Passat White 8600 K Navigation- Sun Roof One Owner Clean Car Fax on 2040-cars

Auto blog

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

More German automakers may be afoul of US emission standards

Volkswagen has plenty of smoke to share, and that may mean fire for other German automakers that make diesel vehicles, says Automotive News. Earlier this month, European Federation for Transport and Environment said that BMW, Daimler's Mercedes-Benz and General Motor's Opel division are among other automakers that may have equipped their vehicles' diesel engines with similar software as VW's. That software was found to reduce emissions while a car is being tested for emissions and shuts down emissions-control systems during normal use. The European environmental group used data from the International Council on Clean Transportation. Automotive News notes that the European environmental group put out its own report earlier this month, before the VW scandal broke loose, but the report was pretty much overlooked. Now, VW is under fire after it was discovered that 2.0-liter diesel engines in the VW Jetta and Golf, and Audi A3, may be programmed to game the emissions system. VW sold almost a half-million diesel vehicles in the US during the past six years. Both BMW and Mercedes-Benz told Automotive News that the issue that befell VW doesn't apply to their diesel vehicles. Earlier this week, Volkswagen admitted its car ran the sneaky software, while the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has started a probe on the company. VW is setting aside more than $7 billion to pay for the alleged violations. Meanwhile, US taxpayers may have spent as much as $51 million a year to pay for subsidies related to VW's diesel vehicle sales in 2009 alone, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Scott Pruitt unfiltered: EPA administrator talks climate science, car emissions

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Reuters a wide-ranging interview on Monday at his office in Washington, discussing issues from climate science to automobile emissions. The following is a full transcript of the interview: REUTERS: You have said the EPA will focus on a "Back to Basics" approach under your leadership. What does this mean for how EPA enforces polluters? You have been critical of the idea of regulation by enforcement. PRUITT: I think what I'm speaking about, there is a consent decree approach to enforcement, where you use judicial proceedings to actually engage in regulation. Enforcement should be about existing regulations that you're actually enforcing against someone who may be violating that, very much in the prosecutorial manner. As attorney general [in Oklahoma], I lived that. There was a grand jury that I led. Being a prosecutor, I understand very much the importance of prioritization, of enforcing the rule of law, of addressing bad actors. That's something we are going to do in a meaningful way across the broad spectrum of cases, whether it is in the office of air or the Superfund area, or otherwise. REUTERS: Do you want to see states play a bigger role in enforcing polluters, even though some have less of a capacity to do so – financially and personnel wise? PRUITT: I think the state's role is really, when you look at this office working with states, it should be how do we assist, how do we engage in compliance and assistance with states. The office [at EPA that deals with enforcement] is called OECA, the Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Assistance, so those are the tools we have in the toolbox to achieve better outcomes. So what we ought to be doing is working proactively with state DEQs [Departments of Environmental Quality] to get their state implementation plans [for federal regulations] timely submitted, provide assistance and technical support, drive a draft of state implementation plans, and then actually work with them on how to achieve through those plans better outcomes and air and water quality. As far as enforcement is concerned, we will actually work with states. We actually did that recently with Colorado. There was an oil and gas company that was emitting some 3,000 tons, is that what it was, it was quite a bit of ... it was an ozone case. In any event, we joined with Colorado in that prosecution. So sometimes states will do it, sometimes we will join with them.