2001 Tacoma / 1 Owner / Dealer Serviced / 37k Miles / Amazing Cond/ 4x4 / Wow on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Amazon Alexa will become your co-pilot in Toyota, Lexus cars

A number of carmakers have introduced Amazon Alexa voice commands that can activate the locks and climate control on their cars, but Toyota is going a step further with Alexa integration by bringing Alexa into the car. Starting in 2018, Toyota will join the likes of BMW by offering the full Alexa voice-controlled app in Toyota and Lexus vehicles with either EnTune 3.0 or EnForm 2.0 infotainment systems. Though Toyota doesn't specifically say which models, we suspect the Camry and Sienna will be the first, since they're the only Toyotas with EnTune 3.0. With Lexus, the LC, NX, RC, and LS models all have available EnForm 2.0, so any or all of those could get Alexa this year. Toyota suggests a number of ways users could use Alexa in the car, such as for taking notes and setting reminders, activating apps, or for controlling other smart devices, such as the heating and cooling on your house. That suggestion rings strongly to those of us in the midst of the bomb-cyclone winter storm. We imagine you'll probably even be able to order goods from Amazon, too. One thing that is strange is that Toyota has made this leap in connectivity, and yet you still can't get Apple CarPlay or Android Auto on any Toyota or Lexus. This is especially odd as it's safe to assume more people own and use Apple and Android products on a daily basis and on the road than Amazon Alexa. Not to mention the fact that almost every other automaker offers both systems on their vehicles. Either way, mobile Alexa presents some interesting possibilities and is sure to be appealing to fans of the Amazon service. And while only a few models will be available with it in 2018, Toyota and Lexus will expand availability in 2019. Related Video:

Hello, Siri? Please don't crash the car

Hands on the wheel and eyes on the road? You could still be distracted while driving. Voice-recognition software that many automakers tout as a safer alternative to handheld devices can still divert drivers' attention, a new study published by AAA found. Researchers noted that workload ratings were the highest on their scales when participants in the study used Siri. The technology is alluring because it allows drivers to do things like change the radio station or compose a text message without removing their hands from the wheel or their gaze from the road. But many of those tasks increase a driver's cognitive workload. Depending on the situation, that can be dangerous. "It's especially problematic, because you can be distracted and not know it," J. Peter Kissinger, president of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, told Autoblog. "That's the nature of mental distraction. It's hard to appreciate. ... Often, you don't know you're distracted until it's too late." There's significant variation in the results of the study. Simple, single-task car commands for operations like changing the radio station caused minimal increases in workload, about the same as listening to an audio book. Composing information using speech-to-text technology was more burdensome, and using menu-based functions caused a high level of cognitive workload. Siri-based interactions posed the highest levels of distraction, according to AAA. Researchers noted that workload ratings were the highest on their scales when participants in the study used Siri, and two of the three simulator crashes they observed during the study of 36 participants came while the subjects were interacting with Siri. The subjects weren't looking at nor making contact with their iPhones during these interactions. "Common issues involved inconsistencies in which Siri would produce different responses to seemingly identical commands," the researchers wrote. "In other circumstances, Siri required exact phrases to accomplish specific tasks and subtle deviations from that phrasing would result in a failure. ... Some participants also reported frustration with Siri's occasional sarcasm and wit." It wasn't just the complexity of the task that caused variations in level of distraction – the variations could also be dependent on the particular make and model of the car being tested.

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.