I suppose I wanted to bring this story to you a while ago, but really, I wanted to be well-informed before I made a decision to love or loathe the Chevrolet Volt. I wanted to be knowledgeable of all that it can and can't do, so I could bring you an informative article. For a change.

This is an important car. And as soon as a carmaker claims that their latest car is "theoretically emissionless" and not only that, will be going to production as shown, you can't help but raise an eyebrow. Is it General Motors spin? I'm pleased to say that it probably isn't.

At first, the Volt seems close to normal. It is based on the next-generation Astra platform, is front drive, front engined... yet nothing is as it seems. I'll start with what I know best - aesthetics. At first I thought it looked funny, like a joke - I mean, why are the windows indented into the shape of the body. Why does it seem to look like it tried to look normal, but couldn't? Because this car has an electric motor, and for it to be effective the Volt needs to be as aerodynamic as humanly possible. Aerodynamics govern the way the Volt looks. Given that GM had to achieve such a feat in aerodynamics, the Volt doesn't look half bad. A bit gawkily futuristic, but hey, it's a brave new world out there.

But what was that I just said? The Volt has an electric motor? Yes, it does. It is the principle motor of the car, and is what drives the front wheels. The Volt also has a not-so-futuristic petrol engine, but GM says that it really doesn't even need to be there, in most consumer's cases. Did you think it was a petrol-electric hybrid like the Toyota Prius? Think again. At the helm is the 112kW electric engine (with an instantaneous 370Nm of torque), which is connected to a high-tech lithium-ion battery. Even Toyota, with it's next-generation Toyota Prius, hasn't fully developed the lithium-ion technology for everyday use. So far, so good. The battery will power the Volt for 65km, but then has to be plugged in to a mains power supply to recharge the battery overnight. 65km may not sound like much, but GM has somehow researched the subject and found that it is enough for approximately 75% of private american drivers. That figure could be a crock, but it sounds about right to me.

So what about the other 25%? Sometimes we need to travel more than 65km, and although the Volt is emissionless when it runs on electric power, what do you do then? This is where the petrol engine comes into the equation. Only one the battery has no power left does it start up, and even then, it does not actually directly power the wheels of the car. Instead, the 55kW generated by the 1.4 litre engine is used to power the electric engine until you can find mains power supply. Even in this situation however, the Volt uses only 4.7 litres/100km. About the same as the current Prius, then.

Other upsides to this car are numerous. A full 65km charge in mains power will cost only roughly $1.20. If you're commuting around town in your little Yaris-sized small car, doing 7.6/100km, you will save 1520 litres of fuel a year, which, even at the currently lower-than-usual prices, would be $1672 a year. Or about 5.9 tonnes of greenhouse gas. Impressive. But then I thought about the greenhouse effect a little more, and wondered: if the Volt charges from mains power, and mains power isn't green power (like Australia, where Coal power stations are the most common) - is the Volt really a green car? There are people on both sides of the fence, some arguing that the Volt would still create less CO2 that the average car, some arguing that it would produce more.

But I decided that this is irrelevant. The Chevrolet Volt present a way that everyone with a car can be carbon-negligible, and if governments were truly serious about making that a reality, they would continue the process that creates a green power grid with more renewable energy sources. With everyone driving Chevrolet Volts, the fault rests on the government if we are still producing heaps of CO2. Sort of like "well, we all went out and bought Chevy Volts so we could all go green, now it's your turn". Yeah, that's about right.

Downsides? It weighs 1750kg, so don't expect blistering performance, even if all that torque is available as soon as the tacho needle leaves 0 rpm. Will it be expensive? Only time will tell, but expect GM to make it as competitive as it possibly can. Why? Because GM is failing - without properly good sales, it will go bankrupt, just like everything else at the moment. It can see that the Volt could be a world-changing (but more importantly for them, profit-changing) car, provided people buy them buy the bucketload. And encouraging that will most definitely mean a price incentive.

In my belief, a car like the Chevrolet Volt should be partially subsidised by the american government, so that it reaches as many people as possible, and prevents climate change as much as it possibly can. If everyone in America (300 million) saved 5.9 tonnes a year like the Yaris driver (and most will save more), you're looking at nearly 2 billion tonnes of CO2 that the human race hasn't emitted. It's becoming more and more important, even for the future of the human race, that this car sells. And sells phenomenally. Because there just isn't a car anywhere in the world that makes negating carbon emissions so accessible and possible.

