Low 62k Orig Miles 1-owner Documented Service History Az Suv Loaded Up 03 05 06 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.

DC fast charging not as damaging to EV batteries as expected

As convenient as DC fast charging is, there have been lots of warnings that repeated dumping of so many electrons into an electric vehicle's battery pack in such a short time would reduce the battery's life. While everyone agrees that DC fast charging does have some effect on battery life, it may not be as bad as previously expected. Over on SimanaitisSays, Dennis Simanaitis, writes about a recent presentation by Matt Shirk of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) called DC Fast, Wireless, And Conductive Charging Evaluation Projects (PDF) that describes an ongoing test of four 2012 Nissan Leaf EVs that are being charged in two pairs of two. One pair only recharges from 50-kW DC fast chargers, which the other two sip from 3.3-kW Level 2 chargers exclusively. Otherwise, the cars are operated pretty much the same: climate is automatically set to 72 degrees, are driven on public roads around Phoenix, AZ and have the same set of dedicated drivers is rotated through the four cars. "Degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." What's most interesting are the charts on page seven of Shirk's presentation (click the image above to enlarge), which show the energy capacity of each of the four vehicles. When they were new, the four batteries were each tested to measure their energy capacity and given a 0 capacity loss baseline. They were then tested at 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 miles, and at each point, the DC-only EVs had roughly the same amount of battery loss as the Level 2 test subjects. The DC cars did lose a bit more at each test, but only around a 25-percent overall loss after 40k, compared to 23 percent for the Level 2 cars. Simanaitis' takeaway is that, "INL data suggest that the amount of degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." The tests are part of the INLs' Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity work and a final report is forthcoming. These initial numbers from IPL do mesh with other research into DC fast charging, though. Mitsubishi said daily fast charging wouldn't really hurt the battery in the i-MiEV and MIT tests of a Fisker Karma battery showed just 10-percent loss over 1,500 rapid charge-discharge cycles.

A realistic approach to fixing Mitsubishi

There are going to be a lot of words written about what Nissan needs to do with Mitsubishi in the coming months and years in the interest of turning the brand around. After Nissan's purchase of a controlling stake in the diamond star brand, there's been more interest in Mitsubishi thanks to the potential of platform sharing and plenty of cash from Nissan-Renault to get the juices flowing again. But, while some have been doing their best to advocate for the return of the 3000GT, Evolution, and even the Starion - Many of these posts forget the reality of the market we live in today. As much as we like to look back fondly at the sports coupes of the '90s, a byproduct of the insane cash flows all the Japanese manufacturers had at the time, the reality of today puts a much greater emphasis on what is most-boring; Crossover SUVs, alongside mid-size and compact sedans. We do need to ask a fundamental question, how much Mitsubishi is enough to be able to continue to call the cars Mitsubishis? Aside from slight product revisions and reconfigurations, Mitsubishi (at least in North America) has been largely dependent on the same GS platform and 4B1 engines that date back to their long-time partnership with Chrysler (and Hyundai) in the mid '00s. Admittedly, the chassis and engines have served the company well, underpinning a wide variety of vehicles sold around the world, and seeing quite a few revisions to at least attempt to keep products competitive. But, the GS chassis is old, heavy, and severely out of date - and when matched to the underpowered 4B1 series engines - make for largely uncompetitive offerings in the market. While something like the Outlander Sport is indeed interesting compared to a Honda CR-V, it is by no means the smart choice in the segment. So, going forward, unless Mitsubishi has had a skunkworks of sorts developing their chassis and engine replacements over the past few years, what exactly are they planning to do for their bread-and-butter models? I think the straightforward answer is without a doubt the Nissan North America parts bin. With so many of their models selling well, and for the most part, are reasonably well-reviewed, it would be quite simple to adapt the chassis and powertrain to Mitsubishi's liking to create a high-volume alternative to what is currently available now.