2000 Volvo V70 Se Wagon on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Volvo XC40 and C40 electrics get new motors, more horsepower, longer range

Late last year came reports of improved versions of the Volvo XC40 Recharge and C40 Recharge for Europe. Configurators over the Atlantic showed there wouldn't just be new rear-wheel-drive models, but more battery, more range, and faster charging. The Swedes have finally published the official list of updates, the tweaks even better than the reportage and websites showed. First, the rumors are true, Volvo is back in the rear-driver game after 25 years on the sidelines. The automaker took the previous e-motors off the front axle, putting its in-house-developed, more powerful, and more efficient e-motor on the rear axle. This first use of the new e-motors bumps output from 228 horsepower to 235 horsepower in the RWD trims when combined with the 60-kWh standard range battery. That, plus cooling improvements for the pack, means the XC40 Recharge's range jumps from 425 kilometers on the WLTP cycle to 460 km (285 miles), the C40 Recharge's range going from 438 km to 476 km (296 miles). Plugged into a charger capable of at least 130 kW, refilling from 10% to 80% takes about 34 minutes.  We specified "standard range battery" because another new treat is a second RWD trim: Volvo will plug its 82-kWh battery into the powertrain for those willing to pay. But wait, there's more: The big pack powers an even juicier e-motor making 248 hp. The added gumption boosts range in the XC40 Recharge to 515 km (320 miles), in the C40 Recharge to 533 km (331 miles). And again, improved cooling permits uprated charging speed of 200 kW, cutting the run from 10% to 80% SOC to approximately 28 minutes. Dual-motor variants make the change to asymmetric output as revealed before, giving up two 201-hp e-motors for a new 156-hp motor on the front axle and that in-house 248 hp motor on the rear. In conjunction with better cooling, the XC40 Recharge Twin Motor climbs to 500 km (311 miles) of range on a charge, a 62-km hike, the C40 Recharge Twin Motor to 507 km (315 miles), a 56-km enhancement.  Marginal gains also come from a set of more aerodynamic 19-inch wheels.  The updated twin-motor siblings are expected to enter production in May, the single-motor versions in the fall. We only get the Twin Motor models here. If our variants reflected the same range extensions as in Europe, the 14% rise for the XC40 Recharge would give our car a 255-mile range, the C40 a 12% boost to 254 miles of range.

Heico jacks up Volvo V40 Cross Country to create XC40

Because life isn't fair, we don't get the stylish wagon known as the Volvo V40 in the United States. That means we don't get its soft-roading cousin, the V40 Cross Country. So, naturally, if Volvo tuner Heico Sportiv ever produces this ruggedized, XC-styled V40 Cross Country, it most certainly wouldn't cross the pond, either.
That makes us sad, because despite holding a tiny bit of contempt for small luxury crossovers, this is a very, very cool looking vehicle. It's just a render right now, but Heico Sportiv is looking to offer the kit to V40 Cross Country owners who want a smaller version of the Volvo XC60.
Converting a V40 CC into an XC40 would start with some suspension tweaks. The ride height would be raised by just over an inch, in order to improve the looks of the soft-roader and deliver a more CUV-like ingress and egress. New shocks would also be fitted, as well. Wheel-arch extensions were also added to complete the look.

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.