So when can we all buy one? In America, it will go on sale in late 2010 (if everything goes as planned), and elsewhere in the years following that. Expect it to arrive here at the earliest in 2012. It can't come soon enough.

I've given the US of A a bit of a sledging lately - but this is their chance to prove my sentiments unfounded. I want a Chevrolet Volt. I want an American Car. I never thought I'd say that, but I want an American Car. It is desirable.

NEWS: Chevrolet Volt to Save the Planet

WTF?! #3: The Oscar Mayer Wienermobile

Alright, as the title suggests, I don't like the Porsche Panamera. But I don't think it is because I have a general dislike for Porsches (they're just backward in terms of style!) - I genuinely believe the Panamera is stupid. Perhaps not as stupid as the Cayenne, but seriously stupid nonetheless.

I don't need to tell you it looks ugly. You can see that 911 styling just doesn't translate to a car with four doors and is over 5-metres in length. You're eyes aren't decieving you, it really is that long. It's bulky and looks heavy (even though it probably isn't, knowing Porsche). So, I'm wondering. It doesn't really seem to be much of a sports saloon (you can't tell me that something 5.2 metres long with a huge wheelbase is going to quick and agile), and it can't be a luxury car, because Porsche don't make luxury cars. Who is this car for?

At least the Lamborghini Estoque (which recently seems to be becoming more likely to go into production by the minute) looks properly sporty, if a bit confused. The Panamera looks like a big fat lumbering blob. Harsh maybe, but you have to think about the competition. Already established in this segment is the Maserati Quattroporte - stunningly stylish, ridiculously luxurious, fairly fast, incredibly customisable. The Bentley Continental Flying Spur - more leather and woodgrain than you can poke a stick at, fast (in a straight line), very comfortable. Do I think the Panamera has what it takes to sell well against these rivals? No, because it lacks desirability.
If a car has desirability, it makes you want to own it even though you know buying one would be a stupid thing to do. Think Fiat 500, a Citroen C6, or a Mercedes-Benz SL. Because the Panamera has nothing else in its favour, it at least needs desirability to win buyers in its favour. I cannot think why someone, however weird, would want this. As stupid as the Porsche Cayenne is, people buy it because they want the biggest, baddest, and fastest SUV on the planet. It also happens to be a Porsche.

So that is all that is left for the Porsche Panamera. It is a Porsche. If you want a Porsche that badly, buy a Boxster - it is cheaper. The Panamera will cost $250,000 plus. Perhaps the Panamera will be an excellent drive - but if you are buying a Panamera because it is an excellent drive, why not buy a 911? It will surely be a more excellent drive. Are you beginning to get my drift? There aren't any rational arguments for buying this car over something else. I'm told it will get around 500 horsepower (373kW) from it's top of the range V8, but really, what's the point of having 500 horses pulling a cart that is so ugly you wouldn't touch it with a 500-foot pole?

NEWS: Porsche Panamera Unveiled and Uncool

We had teaser pictures for the sedan - and now we have the hatch. And the pictures are even less revealing. Basically, other than the rear hatchback, it is identical to the sedan, which is interesting, because the previous generation hatch and sedan were similar looking, but not at all the same. I suppose it makes better business sense for Mazda this way - I guess it's not really that much of a big deal. The bumper sticks out heaps, like the sedan, but this could just be a product of the angles these pictures were taken on - I now have new, better pictures of the Mazda3 sedan which indicate that it's a better proportioned car than I had originally anticipated.
I now also know that the red hatch I showed you in the previous Mazda3 story was an absolute crock - it looks nothing like the real thing.

I maintain that the bonnet and grille still look like a Peugeot 308 (sadly this face, which has been previewed on some of Mazda's concepts, will become the face of all in the Mazda family), but I'm sure that the next generation Mazda3 will be far more stylish than it's predecessor, which was hardly dorky. I have also now have pictures of the interior, seen here in what I assume is SP25 guise (the 2.3 litre engine will be upgraded to a 2.5 like the Mazda6) and the general layout looks just like the Mazda6 really. Sadly, no RX-8 style wheel this time. But this car does seem to have more steering wheel buttons than I have ever seen in my life, which begs the question: what are they all for? And more importantly, aren't we all going to be spending heaps of time looking for which button to press (and averting our eyes from the road)? I thought steering wheel controls where meant to remove distraction. Can't see what I'm talking about? Click on the interior picture for the larger image.

