It may surprise you, but as the Melbourne Motor Show draws to a close, I'm feeling thoroughly disappointed. Not for the fact that it's finished, and that there now won't be another one in Melbourne until 2011 - I'm disappointed because there wasn't a whole lot to see.I mean, yes, there were some important new releases, some great new eco-friendly technology, but ultimately, the appeal of something like a Motor Show is the variety of cars on show. That was missing this year - this is probably due to a multitude of reasons, the most important of which involves words like "economic" and "crisis". The spaces between cars was huge this year, and it felt almost empty. Not empty of people, but of cars. There is still strong public support for the Motor Show, as there has been for some years now, but this time, the carmakers just didn't rock up to the party. Perhaps this is why the Melbourne Motor Show has been rescheduled to every two years - Motor Show organisers want everyone to turn up.

There were so many quite important carmakers that were a no show that they were almost impossible to count. Not that it stopped me. I counted a total of 17 carmakers that ordinarily, would have been there, but were in fact absent. Count them if you don't believe me.

I certainly mourned Alfa Romeo, not just for the cars, but the seemingly mandatory sexy models in shiny red dresses. Instead, we had blonde bimbos in skimpy frills attempting to glamourise Toyotas. Not as satisfying.

Of course, American carmakers like Chrysler and Dodge and Jeep were absent, obviously because they are more strapped for cash than a boarding university student (and come from the same broke parent company). I didn't really miss them as much, coincidentally. Inexplicably, Hummer managed to get one solitary H3 under the lights of the Melbourne Exhibition Centre. Why Lord, why? I did miss Citroen, however. I was very much keen to explore the insides and outs of the new C5, and fall in love with the C4's dash design (and 3-door hatchback) all over again.

In the sports car arena, both Ferrari and Maserati were missing, leaving only Lamborghini to wave the flag for exotic Italian carmakers. I have also been waiting for Aston Martin to turn up for what seems like an eternity - the last time they showed was 2007, from memory. Any glimpse of a DB9 is absolutely worth every cent of the entry ticket price.

Fiat wasn't there, which I was annoyed by - I was having fun guessing what accessories they would have on display in their 500 demo car. Fashionistas would have been further disappointed by Mini and Smart, as they too failed to show. Even Land Rover decided they'd give the 2009 Melbourne show a miss.

Probably the most significant were Jaguar and the venerable Mercedes-Benz - while the absence of Jaguar is easily explained (they were struggling before the world economy went into self-destruct mode) but Mercedes remains a mystery. Perhaps this is a by-product of rapidly falling sales in premium segments? Not even Volvo made a showing, and they had the new XC60 to promote.

So you would think that a less luxurious brand such as, say, Proton, would be there instead? Nope, wrong again. No Ssangyong either, which surprised me - they usually have a much bigger stand than what they deserve.

If you had never been to the Motor Show before, you'd be forgiven for thinking these carmakers didn't exist. But they do, and it's a greater sign than ever that they're in some financial strife. I would suggest to buy cars from them (not Proton and Ssangyong, idiot) - not only will it help to inject cash into these struggling carmakers, it will be lighter on your wallet. At some manufacturers, some cars are being sold for frankly ridiculously low prices, so take advantage of it.

So even though I'm going to hold a grudge against these carmakers for not turning up to Melbourne 2009, I'm suggesting that we support them by buying their products. I'm a bit of a hypocrite sometimes, aren't I?

MELBOURNE 2009: Wrap-up

I've done a lot of ranting lately, but after this, I promise I'll stop for a little while. Someone asked me recently (in real life, you idiot, not on the blog - I have a life!) what I thought of Australian-built vehicles. For those of us who aren't entirely aware what's built in Australia these days, this is it:

Really, when it boils down to it, we have essentially three cars - Commodore, Falcon, and Camry. Don't whine that the Aurion isn't a Camry, because it darn well is - they look exactly the same side-on, and have identical interior design. The Mitsubishi 380 was made in Australia, but nobody bought them (because they were ugly, and looked like the American car it was based upon) and it ceased production last year. So that's the story of Australian made. They're all big, large cars, and on the whole - they have V6 engines.

So back to what I think of Australian-Built vehicles. I expressed in no uncertain terms my disgust for them, and was presented with the reply: "Gee, you're great for Aussie jobs, aren't you? Love our economy!" It was like my opinion was a reflection of the Aussie workers, our Aussie talent - I was "unastrayun", apparently. But I have good reasons why I hate Aussie-built cars, and it really comes down to the corporate decision-making that ruins their appeal.

Number One: Australian cars are hurting the environment. Of course they are! They're huge cars with V6 engines! And it's not some production-line worker's fault, it's the Holden bosses' fault. The average Australian sedan has about 200kW of power, with an average economy of 11L per 100km. A V8 has in excess of 270kW, and will use about 14L/100km.

