I struggled to come to terms with the Aston Martin Lagonda Concept. It looks like a truck. I didn't see how it is possible for Aston Martin, a company known for the graceful form of its cars, to conceive such a horrendous looking car for the revival of an iconic brand name. I obviously didn't understand what the brand "Lagonda" actually meant.

Aston Martin has owned Lagonda for over 60 years, and in that time, Lagonda cars have sort of dissipated, in the same way that Aston Martin had dissipated up until the recent arrivals of the DB7 and DB9. So occasionally, every now and then, Aston Martin produced a Lagonda, and then didn't, sometimes for decades at a time. Now is the time, then, during a period of Aston Martin's resurgence, that they have decided to revive Lagonda. Shame they're doing it at a time when everyone's broke.

But back to the point about why it is necessary for the new Lagonda to look like a truck. Aston Martin and Lagonda stand for two very different things. Aston Martins are athletic - the ultimate sports tourer. Lagonda is, put simply, the ultimate statement of what a car can be. Superlative, you could say. However, Lagondas simply don't have a sporty bone in their body. As Aston Martin CEO Ulrich Bez puts it:

"Lagonda is a car that can be used in Moscow in December with half a metre of snow, and used in countries with less well-developed infrastructure, and is a luxury product."

This car, which you see in the gallery at the bottom of this article, is like a new Range Rover, which isn't meant to have the same shoddy quality as Land Rover. And way more luxurious. In other words, this truck of a Lagonda is for people who want a massive 4x4, but think a Range Rover is a bit cheap and proletarian.

But why is a 4x4? Lagondas have never been high-riding vehicles in the past. But nowadays, it makes sense for them to be. Essentially, Lagondas have sheer contempt for all other cars on the road. If you were a Lagonda driver, you'd be thinking: "I'm in here, in my cocoon of luxurious paradise, and the scum of the world are on the outside. I spit on you. Phteuh." Exactly. And the design of a Lagonda has to encapsulate this thought. Let's gaze upon the Lagondas of the past to see what I mean. The first is a Lagonda Rapide of 1964, and the second is an Aston Martin Lagonda of 1989.As you might have guessed, these cars are exactly like Rolls-Royces, but without the grace of design, and a "stuff youse all" attitude instead. These were the biggest, baddest cars of their respective eras. But at that time, there were no 4x4s - now, the biggest baddest cars on the road are big 4x4s (cough, BMW X6, cough). So if Aston Martin were going to create a modern Lagonda that embodied the spirit of the cars you've seen above, it would be a massive, fugly 4x4. So, if you look at it that way, it's mission accomplished for Aston Martin and their new Lagonda concept. It's bloody ugly, but it's just right.

GENEVA 2009: Aston Martin Lagonda

Ahead of it's official launch at the Geneva Motor Show, Hyundai has released preliminary pictures of the ix-onic Concept, which will become the Hyundai ix35 at the Frankfurt Motor Show later this year, which will effectively replace today's Hyundai Tucson. Hope that all wasn't too confusing. At only 4.4 metres long, this new ix-onic concept proves that 4x4 cars don't need to be big and bulky to look cool - it will enter a market segment populated already by the Nissan Dualis, but will also head off the upcoming Peugeot 3008. If this concept is anything to go by, the Koreans will make a car that is sexier than both of them put together.

GENEVA 2009: Hyundai ix-onic Will Become ix35 Tucson Replacement

The financial crisis has claimed another victim - well, sort of. The plan was for Cadillac to be launched in Australia last year, and well, that never happened obviously. But now, GM-Holden CEO Mark Reuss has gone public with the news that Cadillac will not be coming to Australia, and the plans have been well and truly shelved to gather dust. So the financial crisis didn't really claim a victim, exactly, because we never had Cadillac here down under anyway.

Cadillac was all systems go in Australia, even after it was first delayed - Cadillac showed off it's CTS Coupe at the Australian International Motor Show (formally the Sydney Motor Show, until Sydneysiders decided they were more important than that), saying it would join the CTS sports sedan to make up their first two models, both released by the end of 2009. The sedan was, in fact, meant to start selling in March.

So just before the boats set off for down under, Mark Reuss has bailed on us - it's not his fault, you understand. General Motors is, generally (forgive the pun), in a lot of strife at the moment, so the number one priority at the moment is to keep Holden above board. But, having said that, it has been confirmed that GM-owned brands Saab and Hummer will be staying in Australia for the forseeable future. We just won't be getting any more GM brands for a while yet. Mark Reuss had this to say on the demise of the Cadillac Australia project:

“There is only one chance to properly launch this brand in Australia and in these challenging times, we believe we couldn’t give it the best chance of success. There is no doubt the Cadillac CTS is a magnificent vehicle and the response since it was revealed at the Australian International Motor Show in October 2008 has been very positive. “But obviously since then the market for new cars has continued to deteriorate, the challenging broader economic environment remains largely unchanged and the exchange rate has worsened for imports."