NEWS: Mazda3 2010 update

NEWS: Bond is about to get jealous

In the financial crisis to rule the world, we will all be sucked into the ultimate perilous doom, and suffer the wrath of our accountants, but the car industry, undoubtedly, will suffer more than most. None more so than America's - where the heart of problem lies. But if the car industry in America goes belly up, will we really miss it? Will we miss the Hummer, the Ford Explorer, and the Cadillac Escalade? I think not. I think that killing the American car industry could well be one of the best things we could do for the environment. I've got to think very seriously about the new Chevrolet Volt before I even consider changing my mind. The American car industry is simply, stupid. Dumb. Thick. I could go on about it all day.

And it's not just the Hummers, Explorers and Escalades that are stupid. Even when the Americans do normal cars, they are stupid - and this is probably the funniest example for a while. Two rival companies, Mercury and Cadillac (from parent companies Ford and GM repectively), have just created two similarly sized cars, that don't just look similar, but exactly the same. You'll think you're seeing double too. In case you can't tell the difference whatsoever, on the left you have the Mercury Milan, and on the right, the Cadillac CTS.

Their profiles are almost identical, and their faces - sheer copying. Do Ford and GM want to survive? Do they realise how dumb, in every business sense, copying each other is? It seems rather communist to make cars that all look the same, but as we all know, America is probably the most hypocritical western country. Who cares how they drive? They're anonymous. And people won't understand the difference between the Mercury CTS and the Cadillac Milan. Oops, I mean Mercury Milan and Cadillac CTS. Silly me. How could I ever have got that wrong?

RANT: The American Car Industry Deserves to Die

Retro is, apparently "tres cool, daahling" - just the thing to look trendy this fashion season. You'd be surprised how much retro stuff fill our lives, from those bright red bubble shaped retro toasters to, you guessed it, cars. There is a very obvious attraction to a retro-styled car, after all, I've just said it - style. Retro cars range from $23,000 AUD city runabouts to elite sports cars with six figure price tags. Yet a common critisism of retro cars are that they are all style, and no substance to live with every day. Everyone figures that retro cars are expensive, pathetic value for money... and besides, you'll probably tire of the way it looks by tomorrow, won't you? But is the news really that bad for retro cars, or are they really just for the type of people who buy a specific outfit for their MySpace photo? Check out my reviews, with special guest opinions from the Fashion Police and Mr. Sensible, so we have a balanced investigation.

This is a real oddball of a car. Is it meant to be a practical family hatch? I don't think so - it isn't wide enough to fit three people comfortably in the back. Is it just meant to be stylish? It is too lardy and awkward to be considered "chic" by fashion gurus. It's not even good value (you can get a Mondeo or Mazda6 for this kind of moolah), so why buy this car? The appeal would have to be in the 30's hot rod styling, surely? Well, it's not my cup of tea, but it could suit someone out there. But the whole point of a retro car is that it makes you feel special - different, extrovert, and better than the average joe driving a silver Toyota Camry. This interior would not make me feel special - the average 90's American car interior, full of dull grey plastic that would probably fall apart if you so much as touched it.

Fashion Police? - "I would fine you for giving retro a bad name."
Mr. Sensible? - "There are better ways to spend 35K, that's for sure."


The sheer amount of detail that has gone into this car is truly astonishing. Whether it comes down to the glossy dash materials, circular headrests that mimic the front headlights, or the bazillions of interior colour combinations, a Fiat 500 is well and truly customised enough to make you feel special. There are 19 different sticker kits, the key cover comes in 9 different colours, there are 15 different types of seat upholstery, 9 different steering wheel covers, and, wait for it, 3 types of fragrance diffusers. Wow. And looking through the brochure at all the different exterior colours available, you feel like you are looking at a packet of skittles - there are no less than 12 colours. You sure aren't likely to be wearing the same clothes as someone else (I mean, driving the same car as someone else), because there are a grand total of 549,936 variants of the Fiat 500. Oh, snap.

Fiat has also thought about environmentally conscious fashonistas (the kind that throw paint on fur coats) because the 1.3 litre diesel 500 is the most economical car in Australia. Take that, Toyota Prius! It is also the first car under 3.6 metres in length to achieve a 5-Star NCAP safety rating. It is undoubtedly irresistable - but all this does come at a price. It starts at $23,000 for a 1.2 litre, 3.55 metre long two door car. Optioning it up only elevates the price further. You could easily spend up to 40 grand if you're not careful. I'm serious! But let's put it into perspective - if you're at all fashion conscious enough to think about 549,936 different variants of one car, then only the most stylish car will do. In that respect, there is no price for style. But even the Smart ForTwo is priced comparitively to the 500, yet I would say there is far more substance on offer with the Fiat. And what about the Mini? It's probably the only car that in comparison to the Fiat 500 looks overpriced.

