2005 Toyota Corolla Le on 2040-cars

Auto blog

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.

Sunday Drive: Subaru Ascends up to the hottest market segment in America

Utility vehicles – in other words, crossovers and SUVs – are so hot right now. Two of our top stories from last week revolve around the utilitarian vehicle, but besides their jacked-up, five-door bodystyles, they couldn't be more different. The 2019 Subaru Ascent is headed into an extremely crowded and competitive segment, where it'll have to go up against industry stalwarts like the Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot, not to mention upstart contenders like the Volkswagen Atlas. The Mercedes-AMG G63, on the other hand, has very little competition – there simply aren't very many ultra-luxurious, off-road-ready SUVs in the world vying to attract the dollars of the wellest-to-do customers across these United States. Moving on from crossovers and SUVs, our readers remain attracted to classic front-engine, rear-wheel-drive sportscars. The Toyota Supra's upcoming rebirth earns two places on our list of stories worth highlighting from the week that was; one with leaked information from a Japanese magazine, and another with rumors indicating that maybe we shouldn't be quite so excited. And finally, there's the strange case of the long-lost 2009 Chevy Corvette Z06 that one lucky individual happened to find squirreled away in a storage container with just 720 original miles. A high-horsepower head scratcher if we've ever seen one. As always, stay tuned to Autoblog this week for all the latest automotive news that's fit to print. 2019 Subaru Ascent vs Honda Pilot vs Toyota Highlander: How they compare on paper 2019 Mercedes-AMG G63 set to bare its 577-horsepower heart in Geneva Toyota Supra leaks in Japanese magazine ahead of Geneva debut Toyota Supra to be little more than a rebodied BMW Z4? Forgotten 720-mile 2009 Corvette Z06 emerges from storage Chevrolet Mercedes-Benz Subaru Toyota Coupe Crossover SUV Luxury Off-Road Vehicles Performance barn find sunday drive subaru ascent mercedes-amg g63

New Toyota Mirai videos continue questionable hydrogen claims

"Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint." Toyota has released a number of new promotional videos for the hydrogen-powered 2016 Mirai. Most are exactly what you'd expect: pretty, full of promise and vaguely informational. But there was one line in the Product Introduction video that caught out ear. In the Product Information video about the Mirai, the narrator goes into a short history of Toyota's green car advances. After talking about the Prius and the Prius Plug In, making EVs for urban commuting and the rest of Toyota's advanced fuel programs, we hear this: "Never satisfied though, Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint, one that took its lead from nature itself." You can watch the video (and four others) below. Plug In America co-founder Paul Scott told AutoblogGreen, "Show us the math! Toyota claims the FCV has a smaller carbon footprint than their EV, but every paper I've read indicates the FCV uses 3-4 times as much energy to travel a given distance as an EV. If they are making this claim, let's call them out to prove it. Show us the math!" There's some math that comes out in favor of EVs here and here. "BEVs and FCs have a very similar carbon footprint, dependent on fuel source." – Toyota's Jana Hartline Plug-in vehicle advocate Chelsea Sexton went further. "Assuming appropriate comparisons in energy feedstock, basic science doesn't support the notion that the footprint of an FCV is smaller than that of an EV," she told AutoblogGreen, explaining that "appropriate comparison" would mean using similar energy generation methods for both hydrogen and plug-in vehicles. Not the tendency, she noted, "of H2 fans to compare FCVs based on solar-based electrolysis to EVs running on coal-bases electricity and similar shenanigans." Besides, Sexton said, "focusing purely on efficiencies entirely misses the biggest struggles that FCVs face in the market, namely fuel price, inconvenience, and market fear, even if the vehicles themselves are initially subsidized.