Kia has revealed the EV5 concept, which previews a future electric compact SUV.The EV5 has similar styling as the EV9, which is a three-row EV SUV slated to go on sale soon.Kia says that the production EV5 will go on sale in China initially, but we expect it to come to the U.S. too.If you like the look of the new Kia EV9 three-row electric SUV, you’ll be equally dazzled by its new little sibling, the EV5. Revealed in concept form, this smaller EV crossover shares its blocky, modern styling with the EV9 and previews a production model that will go on sale in China later this year. Kia hasn’t yet announced plans for the U.S., but we expect the EV5 to reach our market at some point in the near future.In these images, the EV5 doesn’t look all that much smaller than the EV9, and Kia has yet to reveal dimensions for this model. Its wheelbase does look shorter and it has two rows of seats compared with the EV9’s three-row layout. Nomenclature-wise, the EV5 name also suggests that it will slot in below the EV6, which is a mid-size crossover with a more low-slung profile, in terms of size and price.Specifications aren’t out yet, but we’re assuming that the EV5 rides on the same E-GMP platform as Kia’s other new EV models. This should enable fast charging thanks to its 800-volt electrical architecture, and multiple battery-pack options and single- and dual-motor configurations may be offered.More on Kia EVsThe EV5 concept’s futuristic interior will likely be toned down for production, as it features wide-opening rear-hinged rear doors, a highly minimalistic dashboard layout, and wild-looking front and rear seats. The cargo area features a useful-looking platform that can serve as a table for tailgating, and the seats also swivel in a multitude of ways. This may be more than a flight of fancy, however, as the production EV9 does have swiveling rear seat and something of the sort could make its way into the final version of the EV5 as well.We should learn more about the EV5 in the coming months as Kia prepares the production model for the Chinese market. Kia’s announcement says that details for other global markets will come “in due course” so a U.S. announcement may be on the horizon as well.This content is imported from poll. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.Senior EditorDespite being raised on a steady diet of base-model Hondas and Toyotas—or perhaps because of it—Joey Capparella nonetheless cultivated an obsession for the automotive industry throughout his childhood in Nashville, Tennessee. He found a way to write about cars for the school newspaper during his college years at Rice University, which eventually led him to move to Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his first professional auto-writing gig at Automobile Magazine. He has been part of the Car and Driver team since 2016 and now lives in New York City.   More

The 2022 Polestar 2 will come in two new versions and offer more options for its second model year: a new single-motor option with a claimed 260 miles of range, and a simplified version of the dual-motor Polestar 2.Both new versions have an optional heat pump that is claimed to increase range by as much as 10 percent. The new variants, Polestar says, will be available by the end of the year. The fully loaded, dual-motor Launch Edition is available now. The 2022 Polestar 2, now heading into its sophomore year, is receiving more options to boost its appeal, starting with a single-motor, front-wheel-drive variant. In addition, Polestar is offering the all-wheel-drive Polestar 2 in a more simplified configuration, allowing customers more power to customize their electric hatchback. Although the Volvo affiliate didn’t disclose U.S. pricing, it said the new variants will have lower base pricing compared with the Launch Edition that’s currently on sale.

The single-motor Polestar 2 has the same 78.0-kWh battery that’s found in the dual-motor configuration. In this version, its total power is 231 hp compared with 204 hp on each axle of the dual-motor Polestar 2. Polestar estimates that with the single motor, the Polestar will achieve a range of up to 260 miles, besting the EPA-estimated 230 miles on the dual-motor (C/D testing found the dual-motor had a range of 190 miles).The Polestar 2 Launch Edition rolls over for 2022, but those who choose the newly announced dual-motor version of the Polestar 2 will be able to specify a simpler (and likely less expensive) configuration. Options are divided into Plus, Pilot, and Performance packages, any of which can be omitted.

One reason buyers may want the luxury-filled Plus package, however, is that it newly includes a heat pump, which Polestar says can boost range by up to 10 percent on the hatchback. The heat pump captures heat generated by the drivetrain, thus reducing reliance on the battery to heat the interior of the car. Polestar says that in temperature ranges between 40 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit, up to a 10 percent range boost can be achieved.Polestar didn’t release the price for the new options for the Polestar 2 but did say that the single-motor variant will go on sale by the end of this year. The Polestar 2 Launch Edition is available now.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

A security researcher has detailed a pair of unintended flaws, known as “exploits,” that would allow a person to steal a Tesla Model X in minutes.
The researcher carried off the feat with about $300 in computer hardware items, including a Tesla part found on eBay, as Wired first reported.
Researcher Lennert Wouters told Tesla of the vulnerability back in August, and Tesla has told Wouters an over-the-air update will be sent out this week to fix the issue.

