2009 Nissan Frontier Se Crew Cab on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video:

Is 120 miles just about perfect for EV range?

When it comes to battery-electric vehicles, our friend Brad Berman over at Plug In Cars says 40 miles makes all the difference in the world. That's the approximate difference in single-charge range between the battery-electric version of the Toyota RAV4 and the Nissan Leaf. It's also the difference between the appearance or disappearance of range anxiety. The 50-percent battery increase has zapped any lingering range anxiety, Berman writes. The RAV4 EV possesses a 40-kilowatt-hour pack, compared to the 24-kWh pack in the Leaf. After factoring in differences in size, weight and other issues, that means the compact SUV gets about 120 miles on a single charge in realistic driving conditions, compared to about 80 miles in the Leaf. "The 50 percent increase in battery size from Leaf to RAV has zapped any lingering range anxiety," Berman writes. His observations further feed the notion that drivers need substantial backup juice in order to feel comfortable driving EVs. Late last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), along with the Consumers Union estimated that about 42 percent of US households could drive plug-in vehicles with "little or no change" in their driving habits, and that almost 70 percent of US commuters drive fewer than 60 miles per weekday. That would imply that a substantial swath of the country should be comfortable using a car like the Leaf as their daily driver - with first-quarter Leaf sales jumping 46 percent from a year before, more Americans certainly are. Still, the implication here is that EV sales will continue to be on the margins until an automaker steps up battery capabilities to 120 or so miles while keeping the price in the $30,000 range. Think that's a reasonable goal to shoot for?

Asian automakers still reluctant to use more aluminum

There's a logical progression of technology in the auto industry. We've seen it with things like carbon-ceramic brakes, which use to be the sole domain of six-figure sports cars, where they often cost as much as an entry level Toyota Corolla. Now, you can get them on a BMW M3 (they're still pricey, at $8,150). Who knows, maybe in the next four a five years, they'll be available on something like a muscle car or hot hatchback. Aluminum has had a similar progression, although it's further along, moving from the realm of Audi and Jaguar luxury sedans to Ford's most important product, the F-150. With the stuff set to arrive in such a big way on the market, we should logically expect an all-aluminum Toyota Camry or Honda Accord soon, right? Um, wrong. Reuters has a great report on what's keeping Asian manufacturers away from aluminum, and it demonstrates yet another stark philosophical difference between automakers in the east and those in the west. Of course, there's a pricing argument at play. But it's more than just the cost of aluminum sheet (shown above) versus steel. Manufacturing an aluminum car requires extensive retooling of existing factories, not to mention new relationships with suppliers and other logistical and financial nightmares. Factor that in with what Reuters calls Asian automaker's preference towards "evolutionary upgrades," and the case for an all-aluminum Accord is a difficult one. Instead, manufacturers in the east are focusing on developing even stronger steel as a means of trimming fat, although analysts question how long that practice can continue. Jeff Wang, the automotive sales director for aluminum supplier Novelis, predicts that we'll see a bump in aluminum usage from Japanese and Korean brands in the next two to three years, and that it will be driven by an influx of aluminum-based vehicles from western automakers into China. Only time will tell if he's proven right. News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Sean Gallup / Getty Images Plants/Manufacturing Honda Hyundai Mazda Nissan Toyota Technology aluminum