2013 Mercedes-benz Sl-class on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mercedes-Benz C-Class scores well in TUV lifecycle analysis

Mercedes-Benz drivers and treehuggers don't always go hand in hand, but, like a lot of other companies, the German automaker is looking to boost its green cred. This time, it's all about the car's lifecycle carbon footprint. The Daimler AG unit is using its new C-Class sedan as an example of how it's making progress in that department. Mercedes-Benz, citing the inspection authority TUV Sud, says the 2015 C-Class has a 10-percent lower lifecycle carbon footprint than its 2014 predecessor, based on driving about 125,000 miles over the life of the car. About 95 percent of the car (by weight) is recyclable, slightly higher than the average for most vehicles, and the model has upped its amount of recyclable materials up by 23 percent and increased its use of "natural materials" by 55 percent. Better aerodynamics also helps things out on the fuel-economy front, Benz says. Taking a longer view, the 2015 C-Class's carbon footprint is 28 percent better than the 2007 version that launched the vehicle line. The 2015 C-Class hasn't received a fuel-economy rating from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which tagged the 2014 C350 with a combined fuel-efficiency rating of 24 miles per gallon from its 3.5-liter 6-cylinder engine. Check out Mercedes-Benz's press release below and find the Autoblog First Drive impressions here. TUV Environmental Certificate: The new C-Class makes its mark with an exemplary life cycle assessment Stuttgart, Mar 28, 2014 The C-Class sets efficiency benchmarks for its class, helped by an intelligent lightweight concept, excellent aerodynamics and new, frugal engines. The neutral inspectors from the TUV Sud technical inspection authority have confirmed the high level of environmental compatibility of the new Mercedes-Benz C-Class. Besides a sensuous, clean-cut design, a top-class interior and a host of technical innovations, the premium saloon also boasts an exemplary life cycle assessment, which is why it has been awarded the Environmental Certificate in accordance with the ISO 14062 standard. Professor Dr. Herbert Kohler, Chief Environmental Officer at Daimler AG: "Our engineers have pulled out all the stops in an effort to lower fuel consumption while at the same time further accentuating the car's sporty character. By employing an intelligent lightweight design with a high proportion of aluminium, for example, it has been possible to make the new C-Class up to 100 kilograms lighter than its predecessor.

Smart brand might be doomed

Reports are painting a less than rosy picture of the Smart brand's future. The Daimler-owned carmaker is going fully electric in 2020, but that might not be enough to keep it alive for long. Inside sources, quoted by Automobile Magazine, are saying Renault is likely to pull out of the partnership that created the current Smart ForTwo/Renault Twingo pairing introduced in 2014. The two rear-engined cars share a platform, and when the current Twingo is done for, Renault might want to part ways. In addition, Mercedes isn't willing to prop up Smart on its own, and there is a possibility that the entire Smart brand could be shuttered by 2026. A previous joint venture was the ForFour hatch co-developed with Mitsubishi, and despite the ForFour name living on in the current generation rear-engined car, the earlier FWD hatchback has quickly been forgotten. Not long ago, Smart presented its Forease open-top concept to give customers a glimpse of what future Smart cars would look like, but at its heart the Forease was still a current Smart dressed up with concept car details. The next-generation Mercedes-Benz A-Class is to be signed off in 2021 for a 2025 introduction, and it can be underpinned by a more flexible, fully scalable platform that could also serve to support a new entry-level Mercedes-Benz vehicle that could render the separate Smart brand pointless. Then there's Geely, who now owns nearly 10 percent of Daimler, and who is partnering with Daimler to launch a new "premium" ride-hailing venture in China. As Geely develops its mobility solutions, it is likely to keep an eye on Smart: Smart cars have been car-sharing staples around the world for quite a while, from users such as Car2Go. Automobile Magazine says that if a Smart is co-developed with Geely, it might suit the Chinese market well, but a global business case might be challenging. In any case, if Smart wants to survive beyond the current Renault partnership, the new model should be agreed upon quickly, and it must be based on a platform flexible enough to support full electric drive. Reportedly, there are now ongoing feasibility studies for a fully electric Daimler "U-Class," which would include a Smart-like three or five-door hatch with two wheelbase options, a ride-sharing shuttle with autonomous capabilities, and an urban delivery panel van. But Smart must justify itself for the upcoming decades, or the future Daimler products that occupy its niche will be wearing a three-pointed star instead.

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.