4x4 4dr Xlt 4.0l Cd Power Windows Power Door Locks Tilt Wheel Cruise Control 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.

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"

Here's what the UAW will be angling for in next year's contract negotiations

The United Auto Workers union is about to enter a new round of negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, and this time, the focus is on the end of the two-tier wage system. Introduced in 2007, the two-tier wage system was enacted to allow General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to categorize its hourly employees under two categories: Tier 1 for veteran employees with full rights and benefits, and Tier 2 for short-term or entry-level employees compensated under a different schedule. The idea was that the system would permit the automakers to invest more in their plants and hire new employees as part of their respective recovery plans without being saddled with all the costs associated with hiring full-time employees. Now that the automakers are (more or less) back on their proverbial feet, however, the UAW wants to see an end to the two-tier system, and will likely make that a center-point of its negotiations next year to replace the current arrangement that is scheduled to end in September 2015. Not all members of the UAW will necessarily be interested in ending the two-tier system, however. According to The Detroit News, some Tier 1 workers may be more interested in negotiating a raise in their hourly rate – something which they haven't received in almost a decade. Tier 2 workers, meanwhile, may be more motivated to keep the tiered system in place, as their arrangement includes provisions for profit-sharing payments that have seen the automakers pay out billions to so-called short-term employees in lump-sum payments. Reconciling the two competing demands from two categories of union members and presenting a united front in negotiations may prove the biggest challenge for the UAW's new president, Dennis Williams. And with the right to strike – something which was suspended during the last round of negotiations in 2011 – the union has a bigger bargaining chip in its pocket.