I really didn't know the difference between a sunroof and a moonroof - I only worked it out yesterday. So I thought I'd share it with you. I had always imagined that a sunroof and a moonroof were exactly the same thing, but now know the rather significant difference.

A sunroof is essentially a large glass panel in the roof of a car, which is almost always heavily tinted (so all the UV rays don't come into the car and sizzle the top of your head). The idea is that you can see through the glass and up to the wonders of blue skies. Sometimes however, it is simply too hot or too sunny for that kind of thing, so you can usually cover the sunroof from the inside with a retractable sheet of plastic or fabric which shields you from the light. Alternatively, if you're diggin' the sunshine, you can (usually electrically) make the sunroof glass slide up over the top of your roof, and let the golden rays of sun in. Hence, this is why it is called a "sunroof."

A moonroof is very similar, except for one important missing feature. With a moonroof, you can't allow the glass panel to slide away and let the sunshine in - it's a fixed panel. I suppose that's why it's called a "moonroof" - you can't let the golden rays of moonshine in, no matter how hard you try.

All this is illustrated with this picture below. On the left of the picture is a sunroof for the front passengers - it's letting the sun in. You can also see a plastic grab handle in the middle of the roof which allows you to cover over the glass (you might need to click the picture so you can see it in a larger format). To the right of the picture is a moonroof for the rear passengers, which has all the features of the sunroof, without the ability to let the sun completely "in", if you know what I mean.Another cool feature you might hear of is a "panoramic sunroof". I've included this picture of one in a Citroen C4. The thing that makes it "panoramic" is that unlike the sunroof and moonroof in the previous picture, a panoramic sunroof spans the entire roof length of the car. It's like one giant sunroof. Except for the fact that it really should be called a panoramic moonroof, because it's one huge big fixed glass panel, and cannot allow sunlight properly "in" - unhindered by tinted glass.Okay, there really isn't a huge difference between these things, but if you're going to splash out such a huge amount of money on a sunroof/moonroof (usually about $2000), I think you might want to make sure it has all the features you want.

LINGO: Sunroof vs. Moonroof

From some of your responses to my recent article about the Subaru Stella on show in Melbourne, I guessed that you may think I'm the usual middle-aged car-nut. Apparently, I hate the environment, and electric cars. Clearly, these people can't read.

As I said in that article, I love electric cars. Not ones like the Subaru Stella, though. I prefer ones that actually are a significant step toward sustainable and environmentally friendly motoring. Like this Mitsubishi iMiEV. And guess what? It's coming to a showroom near you. This is the good parts you need to know:

The Mitsubishi iMiEV may only have a 47kW motor, but with 180Nm it will have impressive acceleration, and it has a healthy top speed of 130kmh. If you don't believe that those figures are enough to provide "normal" acceleration, you only need to consider that the iMiEV weighs just over a tonne - 1080kg. It's plenty, trust me. Power comes from Lithium-ion batteries, and can give the iMiEV a range of 160km, which is more than enough for most daily commutes, or your lazy Sunday drive. Recharging the batteries at the end of the day takes between 7-14 hours from flat to fully charged, depending on your power source. That may sound like a lot, but most of the time, it won't take that long to fully charge it, because it won't be fully flat to start with, if you know what I mean. Putting it on charge overnight will do just fine.

So what are the downsides, assuming there are any? Yes, there are, but crucially, as I would like to point out, they are not as significant as they are with the Stella. Like the Stella, the iMiEV is expensive. At $30,000, it may be a seriously hefty price premium for a car that is only 3.4 metres long (a whole half a metre shorter than the Colt, which isn't a huge car to start with), but nevertheless, I must commend the iMiEV for putting environmentally friendly motoring within the financial reach of a lot of people. Not everyone, admittedly, and a car this small may not be practical for some people, but the iMiEV is highly space-efficient, since it is an electric adaptation of the hugely successful Mitsubishi i (which sadly isn't sold here).

