Allow Wheels, Bluetooth, Leather, Homelink, Dual Climate Control, Memory Seating on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The biggest gas-guzzlers of 2024: 'The Meanest List' is the opposite of greenest cars

In some circles — especially some automotive circles — bigger is better. This explains the Hummer, for example. In its so-called “Meanest List” of a dozen models, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) makes no apologies for berating “the worst-performing mass market automobiles” sold in 2024 in the U.S. The most diminutive car on the list is a Chevy Corvette Z06. At the top of this particular heap is the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, a gas-powered SUV that the environmental agency says was “the worst-performing vehicle of the more than 1,200 models assessed by Greener Cars and has an annual fuel cost over $4,000.” Not to mention its MSRP of around $184,000. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 Gas 20 $184,000 $4,242 2 Ram 1500 TRX 4x4 Gas 22 $98,335 $3,819 3 Ford F150 Raptor R Gas 24 $79,975 $3,777 4 Cadillac Escalade V Gas 26 $152,295 $3,388 5 Dodge Durango SRT Gas 26 $74,995 $3,332 6 Jeep Wrangler 4dr 4X4 Gas 27 $35,895 $3,260 7 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 4x4 Gas 28 $91,945 $3,058 8 Mercedes-Benz G550 Gas 28 $143,000 $3,186 9 GMC Hummer EV SUV EV 29 $98,845 $1,746 10 GMC Sierra Gas 29 $37,700 $3,069 11 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Gas 30 $114,395 $3,169 12 Mercedes-Benz Maybach S680 Gas 30 $234,300 $3,031 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In terms of numbers, the dirty dozen of the meanest includes seven SUVs and three trucks. Lonely at the middle of the list is the sole electric, the GMC Hummer EV, which weighs in at 9,000 pounds. The council notes that “though EVs have lower emissions than similarly sized gasoline models, the Hummer demonstrates that size and efficiency, not just fuel source, are important factors in a carÂ’s environmental impact.” ItÂ’s also worth reminding prospective buyers that the average fuel cost of a vehicle on the “Greenest List” eats up only a fifth of the fuel cost of a vehicle on the Meanest List, “showing that greener options can also be more affordable.” The ACEEE also put out a "Greener List" of efficient gasoline and hybrid cars that don't require plugging in.  By the Numbers Green Cadillac Chevrolet Dodge Ford GMC Hummer Jeep Maybach Mercedes-Benz RAM Emissions Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Truck SUV Electric Hybrid

Mercedes-AMG to phase out 5.5-liter V8 after next year [UPDATE]

UPDATE: A previous version of this story indicated that AMG's 6.0-liter twin-turbo V12 was still mated to a five-speed automatic transmission, however the latest models (including the S65 AMG sedan and coupe, SL65 roadster and G65 sport-ute are equipped with the newer seven-speed unit. Mercedes also reached out to point out that the 5.5-liter engine will be phased out gradually, not overnight. There's a lot to love about AMG's 5.5-liter twin-turbo V8. It produces as much as 577 horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque, and delivers blistering performance to even the heaviest of vehicles. But try not to get too attached, because like its 6.2-liter, naturally aspirated predecessor, it's not long for this world. The latest word comes from Autocar, which reports that Mercedes will release the last applications for the 5.5 biturbo within these next two calendar years in the new GLE63 AMG and upcoming S63 AMG convertible. After that, even though it was only introduced in 2011, it will be phased out. Fortunately Affalterbach has a worthwhile successor already in place in the 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 from the Mercedes-AMG GT. The smaller powerplant, already in store for the new C63, is already producing 503 hp and 479 lb-ft in S spec. That's still shy of the larger unit's output, but where the 5.5 is nearing the end of its production cycle, the 4.0 is just starting out. Of course the 4.0-liter biturbo isn't the only engine AMG is making these days. Smaller models (based on the front-drive platform) employ the 45-designation, high-output 2.0-liter turbo four. Models at the very top of the lineup, however, use a 6.0-liter twin-turbo V12 that may be a dinosaur, but with 621 hp and 738 lb-ft of torque on tap, still can't be beat.

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.