2002 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 Lt Z-71 4x4 Sport Utility 4-door 5.3l 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.

A Chevy Camaro hybrid? That's what EcoCAR3 could bring

Figuring out a way for a hybrid powertrain to co-exist with the performance expectations of a classic American muscle car is a challenge that could vex that most experienced of automotive engineers. It's a challenge, in fact, being handed to a bunch of college students. Over the next four years, students from 16 North American colleges and universities will attempt to wring fuel efficiency from a 2016 Chevy Camaro as part of EcoCAR3, an advanced-vehicle technology competition sponsored by the Department of Energy, General Motors and others. They'll be attempting to use hybrid or plug-in hybrid technology while not sacrificing the performance of the Camaro, which was selected in part because the current model achieves just 17 miles per gallon in city driving and 28 MPGs on the highway, per EPA numbers. Students will get the latest version of the vehicle to work on, one that is expected to be unveiled next month on Belle Isle in Detroit. "If we still want to produce V8 Camaros, we're going to have to look at alternative methods of propulsion," said Al Oppenheiser, the chief engineer on the Camaro. "So the ideas that these college teams come up with could very easily be adapted to a car like the Camaro." Unlike similar competitions that reward fuel efficiency in vehicles, EcoCAR seeks those gains while emphasizing cost and consumer acceptance of these vehicles. The cars shouldn't look like experiments; they should look like everyday vehicles on the road. Previous competitions have allowed the teams to use whatever powertrain they desired. This time, EcoCAR officials designed the competition to concentrate on hybrid, hybrid-electric and diesel options. Competitors won't have the option of using hydrogen fuel cells as they have in the past. Last year, a team from Colorado State built a vehicle that contained both hydrogen and electric power sources. This year's limit is a curious choice, as some automakers such as Toyota have placed heavy bets on fuel cells in recent years. General Motors also runs a fuel-cell program. With the focus on cost and practicality, however, the program officials wanted to narrow the framework of the contest. "We always have some good decisions on what to make within the scope or out of scope," said Jim Kolhoff, global director of software engineering for General Motors.

Nissan Leaf sells 1,553 in April, Volt climbs to 905

After three months in the 500 and 600 range, sales of the Chevy Volt climbed to 905 in April. That's up for the year so far – likely due to increasing discounts – but still down 41.5 percent from April 2014. As we've been saying every time the Volt turns in less-than-exciting monthly sales numbers, we suspect a large number of potential Volt buyers are waiting for the next-gen model to arrive in the second half of 2015. While the price for that car has not yet been announced, the updated tech specs show that it will probably be worth the wait for drivers who want the latest and greatest. Over on the Nissan Leaf side of things, April sales were 1,553 units this year. That's the second-best month of the year but down from the 2,088 units sold last April. After the Leaf finally climbed to the top of the cumulative best sellers list for plug-in vehicles last month, the difference between these two leaders is now 1,824 in favor of the Leaf. Nissan says that sales were influenced by the launch of its No Charge To Charge promotion in Indianapolis and Fresno, CA. This deal gives new Leaf buyers and lessees two years of no-cost quick charging in these markets. No Charge To Charge is not available in 15 US markets for (San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Nashville, Phoenix, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta) and will expand to 10 more by the middle of this year. As we do every month, our full wrap-up of US green car sales is coming soon. For now, enjoy discussing these sales figures in the Comments below.