2001 Mercedes Cl500 With Lorenzo Kit on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Aston wants to build DBX on its new platform, not Mercedes'

Aston Martin is proceeding with plans to launch the DBX as its first production crossover. It just can't say at this point what it will be based on. Speaking with Automotive News Europe, Aston's new CEO Andy Palmer indicated that basing the DBX on a Mercedes SUV platform would not be its first choice because they "clearly sit in a very different space to the one we want to go" with the DBX. Instead, the company's first choice would be to build the crossover atop the new platform it's developing for its sports cars. "It just depends how high off the ground it could go," said Palmer. "I don't exclude the possibility of using some [Mercedes] parts, but I would say very much the primary route is our platform." The prospect of building an Aston SUV on Mercedes architecture – namely that of the GL-Class – has been on the table for some time now. The Lagonda SUV concept it showcased at the Geneva show in 2009 was based on the GL, and the two automakers have been forging a tightening alliance in the years since. The British automaker's next-generation engine is to be built by Mercedes-AMG, and it is expected to source other components from the German automaker as well. For its part, Mercedes has been taking a sportier approach with its latest crossovers, as demonstrated by the GLE Coupe that debuted before the more conventional version and the Concept GLC Coupe that previewed the GLK's replacement in Shanghai last month. Aston Martin, on the other hand, is building a new sports car platform that will underpin its next generation of luxury GTs, replacing the long-serving VH architecture that has served for decades as the basis for its entire model line. Perhaps the most surprising of ANE's report, though, is that Aston seems to be proceeding with plans to build the DBX apparently without even knowing what platform it will use.

2014 Mercedes B-Class ED battery much bigger than previously stated

There was something unexpected hiding in the new configurator for the 2014 Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive: a $600 "Temporary range extender." Since we've never heard of such a thing, we had to click through for more. The official explanation runs like this: A suite of options to further increase your driving range includes added insulation of the doors and roof for to increase climate-control efficiency, along with an electrically heated windshield and a range-extending charge function. By pressing a button on the console prior to charging, the maximum charge level for battery will increased for the next charge cycle. The higher-capacity charge can provide up to 17 additional miles of range. The passive features that increase range should be standard in all models, we think. But we were more curious about the battery charge situation. How do you increase a maximum? And is it a good idea to do so? The configurator includes this disclaimer, after all: Range extender should only be used on a limited basis, and could shorten battery life if used excessively. How much is excessive? We investigate below. The B-Class ED has, according to the specs, a 28-kWh battery. First, let's understand what this "temporary range extender" is all about. The B-Class ED has, according to the specs, a 28-kWh battery. But Terry Wei, from the Mercedes-Benz USA product and technology communications department, confirmed to AutoblogGreen that the B-Class ED is actually hiding a 36-kWh battery, but the automaker is calling it a 28-kWh battery because that's how much energy capacity is used in day-to-day use. Most automakers publicly claim the actual capacity and then admit they use a percentage of it. The Chevy Volt, for example, has a 16.5-kWh battery pack, but a "full charge" only fills up around 65 percent of that. In the B-Class ED, the 28 kWh of useable energy provides an EPA-certified 87 miles of range. But, since there are eight kWh of reserve, the temporary range extender (we think of it as a software update accessed by a button) can access some of that and offer the aforementioned 17 miles. Now that we know what we're dealing with, this reminds us of an evolved version of the "remote wireless charging" feature that was touted in the Reva EV. Wei said that the reason the feature is optional is because Mercedes doesn't think most people will need it. Eighty-seven miles is plenty for your average EV driver, but when you want to have 100+ in the tank, you can.

McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari call for unfreezing F1 engines

Formula One is a hugely expensive sport. Not only do you have enormous salaries and logistical expenses, as you would in any other sport, but each team also spends huge sums developing their own chassis from the ground up – and so too do the participating automakers in developing the engines. One of the ways the series organizers mitigate those costs is by freezing development. So once the new crop of V6 turbo hybrid powertrains were developed, that was it. But now three of the of the sport's leading teams are calling on the FIA to unfreeze engine development. Their reason? Unfair advantage. There's little question that Mercedes did the best job of developing its "power unit" to meet the new regulations that took effect at the beginning of this past season. That's how the Mercedes team won all but three of the grands prix this season and finished with at least one car on the podium at every single race. It's also a big part of how the teams that bought their engines from Mercedes this season managed to consistently outperform the other non-works-supported teams. That clear advantage is why Red Bull, Ferrari and now McLaren are calling for engine development to be unfrozen. Their argument is that, under the current locked-down status quo, their engine suppliers (Renault, Ferrari and Honda, respectively) cannot possibly catch up. So unless the FIA and Formula One Management want the next few seasons to be the kind of absolute blow-outs that this past season was, these leading teams argue, the powers that be are going to have to make some changes. For its part, Mercedes naturally counters that unfreezing engine development would send costs spiraling out of control. But then of course it stands to lose the most by re-opening engine development. If those three teams, however, closely intertwined as they are with the three other engine suppliers participating in next year's championship, manage to solicit enough support from the other customer teams and bring the matter to a vote, Mercedes may very well find itself out-numbered. News Source: ESPNImage Credit: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Motorsports Ferrari McLaren Mercedes-Benz F1 engine