2003 Chevy Trailblazer Ls Clean Obo Must Sell 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.

GM to squeeze out more production capacity for midsize trucks

General Motors was predicting a strong showing for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon before they debuted, and demand among dealers for the midsize trucks even exceeded company's expectations. The positive situation has left GM with a problem, though: finding ways to increase capacity for the pickups at the Wentzville Assembly plant in Missiouri. With a third shift already running, GM has continued to look for ways to build just a few more of the trucks at the plant. The company has plans to hire as many as 1,000 more workers for the Saturday and Sunday shifts to construct an additional 2,000 pickups a month, according to unnamed insiders at the factory speaking to Automotive News. The little adjustments even extend to getting rid of an unpaid break to add 18 minute of assembly time over the course of a day, which equals about 3,500 more vehicles a year. All of this effort comes because the trucks are in such high demand. According to GM's figures, the company has delivered a combined 35,720 units of the Colorado and Canyon from January through April 2015, and the Chevy was the fastest-selling truck in the US for the previous three months. In May, it spent an average of just 12 days in showrooms before being snapped up. And even better for the company, 43 percent of these buyers came from other brands. According to Automotive News, the most popular trade-ins have included the Ford F-150, Toyota Tacoma, and Dodge Dakota. Related Video:

2016 Chevy Camaro performance figures released

If you want to make a car faster, there are two sure-fire ways to get the job done – add power and/or reduce weight. Chevy has done both for the 2016 Camaro, putting as much as 455 horsepower into its muscle coupe and shaving a few hundred pounds from every trim. That range-topping power comes courtesy of a 6.2-liter V8 engine, and it's enough grunt to push an automatic-equipped Camaro SS to 60 miles per hour in just 4.0 seconds flat (4.3 seconds with a manual) and down the quarter mile in 12.3 seconds at 116 mph (12.5 at 115 for the stick). Not coincidentally, those acceleration specs, at least on paper, put the V8-powered Camaro SS just above the Mustang GT on the muscle-car pecking order. When the road gets twisty, Chevy claims the Camaro SS can generate as much as .97 g on the skidpad. And, thanks in part to its Goodyear Eagle F1 summer tires, the SS can stop from 60 in as little as 117 feet. We look forward to finding out how nimble the new Camaro feels when compared to its primary competitors. <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> Moving down one notch to the 335-hp 3.6-liter V6, properly equipped 2016 Camaro coupes can hit 60 in as few as 5.1 seconds and cover the quarter in 13.5 at 103. Perhaps even more intriguingly, the 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder and its 275 horsepower (the only configuration quicker with a manual transmission, incidentally) can propel the Camaro to 60 in 5.4 seconds and through the 'ol 1320 in 14 seconds flat. That's seriously quick, but buyers comparing the Camaro to the Mustang will find that the EcoBoost 2.3-liter is a bit more powerful (310 hp and 320 lb-ft) and quicker (5.1 seconds to 60). Chevy is making lots of noise about the efforts its engineers went through to shed weight from the 2016 Camaro, going so far as to shave down suspension bolts so that no thread went unthreaded. The weight-saving obsession pays off – base Camaro models are down 390 pounds while the SS model drops 223 pounds over the 2015. The 2016 Camaro SS boasts a power-to-weight ratio of 8.1 lbs per pony, a 14-percent improvement over the last-gen. Even though weight is down, chassis stiffness is said to be up by 28 percent over the fifth-gen Camaro coupe. Also of note: The Camaro is now lighter than the Mustang across the board when comparing like-to-like configuration levels. The 2016 Chevy Camaro starts at $26,695 (including $995 for destination).