2014 Cadillac Xts Luxury on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac SRX and Saab 9-4X recalled for suspension defect

General Motors has recalled 380,498 vehicles due to rear suspension toe link adjusters that may not have been tightened properly, which could result in a loose toe link. The vehicles affected by the recall are Cadillac SRX crossovers built between 2010 and 2016, and Saab 9-4X crossovers built in 2011 and 2012. A loose toe link could cause instability while driving, especially at highway speeds. This recall follows up an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after it received complaints from SRX drivers of uncontrolled swaying while driving. According to the agency, two incidents led to a crash. It's possible that improper procedures for tightening a toe link nut during four-wheel alignments may have resulted in corrosion and thread wear on the adjustable portion of the link. Owners of affected vehicles are advised to park their crossovers if they experience certain Malfunction Indicator Lamp warnings on the dashboard or if they feel unusual steering behavior while driving. According to the official NHTSA recall notice, dealers will replace the adjustable toe link with a non-adjustable one at no charge. Letters are expected to be mailed to owners of affected vehicles on August 9, 2021. Alternatively, owners can call Cadillac customer service at 1-800-458-8006 or Saab customer service at 1-800-955-9007 and reference recall number N212340980. This is the second time many of these vehicles have been recalled for problems with the rear toe links. Back in September of 2014, GM announced that it would recall 290,241 vehicles that included SRX and 9-4X models because a "nut in the rear suspension toe adjuster link may not be torqued to the proper specification." 

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.

GM shows off 'digital vehicle platform' enabling more in-car tech and OTA updates

It appears to have dropped the sobriquet "Global B," but General Motors' new electrical architecture has bowed in drawings and video. This is the "digital vehicle platform" GM president Mark Reuss spoke to Reuters about in 2015, saying it would move a great deal of a vehicle's computer work to the cloud and enable over-the-air updates. Reuss took the microphone for the debut, too, saying, "Our new digital vehicle platform and its eventual successors will underpin all our future innovations across a wide range of technological advancements, including EVs and expanded automated driving." The system will go into production later this year, appearing in dealerships first either on the 2020 Cadillac CT5 or the mid-engined 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. Yes, these are the same electronics cited for delaying the launch of the C8 Corvette over excessive draw, security and getting the more-than-100 computer modules to communicate seamlessly. When Car and Driver asked about that, GM replied with "No comment." Volkswagen's having the same issues with the Mk8 Golf right now, though, so GM isn't alone, and this will be the new normal among OEMs for a while. What's certifiable is that the new architecture is robust enough to handle 4.5 terabytes of data per hour, which is five times what GM's current wiring can handle. And thanks to Ethernet connections of 100 Mbps, 1 Gbs and 10 Gbs, communication within and without the vehicle happens much faster. The advances mean better screen resolutions, better battery management for hybrids and electric vehicles, the capability for over-the-air updates and "functionality upgrades throughout the lifespan of the vehicle." Cadillac's Super Cruise has already been lined up as a leading candidate for constant improvements in the driving assistance suite, a key part of GM's "vision for a world with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion." And whenever GM decides to take the plunge, it will mean a 48-volt electrical system. More than 300 specialists worked on the digital platform, and security was a huge part of the task. We've already heard that GM consulted with Boeing and military contractors on how to prevent hacking. The carmaker has an internal Product Cybersecurity group that reached out to the research community, and created a "bug bounty" program to crowdsource uncovering any flaws.