K2500, 4x4, Loaded, Immaculate Southern California Truck 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.

GM offering factory-backed extended warranty for Chevys, GMCs, Buicks and Cadillacs

Cars are generally more reliable than ever before. When things do go wrong, every automaker offers some form of factory warranty (in most cases at least three years and 36,000 miles, though many extend even longer), providing peace of mind to new-car buyers that many faults will be fixed at no charge to the customer. Starting today, GM is offering a new optional plan that will extend the factory warranty on all new Chevy, GMC, Buick and Cadillac products. In the past, extended warranties have been offered as dealer add-ons, with all profits from these sales going to the dealership. GM's new program can be viewed as another nail in the the looming dealership-model coffin. According to Automotive News, some dealers aren't happy to see GM cut into their business like this, saying that it helps GM far more than it does dealers. GM says the new program will help keep customers in the GM family. Customers are also more likely to visit a GM service center rather than going to an independent repair shop. Currently, new Chevy and GMC vehicles come with three-year/36,000-mile warranties. Buicks and Cadillacs are covered for 4 years or 50,000 miles. The new program extends Chevy and GMC warranties to five years or 60,000 miles. Buick and Cadillac warranties extend to six years or 70,000 miles. GM, citing IHS Markit, says most owners keep new cars for about 6.8 years, so these warranties will cover most of the length of their ownership. The extended warranty will add between $1,000 and $2,000 to the price of a vehicle, and the additional cost can be rolled into the vehicle's purchase or lease price. Unlike many dealer extensions, the factory program covers the vehicle no matter who owns it. That should help increase the car's resale value if it's sold within the covered timeframe. GM says there's no deductible and no need to file a claim form when getting warranty repairs. Additionally, dealerships can continue to sell their own extended warranties or service contracts. Related Video:

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.