Yes, it does have some limitations, but the Mitsubishi iMiEV is a huge step in the right direction, and one that is useable for an average Joe like me, everyday. That's a win-win. I can only hope that the Australian public take to it warmly, which will encourage other car makers to bring their new, high-tech electric cars to Australia.

MELBOURNE 2009: Mitsubishi iMiEV is Electrifying

I love electric cars. But I hate electric cars like the Subaru Stella. I hate electric cars that give the false pretence of being glimpses of the future - the Subaru Stella is not the future. Not only is production unlikely, but everyday use is downright impractical. Yes, it is a plug-in electric car, and yes, that is wonderful, but this is a poor example of a car company talking up its green and technological credentials.
For example, the Stella can only do 80km on one charge. And also, it can only go up to a top speed of 100kmh. That sounds fine, because it makes you unable to speed, but at the same token, electric cars only have one gear, as opposed to the four, five, or six you get in normal cars these days. At the car's top speed, the Stella absolutely revs its guts off, which is useless for engine life, and power usage.

And here's the clincher. If the Subaru Stella went into production, it would cost $100,000. What a waste of good money! Get it away from me - it's pathetic.

MELBOURNE 2009: Subaru Makes A Stella Electric Failure

You'd think that supercars don't really get much of a mention in WTF?! - they're usually very cool, and very fast stuff usually doesn't deserved to be bagged. But this does. A lot.

Mansory is a German tuning firm (always those retarded Germans...) that, on the whole, has disturbingly little taste, and the cars they tune nearly always go from nice to nasty. When they got their hands on the Mercedes McLaren SLR however, it went from nice to downright nauseous.

If the warning bells aren't yet ringing now that you're looking at all the pictures, I'll explain the details that will make you chunder like you never have before. First of all, it's called the Mansory Renovatio - that nearly speaks for itself, seeing as they were only one letter away from calling it the Mansory Renovation. But what is meant to be decadent and opulent, is really sickly - finding out about this car made me feel like I had eaten too much white chocolate (which is quite a foreign feeling to me, trust me).

The exterior bodykit, let's face it, wasn't such a bad start - they could have done much, much worse. They left bits here and there in carbon, so it looks a bit more serious and racer-like. However, they overlooked one small thing - they gave an ape the keys to the paint shed, and they went and painted it gold. Yes, gold. This colour... never works. Never. On anything. Let alone one of the worlds most exclusive supercars - they've gone and raped the exterior of this beautiful car with gaudy gold paint, that's what they've done. And this too, should be a criminal offence.

Alright, I understand that this is meant to be a bespoke car - and the sky's the limit really, when it comes to naffness - but did they really have to carry the gold over to the interior? You get: gold inserts on the seats (dimpled, to echo what a rich prick you are), a gold shift lever, gold dashboard inserts, gold stitching in the leather, but then, for some reason, blue dials. Mmmm... yes... But don't forget that you've still got gold coloured alloy wheels and gold coloured engine accents! But do you want to know what Mansory have to say about their distasteful interior?

"Mansory has succeeded in creating the perfect symbiosis of sporting functionality and luxurious environment. [cough, synergy synergy synergy... cough] Only the very best materials have been used in the interior and provide for well-being."

And I am a monkey's bum. It hardly seems to matter that they tuned the SLR's engine up to 571kW - you have a car that provides for your well-being. Which is a bit rich, considering I feel sick every time I look at a picture of the Renovatio - is that well-being?!?!

You had to ask how much, didn't you? Well, the McLaren SLR costs $600,000 - roughly - so you could expect this to be considerably more. And, it'll be... uh... exculsive, anyway - surely no one wants one of these. So the price? Price On Asking. They won't even let me know how much a Renovatio costs. Have you're wallet ready, because a Renovatio costs far more than a renovation. Not that the Domestic Blitz team would get into this - even Shelley Craft isn't this gaudy.

WTF?! #5: The Mansory Monstrosity Redefining "Bad Taste"

Have you ever paused for a moment to think "What would it be like to have [insert rich celebrity or politician here]'s life, and be able to drive their cars?"