Fashion Police? - "Fiat 500 for Prime Minister!"
Mr. Sensible? - "The numbers don't add up. What about the family? Where will they fit?"


I suppose I could have also talked about the XJ, but the X-Type is more obviously trying to chip into the retro market. Except it just looks old - and now that Jaguar wants to be modern again, they're trying to make it retro, but edgy and high-tech... it's just a confused car. You wouldn't even buy it for "Jaguar Quality" either - have you heard the nightmare stories that turn up time and time again from X-Type owners? It's meant to capture the gracefulness of Jaguars of old, with lots of woodgrain, and animal skins adorning the seats etc., but the gracefulness of a Jaguar just doesn't translate to a car that is only just longer than a Honda Civic. It was a dumb idea.

Fashion Police? - "Soooooo last century."
Mr. Sensible? - "It's not going to be reliable - it's a lemon."


Ah, what fun this car looks. And it is, thankfully. Fun I mean. The driving dynamics of such a pint-sized car are always going to be memorable, but the Mini just gets better, the more power you can shove into the bonnet. In that way, it is more of the enthusiasts choice than the 500, even though the Mini is marketed at people who can't drive very well. The interior, unlike the 500, is a little tacky - mostly black with lots of fake metal. It just looks plasticky and low rent. But it must be bought with stripes. There is simply no question about that - it looks bare and empty without them. But I digress. The Cooper hatchback is quite cool, in a boyish, go-kart sort of way, but other Mini variants are anything but.

Let me start with the convertible - it's odd, and loses the sporty stance of the hatch. So where is the appeal now? In the fact that you can soak up the sun in a car little bigger than any Matchbox (TM...) equivalent. Great. But the Clubman.... what a travesty. It might be okay in a country that drives on the right hand side of the road, but in Australia, it's useless. The extra door is on the WRONG side! Because, you know, we all load up the car from the side of the car that faces the road. And what, may I ask, is the point of having a barn-doors tailgate on a Mini? Stupid, just stupid. A real Mini is nice. The pretenders (Clubman, Cabrio) are worse than head lice. And you don't even want to know how expensive they are.

Fashion Police? - "Hatch, right this way. Clubman, Cabrio - you ain't going anywhere."
Mr. Sensible? - "This thing costs how much?!?!?!"


This is probably the easiest way to look like an eccentric nutter. Let's face it, why on earth would you buy a new car that is exactly like something from eighty years ago unless you were mentally deranged? The Aero 8 (pictured) is cross-eyed, and the 4/4 is made of wood. I thought this was meant to be the 21st century? I suppose it would be one helluva mid-life crisis car, but you certainly need some serious personality to pull these cars off. And if you thought a Mini was impractical, it starts to look like a Toyota Tarago in comparison to a Morgan. And if all that wasn't enough, it costs in excess of a hundred grand. What a waste of money - if you are genuinely interested in art deco era cars, actually buy something from that era, not some fake modern try-hard with no motoring history behind it.

Fashion Police? - ".....?.....!"
Mr. Sensible? - "Are you serious? A roof is an optional extra?!?!"


Probably the only car in the world that still looks exactly the same after five generations and 44 years. Check out the whopping differences between the original sixties model and the current one (both pictured). But that's not to say that the current Porsche 911 is outdated - it is still the top of its field for driving dynamics, and is the benchmark from which everything else is judged. But all that doesn't stop the 911 from being well and truly behind in the style stakes. After all, it competes with the Maserati GT (the car in my blog's header) and the Aston Martin Vantage. And there is one overwhelming factor that turns me off buying one - just about every 911 owner is an absolute tosser. I'm not joking - if you know a 911 driver, chances are, you also think they're a bit of a dick with more money than brains. Still don't believe me? I'll prove it - Charlie Cox of Top Gear Australia absolutely loves them. Told you.

Fashion Police? - "Retro for retro-sake is not cool."
Mr. Sensible? - "What about all the CO2 emissions? And the petrol money?"


