2013 Mercedes G550 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hollywood stars drink hydrogen B-Class F-Cell emission water in Death Valley [UPDATE]

A plug-in electric vehicle can be used to power a house during a winter storm, but if you're more worried about the heat of, say, Death Valley, then maybe you'll want a Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-Cell along. That's the message of a new video from Daimler and starring Diane Kruger (Inglourious Basterds) and Joshua Jackson (Fringe) that promotes the company's hydrogen-powered car. The gist? You can drink the tailpipe emissions. The two Hollywood stars drove in Death Vally without any water in their F-Cell but had a special tank hooked up to the tailpipe to collect the H2O drips as they drove in 100+ degree temperatures. There's a reason these two actors were chosen, since they've been driving an F-Cell in their daily lives for two years, according to the Diamler press release. The text is, shall we say, a bit hyperbolic - "Their lives rely on the emissions of the B-Class F-CELL" it says, totally ignoring the film crew that is obviously along for the ride and more than likely had a few bottles with them. Also, when the California Fuel Cell Partnership promoted the same idea a few years ago, it clarified that, "A fuel cell doesn't produce enough water to fill your glass. ... If fact, fuel cells produce about the same amount of water as gasoline vehicle – about 1/3 cup for a full day of driving." Thus, this whole thing is a Hollywood stunt, but it's a visually effective one. See for yourself in the mini-movie below. UPDATE: Daimler has told AutoblogGreen that there was no "extra Hollywood magic" needed for the water collected in the video. Instead, Madeleine Herdlitschka, who works at global communications for Mercedes-Benz Cars, said, "Considering the technical characteristics, the Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-CELL emits about 9 kg of water vapor per kg of hydrogen while driving. The vehicle has a hydrogen capacity of about 3.7 kg, what is sufficient for a max. of about 400 km of range. A tailor-made construction, designed by the production company Markenfilm Crossing in cooperation with our fuel cell experts, made it possible to collect the water in a tank - previously cooling the vapor with a specially designed pipe system." This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Range Rover versus Mercedes-Benz: Which makes a more appealing SUV?

From time to time — truth be told, all the time — the Autoblog staff enjoys a good debate on the merits and demerits of the cars and trucks we drive each week. This week, we spent some time in a brand-new Land Rover Range Rover Supercharged SUV, a model some of us think sits at the pinnacle of the luxury utility vehicle segment. Others disagree. The following is a real-life online debate that took place over the course of a few hours. Have a read, and feel free to take sides. There's a poll at the end so you can make your voice heard. Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: Strange as it may sound, Jeremy Clarkson and I have a few things in common, most obvious of which is that we share a given name. But we also both love cars so much that we decided to turn our automotive passion into a career — with varying degrees of success, of course — and we both have come to realize over time that there's no point in trying to topple the Land Rover Range Rover as the world's best luxury off-road utility vehicle. Thing is, this universal truth isn't quite as universally shared as I think it should be. In fact, my esteemed colleague Alex Kierstein believes that Mercedes-Benz makes the most desirable four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles. He's clearly wrong, but I feel obligated to let him explain his choice, though it won't go without a rebuttal. Senior Editor Alex Kierstein: That's correct, and so am I in this regard. I'm sorry, Jeremy, but it's an irrefutable fact that Mercedes-Benz is doing the best interiors in the business now. And the interior is where you're going to spend most of your time, at least when the thing's running. The Range Rover's interior simply isn't as special, and frankly it'll be in the shop enough that you won't enjoy it. Now, stepping into pretty much any contemporary Mercedes sedan interior is a "wow" moment. They seem special — posh, exclusive, luxurious. The SUVs, all older vehicles coming due for total redesigns at some point in the future, are lagging a bit, but it's still a premium and upscale experience. Especially since performance is almost academic at this point. Anything in this class is going to be powerful, almost absurdly so. So why not go for the one that makes you feel like royalty, rather than your mechanic? JK: I just want to point out that it was you who brought reliability into this discussion.

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.