1969 Chevrolet Camaro Ss A/c Power Steering & Brakes Hounds Tooth Interior 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.

Personal testimonies show real-world effect of plugging in with Chevy Volt

At this point, there are tens of thousands of individual stories about what it's like to live with a Chevrolet Volt. But it also remains informative to take a look at one of these in depth. For example, one Atlanta-area Volt owner says he's cut his cents-per-mile ownership costs by almost 40 percent compared to his previous car primarily because of his ability to drive almost all the time on electric power. Jeffrey Cohen told Clean Technica that he put about 14,000 miles on his Volt extended-range plug-in hybrid for the year that ended October 2013, and that more than 92 percent of those were on electrons. He estimates his "lifetime" miles per gallon rating at a whopping 384 mpg, a figure pushed upward by the fact that he installed a Level 2 charger at home while his employer added an external 110-volt charger at work. Cohen is spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents in his Infiniti M35. As a result, he's spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents a mile with his prior vehicle, an Infiniti M35. About two-thirds of those Volt costs are for the $349-a-month lease payments, while 15 percent is insurance, 11 percent is for the charger and seven percent for the gas and electricity that actually powers the car. Helping lower that last figure is an overnight electricity rate that's about 10 percent of Cohen's daytime rate. Chevy parent General Motors hopes such testimonies will re-trigger sales for the Volt in 2014. Last year, GM sold 23,094 Volts, down 1.6 percent from 2012. We expect our readers have similar stories they'd like to share in the Comments. Related Gallery 2011 Chevrolet Volt: Review View 22 Photos News Source: Clean TechnicaImage Credit: Lead image: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong Green Chevrolet GM Electric running costs

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.