2002 Mercedes C240 * No Reserve * Low 69k Miles One Owner Florida Rust Free C230 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Daimler boss says fuel cell vehicles will be disappointing for at least 10 years

Daimler AG CEO Dieter Zetsche is pretty confident about the imminence of self-driving cars. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? Not so much. He didn't even get into the possibility of self-driving fuel-cell vehicles, but we're okay taking future technologies one at a time. Zetsche, in an interview from the Detroit Auto Show last week, said the automotive industry is about a decade away from avoiding disappointing experiences with production fuel-cell vehicles, In Auto News says. Zetsche was quick to note that the Mercedes-Benz parent entered into a fuel-cell partnership with Ford and Nissan early last year in an effort to split costs and speed things along, with the expectation that the group would develop something together by 2017, but even that won't be able to smooth things out fully. Toyota and Hyundai have said they'd have their own production vehicles on the road sooner than that. Multi-corporation-partnerships notwithstanding, Zetsche bemoaned the high costs, lack of vehicle volume and minimal refueling infrastructure as the proverbial roadblocks to more rapid development and adoption of fuel-cell vehicles. As it is, the US has just 10 publicly accessible hydrogen refueling stations, eight of which are in Southern California, according to the US Department of Energy. As for autonomous automobiles, Zetsche was more upbeat. Daimler already has what it calls the "Distronic" cruise control system that includes an automatic braking feature and has successfully driven a car 60 miles with "with relatively modest adjustments to the existing onboard technology." Featured Gallery Mercedes-Benz F-Cell View 9 Photos News Source: In Auto News Green Mercedes-Benz Hydrogen Cars

Editors' Picks August 2021 | Honda Civic, Mercedes S-Class and more

This month of Editors' Picks saw us award the honor to a couple of redesigned stalwarts like the Honda Civic and Mercedes-Benz S-Class. Plus, a new crossover that splits the difference between the compact and subcompact class takes home the prize. On top of this, we'll introduce you to a new term: midcompact. We'll be using this to describe those in-between crossovers that are a tad too small to be considered compact, but too large to neatly fit into the subcompact class. For a few examples of these "midcompact" cars, we'll point you to the Ford Bronco Sport, Kia Seltos and VW Seltos. In case you missed our previous Editors' Picks posts, here’s a quick refresher on whatÂ’s going on here. We rate all the new cars we drive with a 1-10 score. Cars that are exemplary in their respective segments get EditorsÂ’ Pick status. Those are the ones weÂ’d recommend to our friends, family and anybody whoÂ’s curious and asks the question. The list that youÂ’ll find below consists of every car we rated in August that earned an EditorsÂ’ Pick. 2021 Genesis G70 2022 Genesis G70 View 26 Photos Quick take: Genesis hits all the right buttons with its G70. It's attractive, fun to drive and can be had for a fair price. Enthusiasts should give it a shot before taking home one of its German competitors. Score: 8 What it competes with: Alfa Romeo Giulia, Lexus IS, Acura TLX, Infiniti Q50, Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac CT4, Volvo S60 Pros: Sharp handler, stunning exterior looks, strong engines Cons: Average interior, loses manual option, small backseat and trunk From the editors: News Editor Joel Stocksdale — "I was already a big fan of the Genesis G70. It has brilliant handling, and the twin-turbo V6 is a beast. It's even a bargain against the competition. And Genesis just made it look a lot better. I wish they'd done a bit more to update the interior, but it's still not a bad cabin. Besides, you won't think too much about it when you're hustling down a fun back road." Features Editor James Riswick — "Yes, it is small, but in a sport sedan segment where "sport" means increasingly less, the G70 still delivers (in part because of that smallness).

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.