Lemans Red On Sand Designo Leather Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Mercedes-AMG teases C63 Coupe again, this time on video

The present Mercedes-Benz C-Class has gone mature in the best way. The C63 AMG, however, is a gentleman villain, and it appears that the C63 AMG Coupe could go full rogue. Earlier this month Mercedes teased the two-door and a dash of its aural violence, but only gave us pictures to look at. The second teaser puts bits of the car on camera, accompanied by more of its tamer sound effects. The C63 AMG Coupe will almost certainly be seen in glossy photos beforehand, but we expect to meet the noble barbarian at the Frankfurt Motor Show with a 4.0-liter, twin-turbo V8 underhood. In the C63 S sedan that engine works up 503 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque, numbers that should be the same here. It will be joined by its other, less fire-breathing coupe siblings on the show stand. And since this second teaser is so brief, we've included a longer vid captured at the 'Ring in which the coming AMG tries to keep its tail under control. You'll find that below. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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.