1999 Mercedes-benz Ml430 Base Sport Utility 4-door 4.3l 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.

Aston Martin Vantage vs. Mercedes-AMG GT C Review | Translating German into English

GROssBRITANNIEN — No car matches the new Aston Martin Vantage as closely as the Mercedes-AMG GT, the two sharing both their 4.0-liter twin-turbocharged V8 and electrical architecture while competing for the same market niche. So, of the many challenges Aston Martin faced when developing it, ensuring that the Vantage had a unique identity must have weighed more heavily than any other. The added spice to this confrontation is the GT's status as halo model for AMG. Meanwhile, Aston Martin's brand identity, built on the sharp-suited machismo embodied by a certain big-screen spy, is a make-or-break issue for the company. The identity problem has fascinated me since the AMG deal was first announce in 2013. So exploring the Vantage on British roads with the GT literally filling the mirrors is a big deal. Now, finally, we have directly competing products with which to explore the theory. And there's much to like in both, not least of which is that common powerhouse of an engine. While they don't share a platform, both use the classic front-engine, rear-drive, transaxle layout, with traditional driving manners to match. Some quick number-crunching as an appetizer: The AMG GT C you see here has the dry-sumped M178 derivative of the V8, with 550 horsepower and 501 pound-feet of torque, driving the rear wheels through a transaxle-mounted, seven-speed dual-clutch transmission and fully active electronic locking differential. It's 179 inches long, weighs 3,748 pounds and will clear 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds en route to 197 mph. The Vantage has the wet-sumped M177 version of the same engine, as featured in countless AMGs and shared with the DB11 V8. It makes 503 hp, 505 lb-ft and drives the rear wheels through a transaxle-mounted, eight-speed automatic gearbox and fully active electronic locking differential. Sounding familiar? It's comparable in overall length but a couple of inches longer in wheelbase, and weighs pretty much the same as the GT C, give or take a few pounds. It hits 60 in 3.5 seconds and tops out at 195 mph. Both have adaptive dampers and a variety of driver modes, both are built from aluminum and both are at the sportier end of the GT spectrum. The two U.K.-market cars you see here cost just more than $180,000 with options. Pretty darned close, then. Numbers are one thing.

McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari call for unfreezing F1 engines

Formula One is a hugely expensive sport. Not only do you have enormous salaries and logistical expenses, as you would in any other sport, but each team also spends huge sums developing their own chassis from the ground up – and so too do the participating automakers in developing the engines. One of the ways the series organizers mitigate those costs is by freezing development. So once the new crop of V6 turbo hybrid powertrains were developed, that was it. But now three of the of the sport's leading teams are calling on the FIA to unfreeze engine development. Their reason? Unfair advantage. There's little question that Mercedes did the best job of developing its "power unit" to meet the new regulations that took effect at the beginning of this past season. That's how the Mercedes team won all but three of the grands prix this season and finished with at least one car on the podium at every single race. It's also a big part of how the teams that bought their engines from Mercedes this season managed to consistently outperform the other non-works-supported teams. That clear advantage is why Red Bull, Ferrari and now McLaren are calling for engine development to be unfrozen. Their argument is that, under the current locked-down status quo, their engine suppliers (Renault, Ferrari and Honda, respectively) cannot possibly catch up. So unless the FIA and Formula One Management want the next few seasons to be the kind of absolute blow-outs that this past season was, these leading teams argue, the powers that be are going to have to make some changes. For its part, Mercedes naturally counters that unfreezing engine development would send costs spiraling out of control. But then of course it stands to lose the most by re-opening engine development. If those three teams, however, closely intertwined as they are with the three other engine suppliers participating in next year's championship, manage to solicit enough support from the other customer teams and bring the matter to a vote, Mercedes may very well find itself out-numbered. News Source: ESPNImage Credit: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Motorsports Ferrari McLaren Mercedes-Benz F1 engine