Why did they do it? The current Liberty and Outback are pleasant looking cars, even if they are a little bland. But they've just made it hideous. Yep, this is the new Subaru Liberty and Outback, ready to take up the fight with the Mazda6 and Honda Accord Euro - but it has huge disadvantages before it even steps into the ring with the other two.

It's clear that they tried to make the new Liberty more macho and aggressive - we now get flared wheelarches, lots of sharp surface detailing on the bonnet, and aggro, flared-up headlamps. But for some reason, they didn't complete the job. Even without noting that the face of the car looks like a stunned rabbit, you can't deny the door handles look like they've been lifted off a Toyota Yaris, the alloy wheels couldn't have been plainer if they had tried, and the rear end looks so much like a toned down Honda Accord (the other one, not the Euro) it isn't funny.

And it's not like you can take solace in the interior, either. It looks quite similar (though thankfully not the same) to the interior of the new Impreza, which is odd, because I can't think of anyone who really likes the interior in the new Impreza. It really is a shame, because I was expecting a truly wonderful new interior for the Liberty. This was, of course, because the last Liberty had a fantastic interior. In fact, I think that this one may well be a step backward:

And the Outback isn't any better. At least its face doesn't look cross-eyed like the Liberty, but at the back, we have the worst-designed reflectors I have ever seen in a long time. How hard is it to integrate reflectors into the design of a car? They look as out of place as elephant tusks on a sausage dog.

In terms of specs, we have three engine choices: a 2.5 Litre, 127kW revision of the old engine, a turbocharged 198kW version of that same engine (for the Liberty GT models) and instead of the old 3.0 Litre, we now have a 3.6 Litre 191kW six-cylinder engine which no longer requires premium grade fuel like the old one. In transmissions, you can now get a 6-speed manual as standard, but the standard automatic has now become a CVT (continuously variable transmission). It remains to be seen how much confidence Subaru have in this kind of automatic transmission, because you can only get a standard 5-speed auto in the 3.6 Litre version.

Gains have also apparently been made in interior space, which is great, but the old Liberty wasn't as roomy as it could have been, so you'd hope the gains are fairly significant. In another sign of changing priorities for Subaru, they've also fitted a dreaded electronic parking brake. A normal parking brake would have been just fine, thanks.

NEW YORK 2009: Subaru Ruins the Liberty/Outback

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

The last couple of WTF?! articles have been about stuff that really has been, well... kinda cool. Now it's no more Mr. Nice Guy. It's time to bring you more of the wierdest cars in the universe. And they don't come wierder than this. Quite a lot of electric powered concept cars are poor excuses for a car. But this concept, from the greatest minds of Kyoto university, no less, takes the cake. Because this electric car, which weighs only 60 kilograms and has a grand total of one seat, is made from panda food. I'm not joking.The BamGoo, as it's unfortunately called, is made almost entirely from bamboo, and would make a perfect culinary snack for a hungry panda. The significance of it is that bamboo is one of the fastest growing materials on earth, making it, uh... thoroughly renewable. Forget the crash test safety, the fact is looks like a tumbleweed, and the car's odd tendency to blow over in a mild wind - this thing can go a total of 50 kilometres on one charge!!! That's incredible... NOT.Even the woman in the picture below looks pretty embarassed. And so she should be - this is probably the dumbest and most impractical green car that's been created for quite a while, which is saying quite a lot. I've said it looks like poo, I've said it looks like a tumbleweed, but I've finally realised what it really looks like - this is a peanut on wheels.

WTF?! #8: The BamGoo That Looks Like a Poo

This is what I believe the next-gen Subaru Liberty (known as the Legacy elsewhere in the world) will look like, if you take away all the WRX-like bodykit and futuristic lights. It's letting us know that it is definitely still a Subaru, anyway: it's pretty ugly. But that's what Subaru are known for, and that's what they'll continue to be known for. Besides, I'm sure the car will be of exceptional quality and will handle beautifully. But it definitely won't be cool.

