Compliance Mfr System Electrical Manufacturer Recall Number 15568 Units Affected The number of vehicles or components affected by the recall. 7,922 Category Car Recall Details Certain vehicles equipped with power-operated sunroof system may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 118 - Power-Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems.

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.

Super Cruise’s failsafes

Even though Super Cruise is not a fully autonomous system, it incorporates redundancies like those used in aircraft to ensure failsafe operation. Before taking off on a 700-mile, 11-hour test drive of the system — and putting my life in its hands without my hands on the wheel — I sat down with Daryl Wilson, lead development engineer for Super Cruise, to get a deep dive into the system and its critical safety backups. Autoblog: First, what makes Super Cruise different from similar systems? Wilson: The key differentiator for Super Cruise is hand-free driving. It's an industry first in that respect. Our competitors require the driver at minimum to place their hands on the wheel with some frequency to ensure that the car knows that the driver is there. We don't. Two key technologies allow us to do this. One is our Driver Attention System, which is our methodology for making sure the driver is engaged with the vehicle and engaged with the road. This is a driver assist system, not a fully autonomous system. So it requires driver engagement. We use an infrared camera that constantly monitors the driver's face to determine the direction they're looking. We're looking for the driver to be what we call on-road — not on the center stack, not to left or right or down. That's all done by the tracking of the face. We also track that the eyes are open. It's infrared because at night you need to illuminate the face and you can't be shining a light into the driver's face. Then we have our lidar mapping that provides a foundation for control and redundancy to ensure safe performance. Autoblog: How does the mapping act as a redundant feature? Wilson: This system is only for use on divided, controlled access highways. What I mean by a divided highway is something more than a painted line between you and oncoming traffic. Whether that's a grassy area in between the lanes or a concrete barrier, anything that separates you from oncoming traffic. That's the divided highway part. The controlled access part is entrance ramps and exit ramps. Not with roads that cross at grade, with traffic crossing at the same level. To do that we geofenced these roads to ensure that operation is only allowed in these conditions. We don't just recommend you use it there; we ensure that you only use it there.