Hacker Uses Chevy Volt to Show How Cars Spy on You

State of the Anti-Car-Hacking Art

Automakers work hard to reduce the possibility that hackers can steal their cars. But, it’s an ongoing battle between the people who make the systems in vehicles and those who want to exploit them. Fortunately for Tesla, the latest pair of unintended flaws—known to computer types as “exploits”—were found by a security researcher happy to share his findings, not a group of car thieves with a taste for falcon-winged EVs.
Wired reported about the security researcher, Lennert Wouters from KU Leuven university in Belgium. He discovered a pair of vulnerabilities that allow the researcher to not only get into a Model X, but also start it and drive away. Wouters disclosed the vulnerability to Tesla back in August, and the automaker has told Wouters that an over-the-air patch may take a month to be deployed to affected vehicles. For Wouters’s part, the researcher says that he won’t publish the code or technical details needed for anyone else to pull off this hack. He did post a video demonstration of the system in action.
This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

To steal a Model X in minutes requires the exploitation of two vulnerabilities. Wouters started with a hardware kit costing roughly $300 that sits in a backpack and includes a Raspberry Pi low-cost computer and a Model X body control module (BCM) that he purchased off eBay. It’s the BCM that enables these exploits, even though it’s not from the target vehicle. It acts like a trusted piece of Tesla hardware that allows both exploits to be pulled off. With it, Wouters is able to hijack the Bluetooth radio connection that the key fob uses to open the vehicle using the VIN and coming within 15 feet of the target vehicle’s fob. At that point, his hardware system rewrites the target’s fob firmware and is able to access the secure enclave and get the code to unlock the Model X. He stores that code in his backpack rig and returns to the Model X, which opens up because it believes it’s connected to the original fob.
Essentially, Wouters is able to create a key for a Model X by knowing the last five digits of the VIN—which is visible in the windshield—and standing near the owner of that vehicle for about 90 seconds while his portable setup clones the key.
Once in the vehicle, Wouters has to use another exploit to get the vehicle started. By accessing the USB port hidden behind a panel under the display, Wouters is able to connect his backpack computer to the vehicle’s CAN (Controller Area Network) bus and tell the vehicle’s computer that his spoofed key fob is valid. With that done, the Model X believes a valid key is in the vehicle and willingly starts up and is ready to drive away.
The issue is that the key fob and BCM, while connecting to each other, don’t go the extra step of validating firmware updates to the key fob, giving the researcher access to the key by pretending to send over new firmware from Tesla. “The system has everything it needs to be secure,” Wouters told Wired. “And then there are a few small mistakes that allow me to circumvent all of the security measures.”
Wouters also noted that this type of exploit isn’t unique to Tesla. “They’re cool cars, so they’re interesting to work on,” Wouters told Wired. “But I think if I spent as much time looking at other brands, I would probably find similar issues.”
Tesla has a history of working with security researchers and even offers up a Model 3 every year to the Pwn2Own competition. Wouters won’t share the technical details of his exploit until January at the Real World Crypto conference.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released a preliminary report in its investigation into the fatal crash of a Tesla Model S in April near Houston.The report states that when the car started, security video shows the owner in the driver’s seat, contradicting reports at the time of the April 17 accident that the seat was empty when the car crashed. The NTSB also tested a similar Model S on the same road and found Autopilot could not have been in effect at that place. The government group said that the Autopilot technology onboard needed both Traffic Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer to be engaged in order to operate, and it was not possible to engage Autosteer in NTSB’s tests on the road where the crash occurred. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released a preliminary report today in its investigation into the crash of a 2019 Tesla Model S near Houston, Texas, on April 17. Two noteworthy statements stood out in the report. First is that the car’s owner was seated in the driver’s seat, with his companion in the front passenger seat, which contradicts reports at the time that the wrecked car had one person in the front passenger seat and the other in the back seat, with no one behind the wheel. Second is that, although the Model S had Tesla’s Autopilot driver-assist technology equipped, it could not have been in effect at the time of the crash because it couldn’t be enabled in that location. This would seem to vindicate Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who insisted that Autopilot couldn’t have been in operation in the crash.