Which I've been thinking, probably crazily on my part, is quite a shame. I can't believe I actually wanted Cadillacs to arrive on Aussie shores. Why? The vehicles in the pictures here are really quite nice - for the past 45 years the US has been turning out grotesque vehicles, and yet, suddenly, as if from nowhere, they've found their mojo. The CTS looks cutting-edge, original and athletic, as does its coupe sibling, and Cadillac Australia were even had sketchy plans to import the SRX in 2010. That too, is a brilliant looking X5 and ML-Class rival. For the first time since the fifties, Cadillac have reborn, become modern and individual, and we're going to miss out sampling the fruits of their renaissance. Knowing our luck, by the time Cadillac has settled back into mediocrity, they'll arrive on our doorstep again.

Another reason why I wanted Cadillac to launch in Australia is because I honestly think that the German juggernaut of Merc/BMW/Audi is getting a little too complacent for my liking. When they produce such counterproductive things as iDrive and COMMAND, you know they're starting to lose touch with consumers. Cadillac would be a good influence to shake things up, after all, the Germans have next to no competition - not enough people are brave enough to buy an Alfa Romeo, Saab is almost irrelevant because of its lack of prestige, and Volvo, though slowly gaining some youthfulness, still rests on it's staid safe laurels.

And here's the clincher: because we aren't getting the Cadillac CTS, we also miss out on the brilliant 410kW CTS-V. Now that really is a sad face thought... wait for it... :( there we go.

NEWS: Cadillac Not Coming to Australia, Boo Hoo...

When Mitsubishi made the current Outlander, both Citroen and Peugeot were involved, and so, it was announced that they would be making their own versions of the Outlander platform. The Citroen C-Crosser was quietly released in 2007 - I say quietly because aside from the more Citroen-esque nose, the shape of the car was pure Outlander. Even the interior was identical to the Mitsubishi. Peugeot then released the 4007, which again, was virtually identical, except for the face. So don't say anything about the Mitsubishi Outlander in front of people that work for Peugeot or Citroen. And no-one's really buying the C-Crosser or 4007 because we can all see through their lies - they're not new cars in their own right, merely copies. So Peugeot didn't want that to happen again with their latest attempt at a Compact SUV. It is all new, based on the 308 platform, and got an extra 0 to its name.

Actually, I'm reasonably impressed by the 3008. The overall shape of the car is quite pleasing, if a bit bulky and chubby. Of course, because this is a Peugeot, the face of the car is horrible - how hard can it be to make a car with a nice nose? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot - the French have no inspiration for nice noses. The domestic trend is quite the opposite. On the other hand, because this is a Peugeot, it will look much better in real life than it does in pictures. Hopefully. Well, I hated the 407 in pictures, but when I see them out on the road, they somehow look elegant. This had baffled me for a long time, until I realised the truth - Peugeot have invested a lot of money in the paint finish of their cars. Have you ever seen a 407 with a boring looking paintjob? They're always sparkly and stunning, or glossy and classy. Perhaps this is what is blinding me to the true ugliness of a Peugeot.

Anyway, the 3008. In Europe, the 3008 will be offered in a vast range of petrol and diesel engines, but when it arrives here in 2010, the story will be a bit different. The petrol range of the 3008 only reaches 1.6 Litres and 115kw, so it is most likely that we'll only get the top-of-the-range 2.0Litre diesel engine, producing 120kW and 340Nm. In 2011, Peugeot plan to introduce a diesel-electric 3008, like the Prologue HYbrid4 concept shown last year. Don't expect that to come here though, sadly.

The new 3008 will be offered in 5-seat and 7-seat configurations, and Peugeot want the 3008 to fill the roles of SUV, people mover, and family hatchback. I personally think it will join the Nissan Dualis in a new market segment - a sort of 4x4, sort of hatchback kind of car. Perhaps then it would be a good idea to create a front wheel drive version of the 3008, Peugeot? In this way, the 3008 will save weight (increasing performance, economy, etc.) and hopefully also make some gains in the handling department. It's not like people who want a 3008 will want to go off-road, by any stretch of the imagination.

Like when they launched the 308, Peugeot are harping incessantly on about how their new cars are of vastly better quality. And though I'll admit that the interior looks pleasant, in an Audi R8 kind of way, time will be the judge of their claims. Wouldn't it be great if other car makers could make their more interesting cars as reliable as a Toyota?

But do you think that Peugeot really is purposely entering their car in a new market segment? Does the 3008 really compete with the Nissan Dualis? You know what I'm talking about when you see them next to each other. They both share the same low ride height, anyway. Let me know whether you think the concept will take off - I believe, providing the price is right, that it will.

NEWS: Peugeot 3008 Officially Launched into a New Market Segment

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