Infiniti G37 2009 ( No Reserve ) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Infiniti QX60 Hybrid gives us d'ej`a vu

If we were totally lazy, we'd just copy and paste the text from our Nissan Pathfinder Hybrid post into this one. Why? Because the Infiniti JX35 QX60 Hybrid you see here is pretty much identical to its Nissan-badged sibling. At least, in terms of mechanicals.
But we aren't lazy... completely. Instead, let's have a quick recap. Engine: Supercharged 2.5-liter mill mated to a 15-kilowatt electric motor. Fuel economy: 26 miles per gallon combined. Interior changes: None - the battery does not compromise any sort of cargo or passenger volume. Price: Roughly $3,000 more than the standard QX60.
If you feel like the nitty-gritty details are necessary, have a look at the official press release below for all the goods. Otherwise, peruse the images in our high-res image gallery and tell us if you can spot the difference between the Q-by-60 and its Nissan twin.

The yin and yang of the 2017 Infiniti Q50 Red Sport 400

When we first drove the Q50 Red Sport 400, Infiniti had the car out at a prepared slalom-and-cone course in a large, open parking lot. The car was stacked up against another Q50 without the Direct Adaptive Steer steer-by-wire system, and the course was designed to show that the DAS-equipped Red Sport 400 (it's a $1,000 option) required less steering input to master the same course. With all due respect to Infiniti, which is invested in this unfortunate system and has been working hard to revise it, the comparison doesn't make a lot of sense. The non-DAS Red Sport 400 has a steering ratio of 15:1 in RWD and 16.7:1 in AWD forms. The DAS system can vary between 12:1 and 32.9:1 in RWD and 11.8:1 to 32.3:1 in AWD flavors. At its extremes, the DAS system's ratio is vastly different than the fixed-ratio cars. So sure, with a super-quick steering ratio available, the DAS driver's going to do less work. It's all in the gearing. Does this mean it's better, that the steering feel is more natural, that it's easier to hustle quickly? The amount the driver saws at the wheel isn't an indication of that, necessarily. After a few days in a rear-drive Red Sport 400, I'm saying that the spooky disconnection between the driver and the front wheels would be a severe deficit to a driver on a real autocross course. It's not like the DAS system is choosing bad ratios within its range, it's just not supplying the feedback to make it enjoyable. Knowing what your front tires are up to is critical. I can hear you saying right now, "But what Q50 Red Sport 400 owners are going to autocross their cars?" Sure, but it was just a means to an end: showing off the DAS in a good light. And in that case, it probably did. The thing is, in isolation, not back-to-back with a non-DAS car with a slow steering ratio, the DAS system has the same issues it's always had: It simply doesn't feel natural. It doesn't feel intuitive. There doesn't seem to be any real advantage over a slightly quicker rack. I don't hear about people making buying decisions based on how much work they have to do sawing at the wheel, do you? So, that's one side of the Q50 coin – one that's hard to ignore if you're an enthusiast and steering feel is an important connection between you and the vehicle you just dropped a large hunk of change on, and will be spending a lot of your time in. The other is that there's a really compelling reason to drive a Red Sport 400: The 3.0-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 is a monster.

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.