1999 Mercedes-benz Sl500 Base Convertible 2-door 5.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Daimler exec hypothetically discusses 3-cylinder engines for small hybrids

Is three the magic number of cylinders for Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler and its efforts to build smaller powertrains for its compact hybrids? Potentially, yes, the German automaker could see the need for three-cylinder mills, Automotive News reports. The company doesn't have any plans for them as of yet, though. Daimler executive Bernhard Heil talked with Automotive News about the challenges of using four-cylinder engines in a front-wheel-drive setup and said that three-cylinder engines could work in transverse-mounted powertrains for hybrid cars. For now, though, the company doesn't actually have any plans to go in that direction, Mercedes-Benz spokesman Christoph Horn said in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen. Horn wrote that Heil "actually said that if ever MB would use a three-cylinder engine than [it would be] in a configuration where space is restricted, such as when using a hybrid power train in a compact car." Of course, the only compact "hybrid" that Mercedes-Benz has is the 2015 C-Class, but that refers to the "hybrid" body is made of 48-percent aluminum, up from the current nine percent, as well as steel. It has nothing to do with the powertrain. Beyond that, there's always the Mercedes-Benz S500 Plug-in Hybrid that the company unveiled at the Frankfurt Motor Show last fall, but that model, which will debut in Europe later this year and arrive stateside next year, has a 3.0-liter turbocharged V6 and an 80-kilowatt electric motor that propels the plug-in from 0 to 62 miles per hour in 5.5 seconds. Not exactly three-cylinder territory, that.

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.

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.