2014 Chevrolet Camaro 1ss 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.

Next-gen Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra may use carbon fiber

It's been generally accepted that the next generation of full-size GM trucks will use some sort of strong, lightweight material for the beds while retaining steel for the cab. While aluminum seems like the most obvious choice, according to Automotive News, the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra will incorporate both aluminum and carbon fiber in their beds. The publication cites sources from within GM, though it seems the introduction of this comparatively exotic material mix is still a few years off. While carbon fiber is both stronger and lighter than steel and aluminum, it takes significantly more time and money to produce, essentially relegating the material to small-volume cars. The main benefit for trucks is the resulting reduction in weight to improve fuel economy without sacrificing the tough, rugged capabilities truck buyers expect. The Ford F-150 made the switch to aluminum for the 2015 model year and it's proved highly successful. It seemed like it was only a matter of time before the competition followed suit. Automotive News says that the next-gen trucks will launch with aluminum beds and that it will take a couple of years before we'll see any carbon fiber incorporated into the design. Even then, only look for the composite material on higher-trim models, with a trickle down to lower-spec trucks possible further in the future. In 2011, GM announced it was working with Japan-based Teijin Limited on a carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic. There's a good chance that material's introduction will be on trucks. Related Video: News Source: Automotive News Plants/Manufacturing Rumormill Chevrolet GM GMC Truck

GM: Without LG Chem, we couldn't build Bolt EV [UPDATE]

It's absolutely no surprise that General Motors has a thing for LG Corp. The Detroit automaker and the Korean parts supplier have been working in public on electric vehicles ever since it was announced that LG Chem would supply the battery cells for the Chevy Volt in 2009. LG Chem was even named GM's 2010 Supplier of the Year. But, yesterday, the connection between the two companies was strengthened with the announcement that LG Electronics would be supplying a number of components for the upcoming Chevy Bolt electric vehicle. The Bolt is expected to be able to go about 200 miles and will carry a price tag of about $30,000 (after incentives) when it arrives in 2017 or so. LG's new components can be found almost everywhere in the Bolt. They include the battery pack and the battery heater, a new motor, the power inverter module, the electric climate control system compressor, the on-board charger, high-power distribution module, the accessory power module, and power line communication module. Oh, and then there are LG Electronics' advanced display technologies like the new instrument cluster and a new infotainment cluster. LG Electronics also supplies parts for the 4G LTE OnStar system, just like it does in other new Chevys. If that all sounds like a lot of components to you, you're right. Mark Reuss, GM executive vice president of global product development, purchasing and supply chain, said that without the expanded relationship with LG, GM would not be able to bring the Bolt to market (insert old ironic quote link here). "I think GM was lacking that [electrification knowledge] in a very complete way for many years, I'll just be frank about that," Reuss said. "I also think that on an electrified basis, this requires a long-term commitment and trust that sometimes is violated on a more short-term, regular, traditional basis. I think we have found something completely different with LG and I think that has become a widely talked about and duplicated want from our purchasing and corporate standpoint with our supply base." The "this" that Reuss is talking about here is the OEM-supplier relationship, something has evolved with the LG-GM situation. Previously, the automaker-supplier relationship used to be more like a dictator telling underlings what he needed, Reuss said, and that was a bad idea. "Today's competitive landscape requires a different approach, especially in electrified vehicles," he said.