2009 Honda Civic Si on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Honda Civic Hatchback Luggage Test: How it compares with sedan and Integra

Well, we have a first here at Autoblog Luggage Test HQ: the first time I've done the next-generation of a make/model that's already been luggage tested. I know, right, very exciting. So, for the first time, I'll be able to report how a vehicle compares with its immediate predecessor. As this is the Honda Civic hatchback, I can also show you how it compares with the Honda Civic sedan and the mechanically related Acura Integra. So. Many. Comparisons! In short, the Civic is a definitive example of why you can't really compare the cargo volume figures of a sedan and a hatchback (or wagon, SUV or other hatchbacked vehicle). The specs say the hatchback has 24.8 cubic-feet of space whereas the Civic sedan has 14.8, yet as I'm about to show you, the sedan actually has more space for holding bags or whatever. This is already a phenomena I covered with the Integra and its 24.3-cubic-foot trunk. Apparently, that half a cube makes a difference as it was indeed easier to load bags into the Civic hatch.  Top Civic hatchback, bottom left Civic sedan, bottom right Integra Some key observations here with this trio. The Civic sedan is 4 inches longer than the Civic hatchback, almost all of which is behind the rear axle. This lends its trunk greater length than the hatchback, which is more useful for stuffing in luggage. The Civic hatchback (and Integra) have more height, which balloons the cubic-foot number, but doesn't really provide much help in this test since I don't pack to the roof for safety, visibility and consistency reasons. If you lower the back seats, it's a whole different ballgame, but I'll get to that later. Now, to the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). You can really see the difference in trunk length here. In the sedan (above right), you can fit the small roller bag behind the four biggest bags lined up. Definitely can't do that in the hatchback above left. In short, all the bags fit in all the cars (with some asterisks). It was a much easier fit in the sedan, though, and you can see that there's some extra space on either side of the egg-crusher hinges.

Watch this perfect parody of Ken Block's Gymkhana videos

Every one of Ken Block's Gymkhana videos is bigger and more ridiculous than the last. The goal at this point seems to top the previous production, be it with a custom AWD Mustang ripping through the streets of Los Angeles or a rally-prepped Ford Fiesta drifting around Dubai. Well, the YouTube channel Car Bros decided that the format was ripe for parody and have produced their own short video. It's called "Gympkhana: A #Viral Car #Action Video" and it captures everything that is overwrought and fun about the Gymkhana series. While the scale of Block's videos has increased and the productions are still entertaining, every new Gymkhana seems to rehash the same sights and sounds without really trying anything new. Rev the engine here, drift around there, spin 10 times inside this box, and then circle around that object. Rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat. Car Bros have produced a number of parody videos and the group seems to really get the finer details of the subjects they're spoofing. Everything you would expect from a Block video is here. Gympkhana features shaky title cards, gratuitous slow-motion camera work, and multiple drone shots with helicopter sounds dubbed in. It's obvious that the group took their time to plan out and capture the perfect low-budget Gymkhana. These guys prove that you don't need big, expensive productions with exotic vehicles in exotic locations to have some fun with a few cameras and a car.Related video: Auto News Humor Honda Wagon gymkhana

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.