2014 Buick Regal Turbo/e-assist Premium I 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.

Dear America, you don't need as much power as you think

I recently won a 0-20-mph drag race against a Chevrolet Volt. A day later I smoked a Tesla Model 3. “Um OK,” youÂ’re thinking, “that canÂ’t be that hard.” Well, except that the vehicle I was piloting featured a hybrid powertrain of a Bosch electric motor and 40-year-old human legs. ThatÂ’s right, I out accelerated automobiles on a bicycle. On another occasion, I found myself driving behind my wife in her 2023 Kia Niro EV. The specs say it accelerates from zero to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds, a time thatÂ’s six-tenths off the pace of KiaÂ’s rear-motor-only EV6, a vehicle IÂ’ve repeatedly read being described as “slow.” The Niro, therefore, must be extra-slow. And yet, as she turned left onto a highway onramp, she rocketed forward leaving me in a Mercedes-AMG C43 and every other car in the left turn lane in the distance. I share these anecdotes not to boast about my cycling ability, nor my wife having a lead foot. No no. IÂ’m crap and she really doesnÂ’t. Instead, I want to point out that most drivers accelerate very slowly. The notion of “bigger is better” will forever be engrained in the American psyche, but when it comes to horsepower largesse, todayÂ’s cars hilariously exceed both the expectations and driving habits of most drivers. Most car buyers just donÂ’t have a frame of reference when it comes to equating 0-60 times, output figures and the actual feeling of acceleration.   Eat my dust, Mr Volt! Now, we in the automotive-reviewing media absolutely share some of this blame. We like accelerating quickly and cars that accelerate quicker are bound to reap more positive reviews. At the very least, weÂ’re obligated to point out when a carÂ’s acceleration is slower than a certain competitor's or the segmentÂ’s average. However, just because Car A is slower than Car B doesnÂ’t make Car A slow. It makes it slower. For example, the dual-motor EV6 may be 2 full seconds quicker from 0-60 than the rear-motor model ­– a relatively massive difference – but barring a back-to-back drive or a wealth of comparative knowledge, itÂ’s laughable to think that the average driver could possibly deem the rear-motor version “slow.” Because it isnÂ’t. The near-universal use of turbocharging, the popularity of all-wheel-drive and increased proliferation of electric motors has resulted in this rapid drop in 0-60 times thatÂ’s outpacing customer expectations and driving habits.

Ford, Toyota clean up in Best Car For The Money Awards

The U.S. News Best Cars for the Money Awards picks winners by looking at the average transaction price, five-year total cost of ownership, the regard a car has from the automotive press, reliability figures from J.D. Power and Associates and safety data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The result, according to the magazine, is "the best combination of critical acclaim and long-term value."
Ford nabbed six of the 21 categories that received awards this year, the Focus, Fusion, Fusion Hybrid, Taurus, Escape and Edge getting trophies. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion sub-brands took another five, the Tacoma and Tundra owning the two categories given to pickup trucks. The other ten awards were split between Honda with three, Buick with two, and one each for Subaru, BMW, Hyundai, Chevrolet and Mazda.
Follow the link to see all the winners and read about why they were chosen.