2003 Chevy Avalanche 2500 4x4 8.1 Off Road+ Tow Package 110k Miles Dvd, Tent 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.

Personal testimonies show real-world effect of plugging in with Chevy Volt

At this point, there are tens of thousands of individual stories about what it's like to live with a Chevrolet Volt. But it also remains informative to take a look at one of these in depth. For example, one Atlanta-area Volt owner says he's cut his cents-per-mile ownership costs by almost 40 percent compared to his previous car primarily because of his ability to drive almost all the time on electric power. Jeffrey Cohen told Clean Technica that he put about 14,000 miles on his Volt extended-range plug-in hybrid for the year that ended October 2013, and that more than 92 percent of those were on electrons. He estimates his "lifetime" miles per gallon rating at a whopping 384 mpg, a figure pushed upward by the fact that he installed a Level 2 charger at home while his employer added an external 110-volt charger at work. Cohen is spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents in his Infiniti M35. As a result, he's spending 45 cents a mile for his car, compared to 73 cents a mile with his prior vehicle, an Infiniti M35. About two-thirds of those Volt costs are for the $349-a-month lease payments, while 15 percent is insurance, 11 percent is for the charger and seven percent for the gas and electricity that actually powers the car. Helping lower that last figure is an overnight electricity rate that's about 10 percent of Cohen's daytime rate. Chevy parent General Motors hopes such testimonies will re-trigger sales for the Volt in 2014. Last year, GM sold 23,094 Volts, down 1.6 percent from 2012. We expect our readers have similar stories they'd like to share in the Comments. Related Gallery 2011 Chevrolet Volt: Review View 22 Photos News Source: Clean TechnicaImage Credit: Lead image: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong Green Chevrolet GM Electric running costs

GM seeks national mandate for zero-emissions cars

DETROIT — General Motors says it will ask the federal government for one national gas mileage standard, including a requirement that a percentage of auto companies' sales be zero-emissions vehicles. Mark Reuss, GM's executive vice president of product development, said the company will propose that a certain percentage of nationwide sales be made up of vehicles that run on electricity or hydrogen fuel cells. GM says a nationwide program modeled on such a requirement in California could result in 7 million electric vehicles, or EVs, on U.S. roads by 2030. California wants 15.4 percent of vehicle sales by 2025 to be EVs or other zero emission vehicles. Nine other states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, have adopted those requirements. In January, California Governor Jerry Brown set a target of 5 million zero-emission vehicles in California by 2030. The Trump administration criticizes California's ZEV mandate, saying it requires automakers to spend tens of billions of dollars developing vehicles that most consumers do not want, only to sell them at a loss. Reuss told reporters that governments and industries in Asia and Europe "are working together to enact policies now to hasten the shift to an all-electric future. It's very simple: America has the opportunity to lead in the technologies of the future." A national mandate also would create jobs and reduce fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and "make EVs more affordable," Reuss added. GM, the nation's largest automaker, will spell out the request Friday in written comments on a Trump administration proposal to roll back Obama-era fuel economy and emissions standards, freezing them at 2020 levels instead of gradually making them tougher. Under a regulation finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency at the end of the Obama administration, the fleet of new automobiles would have to get 36 miles per gallon by 2025, 10 mpg higher than the current requirement. But the Trump administration's preferred plan is to freeze the standards starting in 2021. Administration officials say waiving the tougher fuel efficiency requirements would make vehicles more affordable, which would get safer cars into consumer hands more quickly. GM on Thursday said it doesn't support the freeze, but wants flexibility to deal with consumers' shift from cars to less-efficient SUVs and trucks.