2012 Mercedes Benz Sl550 Amg Sport,navigation,heated/vented Seats,xenons,5k Mi on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why all of this year's F1 noses are so ugly [w/video]

If you're a serious fan of Formula One, you already know all about The Great Nosecone Conundrum of 2014. Those given to parsing each year's F1 regulations predicted the strong possibility of the so-called "anteater" noses as far back as early December 2013. Highly suggestive visual evidence first came after Caterham's crash test in early January, with further proof coming as soon as Williams showed a rendering of the FW36 challenger for this year's championship. That car earned a name that wasn't nearly so kind as "anteater."
Casual followers of the sport - or anyone who gets the feed from this site - probably don't know what's happening, except to wonder why the current year's F1 cars are led by appendages that would make Cyrano de Bergerac feel a whole lot better about himself.
The short answer to the question of ugsome F1 noses is "FIA regulations and safety." The reason there are various kinds of ugsome noses is simpler: engineers. The same boffins who have given us advances including carbon fiber monocoques, six-wheeled cars, double diffusers and Drag Reduction Systems are bred to do everything in their power to exploit every possible freedom in the regulations to make the cars they're building go faster - the caveat being that those advances have to work within the overall philosophy of the whole car.

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.

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.