2004 Volvo V70 R Sport Wagon - No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2022 Volvo C40 Recharge priced, goes on sale late 2021

Pricing for the 2022 Volvo C40 Recharge is out, and in consistent coupe crossover fashion, it’s a little more expensive than the traditionally-styled XC40 Recharge. The starting price is $59,845, including the $1,095 destination charge. ThatÂ’s $4,760 more than a base 2022 XC40 Recharge. ItÂ’ll be limited to just a single fully-loaded trim called “Ultimate” initially — there will be no additional options, Volvo says. Volvo lets you choose a lower “Plus” trim with the standard XC40 Recharge, but the cheaper starting price also carries less standard equipment. Sweetening the deal for C40 customers is an Electrify America partnership that starts all owners off with 250 kWh of complimentary charging. This comes with the regular XC40 Recharge, too, but it must be a 2022 model year vehicle. One should also take into account any federal or state tax incentives on offer when running the number — Volvo is still eligible for the full $7,500 federal tax credit, so your effective net price could be closer to $50,000 depending on your location. Unfortunately, EPA-rated electric range on a full charge was not included in this announcement. Volvo announced the C40 with a 260-mile range estimate, but the real EPA number will surely fall below that figure. The XC40 Recharge, which the C40 shares all of its vital parts with, is EPA-rated for 208 miles on a full charge. Deliveries are scheduled to start in the fourth quarter this year for folks who pre-ordered the C40 online in March. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Volvo leads and Mini fails in JD Power's Tech Experience Index

New cars are basically rolling computers. Everything from the engine to the infotainment runs on a series of ones and zeros, and a lot of that technology requires input from the driver. So it's no surprise that JD Power has a study designed specifically to discern which bits of tech drivers love and which bits they loathe. "New technology continues to be a primary factor in the vehicle purchase decision," says JD Power's Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & human machine interface research. "However, it’s critical for automakers to offer features that owners find intuitive and reliable. The user experience plays a major role in whether an owner will use the technology on a regular basis or abandon it and feel like they wasted their money." The J.D. Power 2020 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study found that Volvo owners are happiest with the technology packed inside their vehicles, followed by BMW and Cadillac, all brands that JD Power classifies as premium. The highest-rated mainstream brand is Hyundai, followed by Subaru and Kia. As was the case with the organization's Initial Quality and APEAL studies, Tesla's numbers aren't officially included because they are the only automaker that has not granted JD Power approval to contact its owners in states that require it. Tesla's projected score of 593 would have put it in second place, right behind Volvo's score of 617. The lowest-ranked brand in the TXI Study is Mini, with Porsche right behind. Diving a little bit deeper, JD Power's findings suggest that the technologies new car buyers care most about are related to helping them see their surroundings better. Camera systems, including rear-view mirror cameras and ground-view cameras, scored highest in five of the six satisfaction attributes measured in the study. The technology that owners could really do without? Gesture controls. Owners who answered JD Power's survey say they don't use gesture controls much at all after initially trying them, and they don't really care if their next vehicle has them. We have to wonder if those responses might be what kept BMW out of the top spot. The TXI Study also found that owners are split on automated driving helpers, like lane-keeping assist and automatic emergency braking. JD Power suggests that owners may need more training on those systems before they learn to trust them. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences.

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.