Lqqk!beautiful Blue Loaded Recent Service Timing Belt Tires Parts Ready2go Nr! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac tops Tesla in Consumer Reports semi-automated driving test

General Motors' Cadillac outscored Tesla in a new ranking of partially automated driving systems tested by Consumer Reports and released on Thursday. The highly influential nonprofit organization, which tests and rates a variety of consumer products from appliances to vehicles, said it compared Cadillac's Super Cruise and Tesla's Autopilot with similar systems from Nissan and Volvo. Nissan's ProPilot Assist was ranked third and Volvo's Pilot Assist fourth. Consumer Reports said it has been testing partially automated driving systems for several years but elected to conduct a formal study intended for publication, because "we are at a tipping point where they are now going mainstream," according to Jake Fisher, director of auto testing. The organization said its tests, conducted on a private track and on public roads in Connecticut, were designed to measure the systems' ability to automatically control steering and speed in certain situations, while helping drivers pay attention and regain manual control of the vehicle when required. CR noted that any of these systems can increase driving risk if used in inappropriate situations, or if drivers become inattentive or over-reliant on them. While they can help relieve driver stress and fatigue, Consumer Reports said, the partially automated systems are "not intended to be self-driving features." The systems typically use cameras, radar and other sensors, as well as mapping data, to monitor location and traffic conditions and help keep a vehicle centered in the lane at a safe distance behind other cars. Each system has limitations. Cadillac's Super Cruise, for instance, only functions on divided highways that have been mapped by GM. In contrast, Tesla's Autopilot can be used even on small, curvy roads with poor lane markings, but "operates erratically in those situations," Consumer Reports said.The organization tested Super Cruise on the Cadillac CT6; Autopilot on the Tesla Model 3, Model X and Model S; ProPilot Assist on the Nissan Leaf and Infiniti QX50; and Pilot Assist on the Volvo XC40 and XC60. Consumer Reports said Cadillac's Super Cruise did "the best job of balancing high-tech capabilities with ensuring the car is operated safely and the driver is paying attention." Tesla's Autopilot was cited for its capability and ease of use, while Nissan's ProPilot Assist did a better job than Autopilot or Volvo's Pilot Assist in keeping drivers engaged.

Volvo XC40 Recharge Luggage Test: How much fits in the cargo area?

Note: This post has been updated because, well, I goofed a bit. Turns out it can probably hold just a wee bit more than I originally thought. Oh, and I added a bit about the frunk. The Volvo XC40 Recharge is the all-electric version of Volvo's subcompact SUV that is also available in gas-only versions. According to the uniquely extensive cargo dimensions Volvo shares for its vehicles, every XC40 regardless of power source has the same 20.4 cubic-feet of cargo space as measured from the floor to the headliner with the front seat "limited by vertical plane tangential to the rear side of the second seatback." Like I said, uniquely extensive. There is 16 cubic-feet when measured to the top of the seatback, which is probably more applicable to my luggage tests, but other car companies don't provide those measurements, and if they do, they don't actually indicate as such — and make it seem like their SUVs are smaller and less competitive than they actually are.  One such example is Mercedes-Benz and the GLB/EQB, which is one of the XC40's chief competitors. Its specs say it has 24.0 cubic-feet of cargo space (almost certainly the top-of-the-seatback measurement), but it definitely has more than that since it can hold roughly the same amount of stuff inside its boxy cargo area as a Subaru Outback. In other words, the XC40 is very unlikely to be getting best-in-segment status here. But who knows, let's see! This is a pretty hatchbacky space, so still not looking good for the XC40 toppling the GLB/EQB. It does look pretty similar to the Q4 E-Tron, so let's bring that into the equation.  As you can see, the XC40 has a large, hatchback-style cargo cover. That means I'll have to test with and without that cover.  As with every Luggage Test, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). So yeah, I neglected to take a shot of the bags with the cargo cover attached. Sorry. Nevertheless, as you can kinda see here, I could fit the four biggest bags with the cargo cover being propped up by them. This would be worse than the Q4 E-Tron, which could fit all but the fancy bag.

Junkyard Gem: 1997 Volvo V90

Volvo's "Brick Era" of squared-off rear-wheel-drive machines lasted from the debut of the 144 in 1966 all the way through the 900 Series cars of the 1990s, with the wildly successful 240 being the most iconic of the breed on our shores. The final chapter of the Swedish Brick saga came in the 1997 and 1998 model years, when the 960 sedan and wagon were rebadged as the S90 and V90, respectively. Here's one of those cars, a refrigerator-colored (and refrigerator-shaped) V90 wagon that got forcibly retired after a crash in Northern California. Volvo revived the V90 name in 2016, and you can buy a new V90 right now if you so choose. Today's Junkyard Gem, however, is the culmination of four decades of improvement to the original 140 design (itself based on much of the Amazon's chassis features and sharing plenty of components with the 1940s-era PV Series cars), while the current V90 comes straight out of the 21st century. I've been going out of my way to document just about every discarded 140 and 240 wagon I find, with some 740s and 940s mixed in. Many Volvo longroof owners still maintain a fanatical devotion to the rear-wheel-drive bricks, and I've found some of these cars in junkyards with impressively high final odometer readings. The fuel-efficiency and interior-space limitations of the old-timey brick design kept 960 sales lower than those of their predecessors, though, and I haven't met any 960 owners who share the level of devotion that 145 and 245 owners lavish on their cars. This car just squeaked past 150,000 miles during its 24 years on the road. The body and interior look to have been in very nice condition, showing that meticulous owners took good care of this car throughout its life, but then it got T-boned on the right side. This sort of damage isn't worth fixing on a quarter-century-old European wagon, and so here it sits. This engine compartment looks very similar to that of the old 240, though this modern 3.0-liter, DOHC straight-six and its 181 horses runs counter to the super-sensible spirit of most of those 1970s Goteborg bricks. The 960 was far more plush than its ancestors, and priced accordingly. In 1997, this car's list price started at $35,850 (about $60,660 in 2021 dollars). By comparison, a new 1975 245 wagon had an MSRP of $5,795 (about $29,940 today).