The accident involved a 59-year-old man who was taking a 69-year-old passenger for a ride in his Model S P100D EV. They started on a cul-de-sac and proceeded onto a two-lane concrete road in a residential neighborhood of Spring, Texas. The NTSB report describes it as “a concrete two-lane road with one westbound and one eastbound lane and mountable concrete curbs on either side,” and said it has no lane markings and is level, with a curve to the south, at the place where the Tesla crashed. The speed limit there is 30 mph, the agency said. The Tesla owner’s home security camera showed that he got into the car in the driver’s seat, while his companion got in the front passenger seat. From his home, the car traveled “about 550 feet” before going off the road at the curve and over the curb, NTSB said, then it hit a drainage culvert, a raised manhole, and finally a tree, where it caught fire.The report said the car’s lithium-ion battery case was damaged, and in the ensuing fire the infotainment system’s onboard storage device was destroyed. However, the “restraint control module,” which stores data such as whether seatbelts were in use, how fast the vehicle was going, acceleration information, and airbag deployment, although damaged by fire was recovered and turned over to the NTSB’s laboratory to evaluate.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk insisted that Autopilot would not have been able to work on the road where the crash occurred because it had no line markings. The report seems to bear this out, stating that two other driver-assist features, Traffic Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer, must both be engaged for Autopilot to work. In a reconstruction using a similar Tesla, the agency found that Autosteer was not usable on that part of the road, meaning the Autopilot system couldn’t have worked. The NTSB investigation will continue, working alongside NHTSA and Tesla. They will be looking into such issues as as seatbelt use, crash dynamics, and “occupant egress”—which should let the agency conclude whether the driver was actually in the front or back of the car at time of impact—among other data such as postmortem toxicology test results. The NTSB investigates some 2500 accidents per year, with about 2000 related to aviation and the rest divided among rail, highway, marine and pipeline accidents. The agency said it has not yet decided on the probable cause of the accident but plans to issue “safety recommendations to prevent future crashes” once it does. Meanwhile, the local Texas Precinct 4 Constable’s Office is also investigating on its own.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

The DOT’s Inspector General has conducted an audit of the way the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) analyzes safety defects in vehicles, and, well, it could be better.NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation has been updating its processes, but the new software and office organization weren’t enough to investigate more than a handful (88) of the 75,267 consumer complaints the agency received in 2019.The report made 12 recommendations for NHTSA to speed things up and now considers all topics “resolved but open pending implementation.” In other words, time to get to work.Figuring out what’s wrong—potentially wrong—with a vehicle these days takes time. Too much time, according to the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General (DOTIG), which recently published an audit report on why it has been taking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) so long to analyze safety defects. The gist of the 40-page report is that NHTSA has made some improvements in its processes, but far more needs to be done.NHTSA at WorkBefore we get into the weeds of the report, titled “NHTSA Has Not Fully Established and Applied Its Risk-Based Process for Safety Defect Analysis,” let’s remember why understanding how NHTSA conducts its investigations and recalls is important. One well-known recent case of a major safety defect was the case of the defective Takata airbag inflators, which killed 24 people and injured over 400. The DOT Inspector General wants NHTSA to speed up its information collection and analysis processes to address any similar safety defects, hoping to avoid any future situation where casualty numbers reach similar levels.Office of Defects Investigation Not Investigating Enough DefectsFor the report, the DOT specifically looked at NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) because it “plays a key role by gathering and analyzing relevant information, investigating potential defects, identifying unsafe motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, and managing the recall process.” The ODI implemented new procedures in 2016 and 2020, including restructuring its office and modernizing the software it uses to store and analyze data. This was not enough to stave off a number of blistering criticisms from the DOTIG. The ODI didn’t meet timeliness goals, did not upload documents to its public website in a timely manner, doesn’t have an integrated information system for safety defect investigations and recall processes, and, finally, the ODI “does not consistently follow its procedures for issue escalation and lacks guidance for other pre-investigative efforts.”In other words, NHTSA needs to do better.The report provides details about these criticisms. For example, on the last point—issue escalation—the DOT found that the ODI doesn’t consistently follow procedures to determine which problems need to be prioritized and deserve an investigation. In 2019, for example, NHTSA received 75,267 consumer complaints, and 32,482 needed “further substantive review.” NHTSA issued 966 recalls that year, but the ODI only opened 88 investigations. Automakers Moving Faster Than NHTSAThe main reason for this low number of investigations is, in part, that automakers decided to launch some recalls before the ODI pursued its own investigation. This system fits in nicely with ODI’s measurement of success, the DOTIG said, because it “count[s] the number of vehicles recalled each year, rather than by the number of potential safety defects investigated.”The DOTIG made a dozen recommendations to speed things up safely, and NHTSA said it concurred with 10 of them. NHTSA sort of agreed with another (ways to meet timeliness goals) and did not agree with the DOT report about developing consistent rules for negotiating safety defect issues with manufacturers. Given NHTSA’s response, DOTIG said it considers “all 12 recommendations resolved but open pending implementation.” Will any of this result in more and faster recalls? Stay tuned. This content is imported from poll. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.Contributing EditorSebastian Blanco has been writing about electric vehicles, hybrids, and hydrogen cars since 2006. His articles and car reviews have appeared in the New York Times, Automotive News, Reuters, SAE, Autoblog, InsideEVs, Trucks.com, Car Talk, and other outlets. His first green-car media event was the launch of the Tesla Roadster, and since then he has been tracking the shift away from gasoline-powered vehicles and discovering the new technology’s importance not just for the auto industry, but for the world as a whole. Throw in the recent shift to autonomous vehicles, and there are more interesting changes happening now than most people can wrap their heads around. You can find him on Twitter or, on good days, behind the wheel of a new EV.  More