Something is seriously wrong when you have a car that has a flower vase built into the dash. Probably only the Nissan Micra Convertible is more embarassing (but that's all subjective I guess). Let's face it, no real man would go out with a girl who drives a Beetle. So in this way, a New Beetle is embarassing to the owner, it is embarassing to the owner's friends, and casts aspersions on the intelligence of the owner's family. Remember: the person is only as intelligent as the car they buy. This... is an expensive joke - so unless you consider yourself an expensive joke, this isn't the car for you. And if you like your fashion new and fresh, this doesn't present a good case - it's been around since 1998. So why do they still call it the New Beetle? Beats me.

Tell you what, get a restored original Beetle - they're even cooler, and if you want a Beetle, you obviously won't care about the practicality issues.

Fashion Police? - "That's a $200 dollar fine for 'overdoing it'".
Mr. Sensible? - "I'll have to count the flower as an added expense..."


So what are the findings? First of all, Mr. Sensible is very obviously a big whinging party-pooper, and should shove his sensibility where the sun don't shine. Silliness is what makes life truly worth living, and silliness seems to go hand in hand with retro. As much as I hate cars like the New Beetle, I appreciate that the person who buys has a strong infatuation for its iconic retro design, and it certainly is a wonderful if someone can be as silly as to use a Beetle as their mode of transport, and love it. Buy a car and love it - a car should also give you a secret s ense of pleasure and circumstance. As I alluded to earlier, a car should make you feel special. With the exceptions of the Jaguar and the Chrysler, all these cars will flatter you endlessly, providing they suit your tastes. Choose wisely - make sure that what you share with your car-to-be is love, and not a petty crush, because you could quite easily "tire" of these cars. It is also a very expensive excercise, which ever way you look at it.

But feeling truly special is close to priceless.

FEATURE STORY: How to do "Retro" tastefully

This is quite possibly the funniest car in creation. Sold mainly in the US, the Pontiac Aztek caused worldwide ridicule for Pontiac and General Motors at a time when they really didn't need to be embarrassed further. This car won the (coveted...?) title of being number one in the UK Daily Telegraph's poll of the 100 ugliest cars. But I can't help laughing at it. What am I laughing at - the way it looks, or simple American stupidity? I'm not entirely sure. It just cracks me up.

In 1999, Pontiac showed the world its Aztek concept (left), which, according to most Americans, looked "okay". The Americans were punished for their passivity to crap design with the production Aztek, a great big exemplification of everything that is wrong with the American SUV culture. At launch in 2001, Pontiac had exacerbated the problem by fitting the Aztek with a plethora of matte-grey cladding, which was intended to make it look more rugged. Sadly, it had the look of a two-tone gorilla, with a classic American "slack-jawed yokel" face. Perfect.

This is an interesting bit of trivia: Colby Donaldson won this car as a prize in the final reward challenge of Survivor - The Australian Outback. Some prize, huh? Anyway, after only one year of production, Pontiac had the brilliant idea of ditching all the ridiculous cladding. All this achieved, however, was allowing the lower half of the car to shine in all its hideous glory.

Inside, it was a similar story - acres of boring dark grey plastic that made you want to puke all over it, just so you can get some colour into the interior. General Motors knew they had to make money somehow out of the Aztek, so they made a much more conservative looking Buick spin-off: the Rendezvous (can Americans even spell that correctly?). Thankfully for GM, the Rendezvous sold very well, even though the Aztek bombed (I wonder why...). The Pontiac Aztek was discontinued in 2005, after only 4 years of slow sales. Now the Americans have the conservative Pontiac Torrent, which is hardly a good car, but is still selling twice as well as the Aztek did.

I could go on for hours about why the Aztek was such a failure, but who needs me when you can see the pictures for yourself? And if you start having nightmares about it, don't say I didn't warn you. There was even a GT version (with an ancient pushrod 3.4 litre V6 that used on average 18.5 Litres of fuel for each 100km...!).

As just one final mean dig at American intelligence, I'll leave you with this gruesome thought that screams "Only in America". Only in America would you find a car as ugly as the Aztek, and have a fan club for it. www.aztekfanclub.com - laugh your head off and feel sick to your stomach as you read the gushing pieces of writing people have composed while in love with their Pontiac Azteks.

WTF?! #2: Pontiac Creating a Worldwide Laughing Stock

Oh yeah, fight to the death! These are two new Toorak Tractors ready to show up in a showroom near you. The difference is that these are the smallest compact SUVs these car makers have ever made. And they're poised to be in head-to-head competition.

