1997 Acura Cl Premium Coupe 2-door 2.2l / 126k / Recent Service / Financing 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.

2019 Acura ILX first drive | New looks, same lackluster performance

Acura knows what it takes to make a fun, compact car that enthusiasts desire. It did so for three decades with the Integra, which eventually morphed into the still fun RSX. Then the ILX came around for the 2013 model year, and the world collectively yawned. It's actually still yawning, and the 2019 redesign isn't doing a whole lot to change that. One might expect more wholesale changes from a car entering its seventh year on the market, but we're still staring down the barrel of the same 201 horsepower 2.4-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder and trick dual-clutch automatic transmission (which also features a torque converter for low-speed smoothness) from before. These pieces aren't necessarily the problem though. It's enjoyable to thrash the engine out to 7,000 rpm, and the dual-clutch snaps off surprisingly quick shifts when using the paddles in manual mode. It's a bit of a throwback to before all of Honda's performance engines switched to turbocharging for power. It pulls harder the more you wring it out, and begs to be paired with a slick-shifting six-speed manual like it was in the ninth-gen Civic Si. Sadly, everything else outside the powertrain (still) just misses the mark. The greatest part of Acura's old performance compacts was how they made you feel when you were driving them. There was an intimate connection between the driver and road at all times that is sorely lacking from the ILX. Turn in feel is soft and doesn't offer satisfying quick changes of direction. The old chassis feels its age in controlling body movements too. It all culminates in making the ILX feel like a larger car than it actually is. That's not to say the ILX handles poorly, though; it simply does so without any eagerness or feel — just like it has from the beginning. This is unfortunate because the ILX looks better than it ever has. Acura re-did the whole front nose from the A-pillar forward, and it attacked the rear fascia too. We got to check out and drive A-Spec trimmed cars, which add even more aggression to the styling but no performance upgrades. Sure there's three-too-many fake air vents, but the car finally grew some teeth compared to the ultra-bland looks from before. Props for not following the terrible industry trend of totally unreasonably-sized fake exhaust outlets too. The interior isn't as exciting.

Acura RDX Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

The Acura RDX is considered a compact luxury SUV, but there's actually very little that's compact about it. When lined up against its competitors, you can see that it enjoys a clear dimensional advantage. In fact, the RDX is pretty close to the Lexus RX, with an identical rear legroom figure and considerably more cargo space with the back seat raised. Obviously, I'll be addressing the latter here. On paper, Acura provides several cargo numbers calling out specific SAE measurement standards for each one. Basically, it has 31.1 cubic-feet behind its back seat when you include its underfloor storage and 29.5 cubic-feet when you don't. Even that smaller number is superior to everything in the segment save the Volvo XC60 (29.7), while the Lexus RX apparently has a seems-way-too-small 18.4.   Let's see what that size advantage means. It's obvious that this is a comparatively deep and wide space with plenty of air above the back seat line for bulkier items. Note that the cargo cover was not present in this test vehicle, so I couldn't test capacity with it in place. As in every luggage test, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). There you go, all the bags fit easily. This is pretty much identical to the Lexus RX (below left) and a much easier fit than the Mercedes GLC, which is  one of the only other compact luxury models I've tested. Both of these examples are more capacious than their specs would indicate. However, this is not the end of the RDX story. Remember when I mentioned that it has 31.1 cubic-feet when including its underfloor storage? Well, that might actually be underselling the extra space gained. First, I like that the floor flips back and rests flat so you can easily use the extra space. You can also fully remove the floor piece to gain access to the aft bin, which is deeper but oddly shaped.  Here are my four largest bags standing up, with sufficient rear visibility maintained, and you still have the full-width section of the cargo area including the underfloor bin. What can you fit there? How about a 38-quart cooler and the remaining two bags stacked haphazardly around it.