GENEVA 2009: Aston Martin Lagonda
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.
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.
MELBOURNE 2009: Audi Q5 Stages Jennifer Hawkins
The Audi Q5 has already been unveiled around the world, but Audi took the opportunity at the Melbourne Motor Show to launch it in Australia. Wherever it went, the Q5 didn't really get the warm reception Audi was looking for. Most people can see that the new Q5, although meaning to be compact, seems gregariously large, bulky, and lacks elegance. But Audi had a secret weapon in Melbourne - it was a weapon that gave Audi the warm reception it wanted. But it wasn't directed at the car.
To unveil the Audi Q5, Audi enlisted the help of 2004 Miss Universe winner Jennifer Hawkins, apparently to "show off" the "good looks" of the Q5 - but in reality, she was a welcome distraction.
To be honest, Hawkins was the real news of the launch, which mostly involved Audi prattling on about it's four engine choices (I actually almost tuned in when they talked about the 2.0 Litre Turbo-Diesel one that uses only 7.0 Litres per 100km). It will go on sale immediately, and will be a competitor to the BMW X3, Volvo XC60, and when it arrives, the Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class.
BATTLE: Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class vs. Volvo XC60
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.
