Mercedes-benz 190sl on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Mercedes-Benz C450 AMG Sport First Drive

A. M. G. Those three letters carry a lot of weight, especially to those who firmly believe that AMG is the hallowed performance pinnacle of the Mercedes-Benz brand. Those purists probably lifted an eyebrow at the front-drive platforms behind the CLA45 AMG and GLA45 AMG, and virtually every AMG-branded SUV that has hailed from the tuner-focused nameplate. But they might want to consider a second look at the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C450 AMG Sport. No, it's not a full-blown, fire-breathing AMG like the C63, and it doesn't get the newfangled "Mercedes-AMG" nomenclature. But after spending some seat time in the C450 AMG Sport, there's a decent chance you'll be quite alright with that. Inside and out, the C450 bears a strong visual resemblance to the mean looking, V8-powered, 469-horsepower C63 and its even fiercer, 503-hp, C63 S variant. The C-Class cockpit feels a bit snugger than you might expect considering its exterior proportions, particularly from the passenger seat. On the other hand, the new C-Class is also quite a bit more nicely appointed than its predecessor, which has inspired more than a few comparisons to the super posh S-Class. As for the C450 AMG, its more purposeful design cues and sportier details lend it a buttoned-down, modern feel. The biggest differentiator between the C and CLA class, however, is the rear of the cabin: the C's back seats are considerably roomier than the entry-level CLA's posterior perches. In place of V8 power, the modest 450 AMG packs a more reasonably endowed twin-turbocharged, 3.0-liter V6 that pushes 362 hp and 384 lb-ft of torque through a 7G-Tronic Plus automatic gearbox (in place of the the C63's dual-clutch seven-speed). Power is routed through all four wheels with a 66-percent rear, 33-percent front torque split. For some numerical context, the C450 AMG exceeds the C400 by 33 hp and the C300 by 121 hp, while it lags behind the C63 by a rather significant 107 hp. Crucially, the six-banger helps shed between 231 and 242 pounds compared the C63 models – this, despite a heavier all-wheel-drive arrangement, as opposed to the C63's rear-drive configuration. The C450 AMG shares a few pieces of hardware with its big brother AMG sibling, including the front axle, electromechanical steering, and upgraded brake setup (though you can't get carbon ceramic stoppers like you can in the C63 S).

Mercedes-Maybach SUV concept headed for Beijing reveal in April

Mercedes-Benz has toyed with the idea of a Maybach SUV for at least 11 years. According to Autocar, we'll finally see a concept with production intent at the Beijing Motor Show next month, the luxury SUV slated for market release next year. As has been the rumor for at least six years, the Maybach people carrier will be based on a stretched version of the GLS, which moves to the company's new Modular High Architecture with the 2019 model. Back in 2007 when Maybach was its own brand and selling roughly 300 units per year, Car magazine reported that brand chiefs were interested in convertible versions of the Maybach 57 and 62 sedans, and an SUV. Maybach built a one-off concept based on the GL — the former GLS-Class — in 2009, but never took the idea further. The rumor popped up again in 2014, then in 2015, reaching not-if-but-when status early last year. A decade on, it's finally time to play the hand. Even though the super-luxe SUV would sit on a stretched version of what is already a three-row SUV, it's reasonable to expect the Maybach SUV will only get two rows. That would give designers plenty of extra room for seating luxury and amenities even beyond the S-Class Maybach. On the other hand, if Mercedes sticks to the rough Maybach playbook so far, a triple-row Maybach would be the only such SUV in the mid- to upper-six-figures. The S-Class 560 4Matic starts at $102,990, the S 560 4Matic Maybach starts at $168,600. Applying that spread to the $94,500 GLS 550, you'd land around $160,000 before adding the markup for a new generation. That kind of starter pricing might make a great tweener proposition. Mercedes could focus on a range of buyers who want to go upscale from the $125,300 AMG GLS 63, without needing to worry — yet — about challenging Bentley and Rolls-Royce. Power is said to come from some version of the company's oft-applied 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 that puts out 462 horsepower in the S 560, but the 3.0-liter inline-six hybrid in the S 560e is under consideration. We'll know next month, when the lightly veiled concept takes the stand in China. The full-on production version should get an introduction at this year's L.A. Auto Show. Related Video:

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.