No, you probably haven't. But I have, and the last time I did that, I decided that a new blog segment will be born. It's called "Jealousy", simply because I am jealous of the people I feature in this segment - the first up is the Queen of England. Yes, she's old and probably should just die and leave us all alone, but I really do wish I was in her will just so I could pick up one of her luxurious cars. Just one, Mrs. Queen, please - that's all I ask. In return, you can get me to paint a picture of you that makes you look like Jessica Alba, rather than the tired old granny Rolf Harris painted you as.

When you think about the British Royals, the first thing that comes to mind is Rolls-Royces. And aren't they just divine. The oldest Rolls is actually one that the Queen herself bought, before she was handed the throne, and it became a State car after her coronation - it was a Phantom IV. Anyone who knows about Rolls-Royces will nod in solemn agreement when I say that it was one super rare car. Only 18 were built, so there you go - it still breathes in the royal garages. There are, of course, other Rollers - a Phantom V, and two Phantom VIs, of which a Silver Jubilee model (pictured) which was presented to her majesty by the British Motor Industry on that occasion. It's hard to tell who when and why bought what, because, as snobby British people do, they don't tell you.

A quirk of the Royal cars is that the Queen does not use the Spirit of Ecstasy (the pretty girl with wings and boobs that bends over on the bonnet of every Rolls-Royce) for her principal car. On the Phantom IV she first bought in 1950, she stuck a little metal sculpture of "St. George slaying the dragon" on the bonnet instead. Yeah... whatever. I liked the other chick better. Maybe Lizzy saw her as competition and said to her guard: "off with her head!" - how do we know? Georgie stabbing the giant lizard can be transferred to any car the Queen likes, so that the principal car of the time wears the odd sculpture.

Although it wasn't always the Rolls-Royce that was the headline act. The first ever royal car, bought long before little Lizzy was ever even conceived was... wait for it... a Renault. A 1906 Renault XB (14-20 HP) was, according to Edward VII, "royally smashing" - so he bought one, and then grumbled a lot when it broke down so regularly. It was a Renault, what did he expect? Not much has really changed, has it...

Other than that, there have been more spectacular ventures, like the 1934 McLaughlin-Buick that Edward VIII fell in love with. It has since been named "most romantic car in the world", and Edward's example sold in New York 2007 for $185,000 at auction. Which is, of course, a steal.

But more commonly, the British Royal Family bought Daimlers. They have three Daimler DS420 limousines, one of which was owned by the Queen Mother (who also has a statuette mascot, the "Britannia"), and they're, well, they look pretty similar to everything else really - really... regal. Except perhaps a touch girlier. They were used as their "everyday" drives. If you can get used to a car that is six metres long for your everyday drive. Plenty of room for the corgis then.

But for her Majesty's Golden Jubilee, the British Motor Industry outdid themselves. Bentley designed a limousine, just for the Queen of England. It's called the Bentley State Limousine, and it's heavily modified from a Bentley Arnage R platform - only two were built, just for the royals. This makes the State Limousine rarer than Lizzy's Phantom IV. This car has been given not just the security once over, but the security umpteen times over - it features armor-plated cladding, a mine-resistant floor, bazooka-proof glass (...!), and a cabin that can be sealed against a gas attack (no Zyklon B neo-nazi terrorist are going to kill this Queen). All this does make a car very heavy, and at 4 tonnes, the Queen isn't going anywhere in a hurry. I also have a rare picture of the interior for your enjoyment, complete with the driving gloves and hat of the driver.

Still, I can't help hating the Queen for all her luxury, her breeding, and the way she seems to get everything for free (what a scab). I know what it's called, this feeling burning up inside me. It's called JEALOUSY.

... and I also wish that Jessica Alba was the Queen of England. Even though she's not English.

JEALOUSY #1: God Save Our Gracious... Cars

NEWS: Bond is about to get jealous

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