I believe that 200kW is far more power in a family car than anyone really needs, and in just about every market in the world other than the US, 200kW is a figure you'd see on a high performance car - a sports car that sells in minorities. But the Australian large car is sold in majority, so the damage is amplified. You might say that these cars are so heavy that they need 200kW to push them along, but the only reason they are even this heavy is because of the great stinking engine sitting up the front. And they're still fast. A Toyota Aurion goes from 0-100kmh in just 7.4 seconds, which is around the same acceleration as a Golf GTi, Lancer Ralliart, the supercharged Range Rover Sport, A Jaguar XJ8, and the V8 HEMI Chrysler 300C. All big names in the sports/luxury car world, but all sold in small volume. No one really needs their family sedan, which is not meant to go any faster than 100kmh, to break the law in 7.4 seconds.

What is considered a family car in, say, the UK for example? The Ford Mondeo. It has a four cylinder engine which is significantly more economical that an Aussie six, although not as fast - but surely fast enough for law-abiding average joes?

But it's the sense that Australian car makers feel that they don't need to invest money in fuel economy - that's what irks me. Have you ever seen an economical Diesel Falcon? Or a petrol-electric hybrid Commodore? Even Toyota, the clean green Prius king, can't rock up with a hybrid Camry yet. What do they give us? A Supercharged Aurion. In America, there are hybrid variants of just about every family-sized sedan or SUV - we keep guzzling the petrol, but we tell them they're environmental hooligans. Hypocrits? And then some.

I know that all this technology is being added to Australian cars, but we're always years behind the rest of the world - it makes me think that Australian cars really aren't cutting edge, and that we truly are "underdeveloped colonialists", as the English would put it. And we're ruining the planet - with all our unique native wildlife being ruined by climate change, you'd think we'd try to drive cars that cut down emissions, wouldn't you? But people buy Australian-made, because they feel obliged to, and while some fat worker keeps his job in Broadmeadows, the Great Barrier Reef dies.

Number Two: Australian Cars are still awful quality. This may be a product of our culture and our work ethic, but these days, cars are mostly built by robots, and there really is no excuse for cars with ill-fitting dashboards, huge gaps between interior materials, etc. - you still think we make good quality cars? Alright, think about this. Which do you think is more expensive - the materials used to make the interior of the new Commodore, or the materials used to make the interior of the new Peugeot 308? Look at the pictures below if you're not sure.

I told you. I even used a picture of the top of the line Commodore SS-V! It costs a heap more than any 308 could - why?!?! Because it is a big heavy boofy sedan with a V8 that drinks more than Amy Winehouse, that's why.

and Number Three: Australian Built vehicles are robbing us of safety features we deserve. This is inexcusable. You've all seen the latest ads for the Falcon, saying it was the first Australian car to achieve 5-stars, and the Commodore has followed suit, but I'm still wondering: what took us so long? The technology is there, and the rest of the world have been driving cars with 5-star safety for donkey's yonks. The Renault Laguna - one of the staples of Europe's family-car market - has been a 5-star car since 1999! It might be more expensive here, and now, but at the time it certainly wasn't, and it was one of the first of an army of European cars, big and small, (but the big ones first) achieving five star safety ratings. For crying out loud, Kia have built a 5-star car before Australia. And we bag them about how unsafe everything they make is! What we don't realise, behind our "made in Australia" pride, is that we are worse.

Another point I nearly made is that I believe that Australian cars are encouraging "bogan" culture - this really isn't fair, because this is no inherent fault in the car itself, just the people who drive it. I still appreciate that the Porsche 911 is a good car, even though they are always driven by dickwits. So I'll refrain from making that point, and stick to those three above. They are enough to make me turn my nose up at Australian cars anyway. Maybe they weren't, fifty years ago, but the car industry should move with the times, and it hasn't.

So I don't think people should feel an obligation to buy Australian-made, just because they are Australian. It doesn't make you "Unaustralian" if you don't, anyway. You have the choice to buy a better car, so you should - if enough people do the same thing, then the Australian car companies will realise they have to do better.

And slowly, this is what is happening. Australian car sales are slowing, whether it is because of environmental conscience or petrol prices (sadly, probably the latter), and companies who are building cars in Australia have had to beg the government for grants so that their operations remain profitable. But given the chance, I'm sure Holden and Ford would just keep on making large cars with big V8s - I think our mate Mr. Rudd (the K-Dog) thought so too. He's making Holden build a hybrid here in Australia (based on an American car, mind you), he's making Toyota build a hybrid Camry, and he's making Ford build their Focus here in Australia, with diesel variants. That's a start, but the whole culture has got to change - Australians have to see that there are huge problems with the cars we're currently turning out, and we have to change our attitude toward these problems. "She'll be right, mate" isn't going to cut it with me, anyway.

So I'll hate Australian cars, and be a traitor to my homeland until these issues are resolved.

RANT: Australian Cars

I like the Mitsubishi Lancer - it's a car that is pretty much at the top of it's game, up with the class competitors, and selling well. It's exactly the thing Mitsubishi Australia needed to increase profitability in our market. Then they introduced the Sportback.

