2013 Nissan Altima 3.5 S on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2013 Nissan Pathfinder: March 2013

Over the past few months, we've talked a lot about how our long-term 2013 Nissan Pathfinder functions as a daily-driver, long-hauler and all-weather warrior. And so far, it's earning high praise from most of us for being a well-rounded, pleasant vehicle in these regards. But the vast majority of people who actually go out and buy a Pathfinder will do so because of its people-and-stuff-carrying abilities. Nissan specifically engineered the new Pathfinder to be a softer, more widely appealing crossover than the sort of rugged SUV that it was before, and in doing so, the company is hoping its new CUV will find homes in the garages of many American families.
We needed to get some family impressions of the new Pathfinder, and fast.
Thing is, many of us Autobloggers live the kid-free life - at least that's true of most of us in the Detroit area where the Pathfinder currently resides. We have no doubts that the Pathfinder will get a proper family road trip workout from west coast editor Michael Harley after it shuffles over to the left side of the country, and it might also do a jaunt to North Carolina this summer with executive editor Chris Paukert and his family before it leaves the area, but in the meantime, we needed to get some family impressions of the new Pathfinder, and fast.

2011-2012 Nissan Leaf class-action lawsuit finally settled

In 2012, a group of Nissan Leaf owners sued the automaker in a class-action lawsuit over the "wilting Leaf" issue. That describes the steadily decreasing battery capacity of the electric vehicle's battery pack, which didn't line up with drivers' expectations. At the time, Nissan said the lawsuit was without merit but the legal wranglings continued. A new, $24-million settlement will give Leaf owners a new (not repaired) battery if their current pack drops down to fewer than nine bars of energy capacity. There are also options for 90 days of free charging at some of the No Charge To Charge locations or, if they don't live near any of those, a $50 check. One of the main complaints of the lawsuit was that the initial ads for the EV were less-than-clear, telling people the car could go 100 miles when fully charged but, and here's the problem, the automaker recommended that Leaf owners not charge their cars up all the way in hot climates. The class action suit was filed on behalf of Leaf owners in California and Arizona. It reads, in part: Before purchase or lease, Nissan failed to disclose its own recommendations that owners avoid charging the battery beyond 80% in order to mitigate battery damage and failed to disclose that Nissan's estimated 100 mile range was based on a full charge battery, which is contrary to Nissan's own recommendation for battery charging. Following early reports of the wilting problem in warm climates and the initial filing of the lawsuit, Nissan upgraded its battery warranty. It also improved the EV's battery chemistry. The class action suit says that it's this new chemistry that needs to go into any "wilting Leafs" that are affected by the suit. There's more information at the class-action site. Nissan told AutoblogGreen it does not typically discuss litigation. Related Video: Nissan Leaf Battery Explanation 01:18 Embed 00:00 01:18 Play Mute Full Screen Visit AOL On Debug Info Featured Gallery 2011 Nissan Leaf View 20 Photos Government/Legal Green Nissan Electric battery lawsuit class action lawsuit

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.