This market segment is not new. The BMW X3 has been there for a few years already, but it was so ugly I didn't want to poison my site with pictures of it. It will not take part in this battle, because it is simply not stylish enough to compete with these two - looks count for a lot when a the target market is cashed up and super-trendy. The Audi Q5 is also kickin' around, but it is so bulky and lardy that it's hard to call it compact. It's largely irrelevant. Volvo and Mercedes promise stylish, luxurious and safe transport for a family of up to five people. Which one truly delivers? Which comes up trumps? Read on...

In a style contest, there really is no competition. The Mercedes is basically a smaller version of the GL-Class, hence GLK. If you see a "K" on the end of a Mercedes-Benz, then you know it is the smaller or coupe version of another Mercedes-Benz. The GL is just a 5 metre-long luxo-truck, and for the GLK, they chopped off half a metre. It looks oddly boxy and utilitarian, but never exactly tough, because of its lack of size and ultra-glossy paint. I'm also wondering how big Mercedes can possibly make the badge on the front grille - surely they don't get any bigger than this. The three pointed star looks like a fan that will generate a category 5 cyclone.

The Volvo is a smaller version of the XC90, and builds on that design theme by adding more curves and a truly sporty look. It really is a statement of how far Volvo has come in recent years in terms of design. It looks streamlined, detailed, and thoroughly modern in 2008. It's a far cry from some of the awful box-on-wheels-type cars that came out of Sweden in the nineties. It's quite hard for me to say this, but has Volvo created an SUV that is actually pretty? I'm going to be bold, and say yes. Emphatically.

Inside, the contest is far closer. The Mercedes carries over the theme from the successful C-Class, which looks really architectural, but probably a bit too busy for my liking. Too many squared off edges all over the place. It doesn't look unfinished exactly, just a bit hectic. I love the sporty-looking wheel, though, with the coolest audio buttons I've seen for a while - although its curvy design seems at odds with the rest of the interior.

The Volvo is more simple, if not minimalistic like the S40/V50. I still do not understand the "floating" centre console idea Volvo loves putting in its new cars. All it creates is a hole of empty space behind the centre console, which is unusable as a storage compartment. It has no function whatsoever other than to impress your friends - I don't know about you, but it wouldn't impress my friends. If I got enthusiastic about a "floating" centre console, my friends would think I had finally (finally...) lost my marbles. That being said, the XC60's interior is a nice place to be, is user friendly, and more spacious than the Mercedes (due to larger overall dimensions). I quite like the two-tone leather upholstery - it's a bit "cookies and cream", and a nice different, but possibly a bit gauche for some people. Bully for them. I like it. The instrumentation also balances form and function, and I am appreciative of the metallic strip around the circumference of the dial.

Driving? Well, do you think people who are buying these cars will care? They will care about how safe it is, if their darling children will be comfortable sitting on the rear seat, and in these respects, both cars are without peer. They are both very comfortable, and safe as houses. Safer, I'd say. And I don't know why just about every automotive journalist thinks they need to test how these cars perform off-road - they must be behind the times, and think that people want to go bush-bashing the outback in a Range Rover Sport. Both these cars are going to suck off-road, because they are not designed for it. If you want a XC60 or GLK because you want some butch outback action, you are base and ignorant. Simple as that.

Power probably isn't a huge priority for a new luxo-4WD buyer, but both the XC60 and GLK have plenty to offer. And I think everyone gets a little perverse pleasure out of seeing a big heavy SUV being able to rocket off into the horizon. The XC60 T6 has a turbocharged straight-six engine with 213kW on tap, which wins the power stakes here. The GLK350 has just a plain 3.5 litre V6 (200kW), which we've seen in Mercedes models before. It won't disappoint you either. Both cars have fuel-sipping diesel options, if you want to feel less environmentally guilty.

The verdict? There is ultimately little to separate these two cars, but the Volvo wins in my opinion. It seems like a far less offensive, more stylish, refined and livable way of carting little minions (kids) to and from Auskick each Saturday. The Mercedes is trying to be too sporty and masculine, and instead seems grotesque and over-done. I guess I'll never be butch enough, or enough of a pimp (like the "homies" in the top left picture) to look good driving the GLK, and I'm guessing neither will you. And I'll never stop having nightmares where I get sucked head first into the Mercedes' colossal propeller-like badge. If you must shout to the world that you own a Mercedes (no matter how fugly it is) then the GLK is for you. Otherwise, be a bloody Volvo driver. They're bloody good-looking these days.

BATTLE: Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class vs. Volvo XC60