Was: $40125 Now: $32489 Blowout Price Don't Miss This Deal! You Save $7636! 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.

Imported pickup tax in play in Trump trade talks with South Korea

WASHINGTON/SEOUL - Talks starting Friday to amend a U.S.-South Korean trade deal must balance President Donald Trump's domestic agenda against the need to contain a nuclear armed North Korea and will have to be completed swiftly, officials from both sides told Reuters. The U.S goods trade deficit with South Korea has doubled since the 2012 signing of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). Almost 90 percent of the 2016 shortfall of $27.6 billion came from the auto sector, an issue the United States is expected to press hard in the Washington talks. A quick deal could give Trump his first trade victory at a time when NAFTA negotiations are dragging on without agreement and pressure on China to change trade practices has yielded little progress. The talks, led by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Michael Beeman and Yoo Myung-hee, director general for FTA negotiations at South Korea's trade ministry, begin at a time of heightened tensions with Pyongyang. A trade ministry official in Seoul said South Korea was waiting for Washington's formal proposals and substantial negotiations would not take place on Friday over a deal Trump has repeatedly threatened to scrap. "The U.S. brought up lowering non-tariff barriers, especially for their auto industry. At the moment, we are not sure whether the U.S. will ask that but we will be prepared (for the U.S. demand)," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to the press. A top priority for the Americans is maintaining a 25 percent tariff on Korean pickup truck imports, which was meant to have been phased out from 2019 under the current deal, according to a U.S. official and a South Korean car industry source. South Korea has two major automakers, Hyundai and Kia, both of which are heavily reliant on exports due to the small size of their domestic market. Critics charge that South Korea discriminates against imports with a range of non-tariff barriers. South Korean auto companies believe that Washington will also seek to increase the 25,000-vehicle per U.S. automaker threshold for U.S. car shipments to South Korea that can enter the country without meeting Seoul's domestic industry regulations. The official at a South Korea auto company, who was not authorized to speak to the media, also said the United States was interested in easing Seoul's vehicle emissions targets. These are viewed as discriminating against U.S. autos.

What do J.D. Power's quality ratings really measure?

Check these recently released J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Do they raise any questions in your mind? Premium sports-car maker Porsche sits in first place for the third straight year, so are Porsches really the best-built cars in the U.S. market? Korean brands Kia and Hyundai are second and fourth, so are Korean vehicles suddenly better than their US, European, and Japanese competitors? Are workaday Chevrolets (seventh place) better than premium Buicks (11th), and Buicks better than luxury Cadillacs (21st), even though all are assembled in General Motors plants with the same processes and many shared parts? Are Japanese Acuras (26th) worse than German Volkswagens (24th)? And is "quality" really what it used to be (and what most perceive it to be), a measure of build excellence? Or has it evolved into much more a measure of likeability and ease of use? To properly analyze these widely watched results, we must first understand what IQS actually studies, and what the numerical scores really mean. First, as its name indicates, it's all about "initial" quality, measured by problems reported by new-vehicle owners in their first 90 days of ownership. If something breaks or falls off four months in, it doesn't count here. Second, the scores are problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100. So Power's 2015 IQS industry average of 112 PP100 translates to just 1.12 reported problems per vehicle. Third, no attempt is made to differentiate BIG problems from minor ones. Thus a transmission or engine failure counts the same as a squeaky glove box door, tricky phone pairing, inconsistent voice recognition, or anything else that annoys the owner. Traditionally, a high-quality vehicle is one that is well-bolted together. It doesn't leak, squeak, rattle, shed parts, show gaps between panels, or break down and leave you stranded. By this standard, there are very few poor-quality new vehicles in today's U.S. market. But what "quality" should not mean, is subjective likeability: ease of operation of the radio, climate controls, or seat adjusters, phone pairing, music downloading, sizes of touch pads on an infotainment screen, quickness of system response, or accuracy of voice-recognition. These are ergonomic "human factors" issues, not "quality" problems. Yet these kinds of pleasability issues are now dominating today's JDP "quality" ratings.