Dynamic Seats P2 Night View Assist Heated Ventilated Hk Audio + Plus Save Big on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Race recap: 2016 Monaco Grand Prix gets very wet, a little wild

More than at any other race, the Monaco Grand Prix question is: which combination of demolition derby, Safety Cars, and bad pit strategy will decide the podium? Last year Lewis Hamilton's late, confounding pit stop cost him victory. The year before, Nico Rosberg's qualifying "mistake" put him on pole and Mercedes-AMG Petronas' pit strategy sealed his win – good for Nico, bad for Hamilton and the rest of the field. In 2013 Hamilton dropped from second to fourth when he lollygagged in the pits. In all three years, Rosberg won. The new X factor for 2016: a Red Bull resurgence that helped Daniel Ricciardo clinch his first career pole. Nevertheless, bad pit strategy had its say in the results. Ricciardo built up a 13-second lead by Lap 15 in spite of heavy rains that forced the Safety Car to lead the first eight laps of the race. Ricciardo stopped on Lap 23 to switch to intermediate tires for the drying track, ceding the lead to Hamilton. Hamilton pitted from the lead on Lap 31 for softs, then Red Bull pulled Ricciardo in again on Lap 32 and made a snap decision to put him on ultra softs, but the tires weren't ready when Ricciardo reached his pit box. What should have been a three-second pit stop turned into a 13.6-second pit stop. Ricciardo left the pits as Hamilton came down the straight and the Aussie lost the lead into the first corner. Despite two attempts to pass later in the race, Hamilton finished first, the Aussie second. It's the second race in a row where pit strategy cost Ricciardo a near-certain win. Conversely, Force India nailed both tire strategy and pit timing with Sergio Perez. The Mexican started in eighth but got into third before half the race was done, passing four cars in the pits, and finished on the podium's final step. Otherwise the order barely changed from about half distance, with Ferrari driver Sebatian Vettel in fourth, followed by Fernando Alonso in the McLaren, Nico Hulkenberg in the second Force India, Rosberg in the second Mercedes, Carlos Sainz for Toro Rosso, Jenson Button in the second McLaren, and Felipe Massa taking the final point for tenth for Williams. Storms didn't only hover over the area, though – dark clouds hung around several teams and drivers. Mercedes' reliability is no longer so reliable. The Silver Arrows suffered engine issues on both cars in qualifying, and Hamilton's problem almost kept him from setting a time in Q3.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.

Porsche tops JD Power APEAL study for 12th time

JD Power's 2016 Automotive Performance, Execution, and Layout (APEAL) study hasn't changed much this time around with Porsche coming in at No.1 for the 12th consecutive year, while BMW was close behind in second. Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz tied for third with Land Rover, Lexus, and Lincoln tied for No.5. The APEAL Study, according to JD Power, measures owners' level of excitement and emotional attachment across 77 parameters. Brands and cars are rated on a 1,000-point scale. The study found that new cars with modern safety features including low speed collision avoidance and blind spot monitoring have higher APEAL scores than vehicles without the features. The overall industry score increased from 798 to 801, which JD Power claims was helped by the launch of a variety of new vehicles. This year, 22 out of 30 new or redesigned cars received a higher score than the vehicle's respective segment average. Porsche is once again at the top of the list as the automaker's score increased by three points to 877. BMW outscored Jaguar to take second place with a score of 859, while the British automaker dropped three points from last year with 852 points. Volkswagen overtook Mini to become the top-ranked non-premium brand with 809 points, while the latter automaker trailed behind by one point. At the end of the scale, Smart came in at the very bottom for the second year in a row with a score of 745 points, which represents an increase of 62 points over last year. Fiat's score increased by six points to 755, but still confined the automaker to second-to-worst place for a consecutive year. Mitsubishi's score increased to 770, up from 755, to become the fourth-worst brand, while Jeep fell to third-worst with a decrease in seven points to 756. General Motors received six segment-level awards, followed by Hyundai with five, and BMW and VW earning four apiece. Surprise segment victories include the Chevrolet Camaro, which outscored the Dodge Challenger, and the Lexus RC which ranked above the BMW 4 and 3 Series. For more information on how the automakers ranked, check out the official release on the 2016 APEAL Study below or visit JD Power's website to analyze the graphs. Related Video: Porsche Ranks Highest in APEAL for 12th Consecutive Year; General Motors Receives Six Segment-Level Awards, Hyundai Motor Company Receives Five DETROIT: 27 July 2016 — Popular driver-assist technologies help make vehicles considerably more appealing to their owners, according to the J.D.