1953 Chevy 3100 Truck And New Rolling Chassis 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.

Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat vs. Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 in latest Head 2 Head

"Olympian" is one of the terms we use to signify the greatest height, the seat of the gods. Yet Mt. Olympus is the second-highest peak in the Balkans ranges, overshadowed by the crest at Musala in Bulgaria's Rila mountains. Both great heights, but one is a little higher. That's how we get the Olympian Chevy Camaro ZL1 pitched at the Musalic Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat in Motor Trend's latest episode of Head 2 Head. The side-by-side spec sheet is filled with farcical numbers. For the ZL1, that's a 6.2-liter V8 with 580 horsepower, 556 pound-feet of torque, a 4,051-pound curb weight, 0-to-60 miles per hour in 3.9 seconds, a quarter-mile time of 12.2 seconds and a base price of just $57,800. Opposing that, the Hellcat wrings out its 6.2-liter V8 for 707 hp, 650 lb-ft of torque, weighs 4,449 pounds, does the quarter in 11.7 seconds and has a base price of just $60,990. Except in the case of the Hellcat, when Motor Trend put it on the dyno the machine spit out a reading of 672 hp and 606 lb-ft at the wheels. If there's a 10-percent driveline loss through those beefed-up internals and heavy-duty eight-speed transmission, that means the Hellcat is actually rated at about 750 horsepower and 700 lb-ft. But once they get put on a closed-off strip of coast road in Northern California, there are only a few strands of hair between their respective performances. That's not the case for they sensations provide; host Jonny Lieberman calls one of them, "One of the most incredible cars ever made," and says, "It changes everything." Watch the video above to see who got the verdict and how. Related Video:

GM profit dips on truck changeover, but beats estimates

DETROIT — General Motors on Thursday reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit despite a drop in production of high-margin pickup trucks, as it gears up for new models that are expected to boost profits next year. Like rivals Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, GM is banking on highly-profitable Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks to lift profits, as consumers shift away from traditional passenger cars in favor of these larger, more comfortable trucks, SUVs and crossovers. During the first quarter, the process of changing over to GM's new pickups resulted in a drop in production of 47,000 units. GM Chief Financial Officer Chuck Stevens said the production drop had resulted in a drop in pre-tax profit of up to $800 million. Earlier this year, GM said its 2018 profits would be flat compared with 2017, but expected its all-new pickup trucks would boost margins starting in 2019. On Thursday, GM reiterated its full-year 2018 forecast for adjusted earnings in a range from $6.30 to $6.60 per share. The automaker said capital expenditures were more than $500 million higher in the quarter because of investments its new pickup trucks and a family of low-cost vehicles under development with Chinese partner SAIC Motor Corp. On Wednesday, rival Ford said it would stop investing in most traditional passenger sedans in North America. CFO Stevens told reporters on Thursday that GM has "already indicated that we will make significantly lower investments on a go-forward basis" in sedans. 2019 GMC Sierra View 21 Photos GM benefited from a lower effective tax rate in the quarter, but adjusted pre-tax margin fell to 7.2 percent from 9.5 percent a year earlier. Stevens said the company's profit margin should hit 10 percent or higher in the second quarter and for the full year. GM said material costs were $700 million higher in the first quarter, and it expects those costs to continue rising. The automaker said it would counter those increases with cost cutting measures. "It is a more difficult environment than it was three or four months ago," Stevens said when asked about rising commodity prices from potential steel and aluminum tariffs announced by the Trump administration. "But we are confident we can continue to offset that." The company reported quarterly net income of $1.05 billion or $1.43 per share, a drop of nearly 60 percent from $2.61 billion or $1.75 per share a year earlier. Analysts had on average expected earnings per share of $1.24.