Low Miles Turbo Awd New Tires Super Clean Fast Sti Hid Lights Bbs Wheels Aem on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Submit your questions for Autoblog Podcast #344 LIVE!

We're set to record Autoblog Podcast #344 tonight, joined by Doug DeMuro, author of Plays With Cars, formerly of Porsche Cars North America, and all-around swell guy. You can drop us your questions and comments via our Q&A module below, and we'll give them extra-diligent attention. Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes if you haven't already done so, and if you want to take it all in live, tune in to our UStream (audio only) channel at 10:00 PM Eastern tonight.
Discussion Topics for Autoblog Podcast Episode #344
BRZ STI?

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Subaru readies BRZ RA Racing for Japanese trackdays

As if we needed any more reasons to take a Subaru BRZ to the track, Subaru has just announced that it will be producing a racing-spec version of the car straight from the assembly line. The only problem is that the BRZ RA Racing is being offered for the Japanese domestic market only, and won't be visiting any road courses in the US any time soon.
To get the BRZ ready for some serious track time, Subaru added brake ducts beneath the front fascia, removable tow hooks and an oil cooler behind the grille. Inside, the car gets a factory six-point roll cage (including custom-fit floor mats) and a four-point race harness for the driver. Now we get to pricing where US enthusiasts will get even more miffed. The entire suite of racing add-ons increases the BRZ's price by 31,500 yen, which converts to less than $350 US; the total price of the car converts to right around $31,500 US.
There is a brief press release posted below, which has been translated (somewhat poorly) by Google.