1967 Chevy Caprice 20,000 Documented Miles Gorgeous on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Autoblog's top 50 car photos of 2016

This one shouldn't need much explanation. We like cars a whole lot, and that includes not just driving them but taking great pictures of them. We've collected our 50 favorite images from this year in the mega-gallery above. It's a mix of old and new, with a healthy dose of vintage and modern race cars mixed in, and not one single shot under the harsh lights of an auto show. So click through and enjoy. Featured Gallery Autoblog's Top 50 Photos of 2016 View 50 Photos Image Credit: Copyright 2016 Autoblog.com Audi BMW Chevrolet Dodge Ferrari Ford Lamborghini Mazda McLaren Mercedes-Benz Porsche Rolls-Royce Volvo Convertible Coupe Motorcycle Luxury Racing Vehicles Performance Supercars Classics

GM applies for LT5, LTX trademarks... are new small block variants coming?

Recently discovered General Motors trademark applications for LT4, LT5, LT88 and LTX have observers wondering what kind of high-performance offerings could be on their way. A new LT4 would mark a return of the engine designation first used on the Corvette Grand Sport, SLP Pontiac Firehawk and SLP Chevrolet Camaro SS from 1996 and 1997. Supposition at Corvette Forum - which provided advance intel on the C7 like these leaked images - believes a new LT4 could go into the high-performance trim of the next-gen, 2015 Camaro that would be more powerful than the 580-horsepower Camaro ZL1.
Seeing an LT5 again would also be déjà vu - in its former life it was a 5.7-liter V8 for the C4 Corvette ZR-1 from 1990-1994 designed by Lotus, producing from 370 hp to 405 hp. A mix of rumor and hope is that the new LT5 will be a supercharged evolution of the 6.2-liter LT1 (pictured) placed in the new C7 Corvette, and that it will go into the C7 version of the ZR1 pumping out something like 700 hp.
The LTX trademark is, as with that last letter, a complete mystery. If the "X" isn't a generic way to denote the whole LT family, it's wondered if it LTX could refer to a crate motor offering like the LSX.

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.