In one rather memorable story, I remarked that you're usually pretty safe with any small car that has the word "Sport" added to it. I was pretty much right, but only because in that case, the "sport" referred to a level of specification (tuned suspension, bodykit, etc.), and not the rear end of a car. It's becoming a growing trend. Audi named the four-door version of their A3 the "Sportback", then Holden decided that the new Commodore wagon should be called "Sportwagon" (what the frick is sporty about a 5-metre long Commodore Omega wagon has got me beat), and now we have the Lancer Sportback. The reason why I'm really annoyed by the Lancer is because, unlike the Audi and the Commodore, it looks absolutely hideous.

I couldn't find a picture on the internet that hadn't been cleverly angled to hide the wierd shape of that rear hatchback - it looks pretty unloved, doesn't it? Nevertheless, I will assume that it broadens the Lancer's appeal further, and can probably carry heaps of stuff. Why I'm really mentioning it is because usually, the transfer from hatch to booted sedan comes up with some hideous cars. Think about when they made the Toyota Echo sedan! That was a shocker. Thankfully, car makers have realised that we tend not to buy ugly spin-offs of good cars, so we don't get some of these hatch-to-sedan blunders. Elsewhere however, they have. Often, these are travesties that are best represented in profile - the Citroen C4 sedan. Nowhere near funky enough to be a dancing robot (tell Tsoukinator). Another example I'd like to show you is the Mazda2 Sedan - horrible!

I want to have a dig at it not because I think it is ugly (even though I do think so) - Imprezas, and Subaru's in general, are meant to be ugly. It's reassuring. It tells you: "Don't worry. I haven't changed. I'm still ugly - I'm still good quality Subaru inside." Instead, I hate it because in profile, or side-view, it has basically copied the proportions of the current (and outgoing) Mazda3. Tut, tut, tut.

Alright, now it's the sedan's turn. The front half of the car is actually bearable, but only once you've seen the rear end. Subaru have done even more copycating here - although this time, they've copycatted something really bad to start with.

What would you think if I told you that you're new "fooli sik" WRX looked like a Suzuki SX4? Well, I'd be right, and you'd be fuming - "how dare you compare my fooli sik WRX with that heap of sh**!" you will say. But I will walk away and laugh, because the arse of your $50,000 sports car, with rally credentials, street savvy, and a youthful image - looks identical to the arse of your grandma's little runaround.

RANT: I Don't Like That Arse, I Don't...

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

I can't believe how sick of the Holden Epica diesel I am. I never seen them on the road, but I see them everywhere - in ads! Holden desperately want the Epica to sell, but the car was flawed from the start. Let me fill you in.

Holden used to source its small car range from GM Europe - basically Opel. We had the Barina (Corsa in Europe), which was quite good, even if it did age dramatically after competitors like the Mazda2 and Honda Jazz enter the market; there was the Vectra, which was pretty mediocre; and there was the Astra, which was a sales tour-de-force, because it was really good, and suited Australian buyers.

The last Vectra flopped around the world, and Barina sales slowed. So Holden put their heads together, and came to the conclusion that these cars must be selling slowly because they were too expensive - which wasn't the case at all. The Barina was just simply getting old, and the Vectra was just crap.

So Holden sourced a new line of vehicles from GM Korea (formerly Daewoo, but now a GM product supplier) - because Korean cars are much cheaper. However, they forgot to mention that Korean cars are much worse than their European counterparts (well, generally). So we now have a Daewoo Kalos for a Barina - a shocking car in every respect (with a 2-star ANCAP safety rating...!). Surprise surprise, it isn't selling well. They introduced the Captiva as a rival to the Ford Territory, but the Territory is obviously better, so no one is buying Captivas either. We also have the irrelevant Viva, which is another case of "why would you bother"? It's no wonder Toyota is now outstripping Holden sales by about 2:1 - once upon a time (not too long ago) Holden used to dominate the Australian sales charts.

But now there is the Epica - not an "epic car" by any stretch of the imagination, and a totally uninspiring piece of kit that makes Holden look about six or seven years behind the times. The otherwise quite bland Subaru Liberty looks cool by comparison, and the new Accord Euro and Mazda6 (especially) are light years ahead.

Which brings me back to the ads. Apart from that stodgy slogan - "Go Better" - Holden has a problem on their hands, in that they have a decidedly boring product to advertise. It will never beat its Japanese rivals (listed above) on excitement, so they've decided to compare the Epica to something equally unexciting. The Toyota Camry. You can tell a car maker is getting desperate when they take a stab at other car makers.

The Epica diesel is 20% more economical than a Toyota Camry, apparently - a petrol Camry, so you'd bloody well hope it is. Because of how much more expensive diesel is than petrol, the Epica ends up only about 8% cheaper to run. Woohoo. The real difference is when the Holden breaks down five times a month because it's made by slave labourers in Korea, whereas the indestructible Camry keeps on keeping on. Don't get me wrong, I hate Camrys too, but the point is that Holden had to pick on something as boring as the Toyota Camry to try and make the Epica look good ("try" being the operative word).

And yet, Holden are merely showing their contempt of the intelligence of Australian car buyers by attempting to pass the Epica off as a world-class car. Show Holden that you aren't that stupid, and buy something else. Show Holden that Australians believe in quality, not just a price tag.

RANT: Those pesky Holden Epica ads!