2007 Mercedes-benz Cls-class on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

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.

Why we can't have better headlights here in the U.S.

It wouldn't be a European auto show if we weren't teased with at least one mainstream vehicle we can't have here. At the Geneva Motor Show last week, the small but vocal contingent of shooting-brake buffs lamented that the Mazda6 wagon won't be coming to our shores, although they can take comfort in the fact that the vehicle won't get the torquey 250-horsepower 2.5-liter turbocharged gasoline engine we'll get here. Mercedes-Benz also announced a new headlight technology in Geneva that likely won't be available here anytime soon. It's just the latest in a long line of innovative and potentially lifesaving front-lighting solutions that the federal government doesn't allow in this country due to outdated standards — and a current lack of leadership at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mercedes-Benz's new Digital Light system that debuted in Geneva uses a computer chip to activate more than a million micro-reflectors to better illuminate the road ahead. The Digital Light headlamps works with the vehicle's cameras, sensors and navigation mapping to adjust lighting for the given location and situation and to detect other road users. The Digital Light technology also serves as an extended head-up display of sorts by projecting symbols on the pavement ahead to alert drivers to, say, slippery conditions or pedestrians in the road. And it can even project lines on the road in a construction zone or through tight curves to show the driver the correct path. Digital Light will be available on Mercedes-Maybach vehicles later this year, although like any technology it's bound to trickle down to less expensive vehicles. That is, if we ever get it here in the U.S. Audi, a leader in automotive lighting, has repeatedly run into snags trying to bring state-of-the-art car headlights to the U.S. The German luxury automaker's recently introduced matrix laser headlight system, which performs many of the same trick as Mercedes-Benz's Digital Light, also isn't legal on U.S. roads. And five years after the introduction of its matrix-beam LED lighting, which illuminates more of the road without blinding oncoming motorists with brights by simultaneously operating high and low beams, Audi still can't bring that technology to the U.S. either.