1979 Sierra Classic 2500 G.m.c. 454 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.

2016 GMC Terrain Denali Quick Spin

Here's a bewildering statistic – General Motors sold over 347,000 GMC Terrain and Chevrolet Equinox crossovers in 2014, making the Theta platform twins the best selling vehicles in their segment. GM sold more Equinox/Terrain crossovers than Honda did CR-Vs, Ford did Escapes, and Toyota did RAV4s. After a week behind the wheel of the 2016 Terrain Denali, we can't fathom why GMC's entry, which accounts for nearly a full third of GM's annual small CUV sales, has been so popular. An inefficient engine, cheap interior plastics, uncomfortable seats, a shortage of technology, and a high price left us questioning why anyone would order this Denali over a Titanium-trim Ford Escape, a Jeep Cherokee Limited, or a Hyundai Santa Fe Sport with the Unlimited Package. Driving Notes While looks are subjective, we'd posit that GMC didn't go far enough with its 2016 mid-cycle refresh. New accents on the front bumper, a tweaked grille surround, and LED running lights round out the changes up front, while the rear gets a slightly different bumper. GMC claims there's a new hood, although we challenge you to pick out the differences – here are the official galleries for the 2013 and 2016, if you'd like to try. GMC missed a tremendous opportunity here. New headlights, some restyled taillights, and tweaked mirrors would have given the impression of a more significant refresh. As it stands, these changes don't add up to much. GMC also claims it made changes in the cabin, adding a "revised instrument panel center stack." Aside from the missing CD slot, which has been replaced with an oddly shaped and not terribly useful shelf, it's hard to spot much of a difference. The Terrain Denali's cabin materials feel cheap. You'll be spending at least $35,000 to park one of these in your driveway, but aside from the leather-and-faux-wood steering wheel, no material feels worthy of that price tag inside. The lower dash plastics are hard and scratchy, the center stack feels hollow and creaks when pressed on, and the too-small shade over the seven-inch display feels flimsy. The upper dash is covered in a cheap-feeling, leather-like material that looks unchanged from when the Terrain Denali debuted back in model year 2013. These materials don't make sense in a vehicle that, as tested, exceeded $41,000. The most egregious thing about the refreshed Terrain is the lack of content.

GM’s Charlie Wilson was right: Stronger regulations can help U.S. automakers

Charlie Wilson had been the president and CEO of General Motors before being nominated to become secretary of defense by Dwight Eisenhower. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he controversially said, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." And he was right. While car companies aren't necessarily the most progressive when it comes to things that might have the slightest possibility of political blowback, General Motors should be credited for doing something absolutely forthright in this regard with its announcement that it wants the federal U.S. government not to squash the California Air Resources Board's emissions requirements but to actually create a 50-state "National Zero Emissions Vehicle" program that, in the words of Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac, "will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emission future." Filing comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks is one thing. But a graphic the company developed for this announcement — shown above — is something else entirely, something that is absolutely credible, creative and clever. There is a photo of a Chevrolet Bolt EV driving along a highway, which seems to be in Marin County (based on the blurred San Francisco skyline in the background). Text on the photo states: "It's Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles." It seems to say, in effect, "If we want to make America great again, then we're going to do it by leading in technology, not by retreating behind weakened regulations." General Motors understands that the auto market is globally competitive, and if U.S.-based companies are going to be in the game, then they'd better be able to out-innovate the companies based elsewhere, where emissions and economy standards are not being weakened. What's good for our country ... Related Video: