2014 Nissan Maxima 3.5 Sv W/sport Pkg on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Nissan reveals radical BladeGlider concept for Tokyo debut

Radical reinvention of the automobile doesn't happen very often. There's a reason they refer to it as "reinventing the wheel", after all. But that's what a team of racecar designers did with the original DeltaWing concept in 2010. Originally proposed as an IndyCar racer, the project was subsequently redesigned for Le Mans. That's when Nissan got on board, supported the project for a few races, then took the design in its own direction with the ZEOD RC. And now it's taking it to the road... via the auto show.
What we have here is the BladeGlider concept, a proposal for a delta-shaped electric sportscar which Nissan will present at the Tokyo Motor Show in a couple of weeks. Designed to focus on driving pleasure, the BladeGlider is about as radical as they come. Like the DeltaWing and ZEOD RC, it's got a narrow front track and wide rear to minimize drag and optimize stability, packing a 1+2 seating arrangement to put the driver front and center like in a McLaren F1, with upward-swinging doors and underbody aerodynamics to keep it glued to the road. In-wheel motors (of unspecified output) provide the power, a lightweight lithium-ion battery (not to mention the carbon-fiber bodywork) keeps it all fearther-like, and weight distribution is heavily biased towards the rear at 30:70.
A radical concept, to be sure, but here's the kicker: Nissan wants to build it. As you can see from the press release below, the BladeGlider "is both a proposal for the future direction of Nissan electric vehicle (EV) development and an exploratory prototype for an upcoming production vehicle". While it would undoubtedly take some time to develop, much less certify for road, seeing one of these - or even better, driving one - on our favorite stretches of tarmac strikes us as a prospect worth waiting for.

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.

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?