2005 Cadillac Deville 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.

Cadillac prices 410-hp XTS Vsport from $63,020*

Cadillac has officially released pricing for the 2014 XTS Vsport. Buyers can expect to pay $63,020 for the fleet four-door, including destination and handling fees. That kind of coin will snag you a twin-turbocharged 3.6-liter V6 good for 410 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque. As you likely already know, engineers have done a lot more than simply bolt a pair of turbos onto the company's tried and true naturally aspirated 3.6-liter V6. The engine uses an all-new block, strengthened connecting rods and domed aluminum pistons and is fed through a revised direct-injection fuel system. Combined, the tweaks allow the V6 to suck down 12 psi of boost.
The price tag puts the 2014 Cadillac XTS Vsport well under potential (if ambitious) competitors like the Audi S6 at $71,900, plus destination fees. A base BMW 550i will set you back $62,700, excluding destination charges, but throwing options at the German sedan will quickly see that number climb higher. You can check out the full press release below for more information.

Cadillac CTS Vsport laps the N"urburgring in 8:14.10 [w/video]

You don't have to be German to test your car at the Nürburging. You just have to be serious about beating the Germans on their own home turf. That's why Nissan tests its GT-R at the Nordschleife to challenge the Porsche 911, and why Cadillac - which is no less serious about putting up a fight to German performance sedans - has returned to the 'Ring once again with its latest.
This time it's the turn of the new CTS Vsport, the sportier version of Cadillac's new mid-range sedan that aims to bridge the gap until the arrival of the next CTS-V. So how'd it fare? At the end of what we're sure was an exhaustive test session, the new CTS Vsport clocked a time of 8:14.10.
To put that into context, General Motors points out that the time places the new sedan six seconds ahead of the first-gen CTS-V, whose 400-horsepower V8 engine was actually less potent than the Vsport's new 410hp 3.6-liter twin-turbo V6. That's still a good fifteen seconds slower than the outgoing CTS-V that clocked a 7:59 in 2009 with its 556hp supercharged V8, but only a second behind the E60-generation BMW M5 with its high-revving 500hp V10.