Wty 2000 Vw Golf Gls 2.0l Auto Sunroof Alloy Cd 28 Mpg Automatic Hatch Back on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Skoda's next concept is a 300-mile electric SUV

If you thought Volkswagen wasn't serious about electric vehicles, think again. Its subsidiary Skoda will reveal an electric SUV concept called the Vision E at the Shanghai auto show in a few weeks. Not only is it the fourth all-electric concept shown by the VW group (following the I.D., I.D. Buzz, and Sedric), but it previews the electrified future of Skoda, which announced that it will have five pure EVs in its lineup by 2025. The Vision E is just as impressive as the company's electric ambitions, too. It boasts a roughly 310-mile range on a charge, and packs a motor that makes about 300 horsepower. The car will be capable of level 3 autonomy, which will allow it to operate autonomously on highways, in stop-and-go traffic, and to find parking spaces. Its top speed isn't amazing at around 111 mph, but it isn't a sports car. Rather, it's an "SUV coupe" similar to the BMW X6 and Mercedes-Benz GLC Coupe. As such it has a more sedan-like back. The styling is also unique with full-width headlights and foglights, and another lighting element that extends from the front fender down the doors. The only obviously Skoda styling cue is the bulge down the center of the hood. The Vision E is also similar to the X6 and GLC Coupe in other ways. Its specs are quite close to those crossovers, particularly the Mercedes. It's a few inches shorter than the GLC Coupe, but it's an inch wider. It also makes the same amount of horsepower as the entry-level X6 and outguns the Mercedes by an impressive 59 horsepower. Of course, these are figures currently only projected and hypothetical since the Vision E is a concept, but it helps us get an idea of what this vehicle is like. So far, Skoda has only released sketches of the concept. We'll have to wait until the Shanghai show to see the real thing. Related Video:

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.

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video: