technology – Engine Icon https://engineicon.com Latest car news and advice blog Tue, 14 Jul 2026 02:07:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1 https://engineicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/cropped-ME_favicon-1-32x32.png technology – Engine Icon https://engineicon.com 32 32 Commercial van safety technology steps up https://engineicon.com/commercial-van-safety-technology-steps-up/ Sat, 13 Jun 2026 09:17:30 +0000 https://engineicon.com/commercial-van-safety-technology-steps-up/

KIA’S newly introduced PV5 Cargo electric van has joined Volkswagen’s latest generation Transporter in earning a Platinum safety grading under ANCAP Safety’s Commercial Van Safety comparison program.

 

The independent assessment program evaluates the availability and performance of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) fitted to commercial vans, providing fleet operators and private buyers with a safety benchmark beyond traditional crash-testing results.

 

The light commercial van comparison focuses on active safety technologies designed to help prevent crashes before they occur unlike ANCAP’s passenger vehicle star ratings.

 

The generation seven Volkswagen Transporter achieved an overall score of 93 per cent, matching the related Ford Transit Custom, and securing a Platinum grading.

 

ANCAP said the Transporter’s strong result demonstrated consistently high performance across autonomous emergency braking, lane support, speed assistance and driver monitoring systems.

 

Kia’s market fresh all-electric PV5 Cargo was close behind achieving a Platinum grading with a score of 91 per cent.

 

It is a strong debut for Kia’s first dedicated commercial EV with testing showing high levels of performance across most autonomous emergency braking, lane support, and speed assistance scenarios.

 

The PV5 missed additional points due to the absence of reverse autonomous emergency braking, a feature increasingly valued in urban delivery and fleet applications.

 

The latest assessments were conducted under ANCAP’s 2023-2025 Commercial Van Safety Comparison criteria, which evaluate a range of advanced safety technologies including autonomous emergency braking, emergency lane keeping, blind spot monitoring, speed assistance systems, and driver monitoring functions.

 

ANCAP chief executive Carla Hoorweg said active safety systems continue to play an increasingly important role in reducing crashes involving commercial vehicles.

 

“Commercial vans spend much of their time operating in busy urban environments where advanced safety technologies can make a meaningful difference in helping drivers avoid collisions,” she said.

 

Also receiving ANCAP commercial van gradings were the Fiat Scudo and the twin Peugeot Boxer and Fiat Ducato large vans.

 

The Fiat Scudo earned a Gold grading with an overall score of 67 per cent.

 

While equipped with a comprehensive suite of driver assistance technologies, ANCAP found the vehicle’s performance across several testing scenarios was less capable than the highest-ranked competitors.

 

The Peugeot Boxer and Fiat Ducato shared a stronger Gold result, each achieving 77 per cent.

 

A common theme across the latest round of assessments was the absence of reverse emergency braking systems.

 

Four of the five newly assessed vans lacked the technology, which is designed to help prevent low-speed reversing collisions in crowded loading zones, warehouses, and urban delivery environments.

 

The latest results reinforce the growing importance of advanced driver assistance technologies in the commercial vehicle sector, where fleet operators are increasingly considering safety performance alongside payload, operating costs and efficiency.

 

The latest assessments bring the number of current-model commercial vans rated under ANCAP’s specialised safety comparison program to 20.

 

2026 ANCAP Safety Commercial Van Safety Comparison rankings:

 

Make/Model

Grading

Score

Volkswagen Transporter

Platinum

93%

Ford Transit Custom

Platinum

93%

Kia PV5 Cargo

Platinum

91%

Toyota HiAce

Gold

90%

Hyundai Staria

Gold

90%

Mercedes-Benz Vito/eVito

Gold

90%

Mercedes-Benz Sprinter/eSprinter

Gold

89%

LDV Deliver 7

Gold

86%

Farizon SV

Gold

84%

Volkswagen ID. Buzz Cargo

Gold

80%

Peugeot Boxer / Fiat Ducato

Gold

77%

Fiat Scudo

Gold

67%

Source link

]]>
Who Invented Heated Seats? and Other Automotive Technology Firsts https://engineicon.com/who-invented-heated-seats-and-other-automotive-technology-firsts/ Sun, 22 Feb 2026 21:18:32 +0000 https://engineicon.com/who-invented-heated-seats-and-other-automotive-technology-firsts/

Lots of cars today boast “direct injection,” so it seems commonplace, but that’s only a recent development. Getting the fuel into the cylinders of an internal-combustion engine takes some ingenuity, and it’s been a long road of “firsts” along the way between the late 19th century and the early 21st. The basic carburetor that served to blend fuel vapors with air and deliver the mixture to the intake manifold was one of the “firsts” on the 1886 car devised by Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach (some time before they joined forces with Karl Benz). Theirs is often regarded as the first car, and with refinements this carburetor system managed the task well enough for most cars for more than 80 years.

Fuel injection, which allows finer control of the mixture by spraying atomized fuel, was first managed by mechanical means and was a key element for the development of compression-ignition (diesel) engines in the 1920s. There, and in World War II aviation engines, the fuel was most often injected directly into the combustion chamber, known as “direct injection.” When injection started showing up in postwar gasoline production cars, there were dozens of variations but this direct-injection form was rare. One exception was the 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL that, like that era’s M-B racing cars, used a Bosch-developed mechanical direct-injection system. (Some credit a 1952 Goliath with a two-stroke engine that also employed Bosch direct injection, but Goliath was selling city cars in Europe only, and most of those cars had to have their injection replaced with carburetors because they failed.) The 300SL’s “first” is often qualified as the first “production sports car” with fuel injection.

It’s easier and cheaper to design and build injectors that don’t have to survive the hostile environment of a combustion chamber, so other pioneers in the late 1950s used systems that simply replaced the carburetor’s role in delivering fuel into the intake manifold. This generally meant a constant, though modulated, stream of fuel to mix with air drawn in through a throttle mechanism, hence “throttle-body fuel injection.” As emissions regulations and fuel efficiency became growing concerns, it became worthwhile to provide a separate injector for each cylinder, delivering a precisely metered dose of fuel only during the intake phase in that port, or “port fuel injection.” Another worthy refinement was to manage the fuel electronically. While American Motors built prototype Rambler Rebels in 1957 using a Bendix electronic system, it didn’t go into production, leaving “first” honors to Chrysler’s 1958 “Electrojector” system on that model year’s Chrysler 300D, De Soto Adventurer, Dodge D-500, and Plymouth Savoy. Only 35 buyers took the pricey option, and most had it replaced with the standard carburetor after it proved unreliable. So, perhaps the 1968 Volkswagen Type 3, which had the latest Bosch “D-Jetronic” system, could be considered the “first” successful electronic-injected car. Still, it delivered fuel to the manifold, not into the combustion chamber.

It wasn’t until 1996 that modern gasoline direct injection with electronic management appeared on the market. Mitsubishi gets the honors, first on the four-cylinder Galant sedan and on a V-6 the next year. The advantage: improved efficiency, yielding the magic trick of making more power while also getting better fuel economy. In the first five years, Mitsubishi built one-million cars with this GDI, well ahead of the rest of the industry. That Mitsubishi has all but disappeared from the U.S. automotive market suggests, again, that getting there first isn’t always a magic bullet for sales leadership. Or maybe that the company should have brought it here earlier instead of restricting initial sales to Asia and Europe. One challenge: New technology is generally more expensive, at least initially, and the advantage to the buyer isn’t always evident. Beginning in 2004, German luxury brands Audi and BMW did a better job of selling direct injection as an advantage in the United States.

Source link

]]>