1989 Gmc Jimmy / Chevy Blazer / 8,077 Original Miles, Must See!! 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 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.

2018 GMC Terrain Drivers' Notes Review | Summon the Druids, it's a better Equinox

We've had plenty of time in the all-new Chevrolet Equinox, testing it with all three of its available turbocharged four-cylinders: the 1.5-liter, the 2.0-liter performance upgrade and the diesel fuel economy upgrade. Finally, however, we get a turn behind the wheel of its brother from a different corporate mother: the 2018 GMC Terrain. This duo is certainly one of the most disparate pairings in GM's long badge-engineering past, with virtually no visual similarities inside and out. They're even less similar than the last Equinox-Terrain, which themselves were a far-cry from the Blazer-Jimmy days. They're largely the same under the skin, however, including their selection of engines. For the 2018 Terrain, we sampled the 1.6-liter four-cylinder turbodiesel good for 137 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque. It's an unusual powertrain to be sure, as no other compact crossover SUV in this country offers one (though Mazda has been threatening to do so for years now), but boasts an EPA-estimated fuel economy rating of 28 mpg city, 39 mpg highway and 32 mpg combined with front-wheel drive. It's basically the same with all-wheel drive. The as-tested price of the SLT Diesel was a rather hefty $39,605. It did, however, have most options, including the Infotainment Package II and Driver Alert Package II that together include all the extra entertainment and safety gadgets. Contributing Editor James Riswick: Let's be honest, the main difference between the 2018 GMC Terrain and its Equinox sibling is the way they look. As such, I can definitively say I prefer the Terrain. It's far more cohesive and better proportioned than the rather dumpy Equinox. It also avoids the garish over-adornment of the last Terrain even if the floating roofline D pillar has passed its expiry date. I think the interior looks better too. As for the way it drives, the 2018 Terrain demonstrates great improvements from one generation to the next. The steering in particular is greatly superior in its feel and feedback. Body motions are also kept nicely in check. Is it a Mazda CX-5 or Ford Escape beater? No, but it's far more confidence inspiring now. So that's the good. Now, the extremely bad. This diesel engine vibrates so much I can't imagine anyone taking one for a test drive and choosing it over the 1.5-liter gasoline turbo. You feel it through the wheel, the pedals and the seat of your pants constantly. It's particularly bad when stopped and even present when just cruising on the highway.