2011 White Ltd! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai Sonata PHEV may be a game (and mind) changer

If you really, really want to consume volts instead of fuel on your way to work, school or shopping, you currently have just three options: pure EV, hydrogen fuel cell, or plug-in hybrid EV. Much as we love them, we all know the disadvantages of BEVs: high prices due to high battery cost (even though subsidized by their makers), limited range and long recharges. Yes, I know: six-figure (giant-battery) Teslas can deliver a couple hundred miles and Supercharge to ~80 percent in 10 minutes. But few of us can afford one of those, Tesla's high-voltage chargers are hardly as plentiful as gas stations, and even 10 minutes is a meaningful chunk out of a busy day. Also, good luck finding a Tesla dealership to fix whatever goes wrong (other than downloadable software updates) when it inevitably does. There still aren't any. Even more expensive, still rare as honest politicians, and much more challenging to refuel are FCEVs. You can lease one from Honda or Hyundai, and maybe soon Toyota, provided you live in Southern California and have ample disposable income. But you'd best limit your driving to within 100 miles or so of the small (but growing) number of hydrogen fueling stations in that state if you don't want to complete your trip on the back of a flatbed. That leaves PHEVs as the only reasonably affordable, practical choice. Yes, you can operate a conventional parallel hybrid in EV mode...for a mile or so at creep-along speeds. But if your mission is getting to work, school or the mall (and maybe back) most days without burning any fuel – while basking in the security of having a range-extender in reserve when you need it – your choices are extended-range EVs. That means the Chevrolet Volt, Cadillac ELR or a BMW i3 with the optional range-extender engine, and plug-in parallel hybrids. Regular readers know that, except for their high prices, I'm partial to EREVs. They are series hybrids whose small, fuel-efficient engines don't even start (except in certain rare, extreme conditions) until their batteries are spent. That means you can drive 30-40 (Volt, ELR) or 70-80 miles (i3) without consuming a drop of fuel. And until now, I've been fairly skeptical of plug-in versions of conventional parallel hybrids. Why?

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.

Hyundai To Fight $248 Million Judgment Over Fatal Montana Crash

A Montana jury has levied a $248 million ruling against Hyundai in the case of a crash that killed two occupants in July 2011. The automaker plans to appeal the ruling. Cousins Trevor and Tanner Olson were driving a 2005 Hyundai Tiburon when they hit another vehicle head-on. According to lawyers representing their family, the steering knuckle on the car cracked and this allegedly caused it to lose control. Hyundai claimed that fireworks had been let off inside the vehicle, which caused the driver to swerve. The company alleges that evidence that could have proved its innocence was barred from the case. The jury found in favor of the family and awarded them about $8 million in damages after a two-week trial. It claimed that Hyundai had shown "actual malice," according to Reuters. The jurors also slammed Hyundai with a further $240 million in punitive damages. Hyundai told Reuters that it plans to appeal immediately and called the verdict "outrageous." Autoblog has received a copy of the automaker's official statement, detailing its plans to appeal this case. Scroll down to read it. Statement by Hyundai Motor America While a tragic accident, Hyundai firmly believes the jury's verdict in Olson vs. Hyundai is mistaken and award of damages at three times what was sought by the plaintiffs is outrageous and should be overturned as Hyundai is not at fault. Eyewitness testimony established – and experts for both sides agree – that fireworks exploded in the unbelted teenagers' vehicle immediately before the July 2, 2011 accident, which involved the driver losing control, crossing the median and crashing head-on into an oncoming Pontiac at a closing speed of approximately 140 miles per hour – a speed confirmed by experts for both sides. Hyundai believes the jury's view of the evidence was distorted by a series of erroneous rulings by the Court, the most egregious of which prevented the jury from reviewing performance testing conducted by renowned failure analysis experts that would have disproven the plaintiffs' theory of the case – a theory derived by a local resident with no previous automotive experience. Hyundai will seek an immediate appeal. Technical Background The 140 mph closing speed head-on collision crushed the steering knuckles of both vehicles involved, a Hyundai Tiburon and a Pontiac Grand Am.