2012 Lincoln Mkx Base 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.

Does Lincoln Zephyr trademark mean a return to real names?

Lincoln's long history includes many legendary names, and despite its short life, Zephyr retains a spot in that pantheon. Perhaps its will return once again: Ford Motor Co. applied to trademark Zephyr on May 11. Trademark filings can have ambiguous meanings, and often they're legal plays to get or keep the rights to a name. But in the last year, we've seen signs Lincoln is looking to use real names on its vehicles again. Obviously, it's keeping Navigator for its flagship sport-utility vehicle with a new model due next year. Reprising Continental for the MKS replacement was also well received. That said, Lincoln still uses the MKX and MKC "names" for its crossovers. Zephyr is a dustier moniker. It was used in the 1930s and '40s on a mid-level model spearheaded by Edsel Ford. The stylishly aerodynamic model was set between the Ford V8 De Luxe and more expensive Lincolns. It returned in 2006 as the Lincoln version of the Ford Fusion before that model was renamed MKZ. Mercury also used Zephyr on its version of the Ford Fairmont in the late 1970s and early '80s. Ford last held a trademark on the Zephyr name in 2013. The filing says Ford seeks to use Zephyr for "motor vehicles and parts and accessories therefor." That could mean a new car — or just parts. Putting the Zephyr badge back on the MKZ is the most likely bet. Meanwhile, Ford also moved to get the Thunderbird trademark on May 11 for the same vehicles and parts purpose, and it filed for the Mustang trademark for shampoo and lotions on May 4. A Lincoln spokesman said, "In the normal course of our business, we file trademarks for names," but had no further information. Related Video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.