Actually, when the current Liberty was released in 2003, I quite liked it, and I thought it had a classy masculinity that was missing from the Accord Euro and Mazda6 - I thought that Subaru may have finally cracked it, when it comes to styling. It may have been somewhat bland, but at least it wasn't ugly, like the infamous bug-eyed Impreza of 2000. But alas, then they brought out the Tribeca, made the Forester ugly as well, and gave the Liberty a facelift that didn't really work. It looked worse than it did to start with!

I can see that this design is, in many ways, an evolution of the current Liberty, but far more agressive. I can't really tell you why it is so bad, but when I compare this this to a Mazda6, I just know that this new Liberty doesn't look quite right. I think the rear of the car is by far the most offensive area.

So get ready for a new Liberty, set to offer a third alternative to the brilliant Accord Euro and Mazda6. It'll turn up late this year or early next year (next year is 2010 now, remember).

DETROIT MOTOR SHOW 2009: Subaru Legacy Concept Points to the Future Liberty/Legacy

I like green cars - I like cars that are environmentally friendly, but I've never really like the Toyota Prius. Why? Other Prius-haters cite figures of fuel consumption that apparently aren't that economical, some people say a European diesel is more efficient, Toyota has been accused of halting greencar progress, etc. - but I'm a lot more simplistic. I believe that the latest generation of green cars should be accessible to the wider world, not just green fanatics - green cars should become the "people's car" of the new millenium. But average joes don't want to drive something that looks like my bathroom soap and pretends to be too technologically advanced for simple minds like mine. In this way, the Prius' appeal is limited, and it's environmental impact (although debatable, anyway...) remains limited. Which is sad, and it almost seems like Toyota does this on purpose - the Honda FCX Clarity doesn't look bad, neither does the Chevy Volt (well, it looks more normal than the Prius does, at least give me that). But anyway, this is the new, 2010 Toyota Prius. Basically the story is "more of the same". The new model does refine the concept slightly however.

It doesn't get lithium-ion battery technology like the Chevrolet Volt (the Toyota remains with nickel-hydride), but it has become even more fuel efficient, even though the 1.5 Litre petrol engine has been upsized to a more powerful 1.8 Litre. Hopefully now the Prius won't be as slow as we remember it was, but Toyota won't speculate on exact efficiency figures just yet - I will keep you posted. Instead, they've announced a 0-100kmh acceleration figure: 9.8 seconds, which puts it only one tenth of a second slower than the Corolla.

What Toyota really have been bragging about is the drag coefficient of the new Prius - the lowest in the production car world. At 0.25, it surprised even me, but I suppose it a car looks like a piece of soap it had better be aerodynamic, huh? To put it in perspective, the Ferrari 599 has a drag coeffiecient of 0.33 - and it too is considered rather slippery.

There's not much to say for the prius in terms of design - they've kept the basic shape, which I've never liked, they've given it a face similar to the Corolla, which I've never liked, and they've kept the retarded split rear window thing, which you guessed it, I've never liked. Toyota have been saying that for this new model, they rejected the futuristic ideas of the current model and went with a more conventional, user-friendly design - but this new interior doesn't look very useer-friendly at all, so I hope they're right.

In the end, I still believe that the Prius is an irrelevant car - why did the current model have to cost $40,000 and still only be equipped with two airbags? - and it remains to be seen whether the new model will adress this. But first impressions have me betting that it won't.

DETROIT MOTOR SHOW 2009: The Next-Gen Toyota Prius for Next-Gen Greenies

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

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

This, unbelievably, is a Ssangyong.

It is called the C200, and although it's just a concept, and quite unlikely to make it into production looking as remotely awesome as it does... it gobsmacks me. Not because it's quite that good-looking, but don't get me wrong, it looks great. What I'm trying to say is... how did Ssangyong do it?

Think of any other Ssangyong cars you can name. If you don't know what a Ssangyong is, google them, or look at the cars I will talk about below. You won't forget what a Ssangyong is when you've seen one. Ssangyong invented ugly. Okay, they may not have invented it, but they have perfected ugliness. And unlike the Picnic chocolate bar, Ssangyongs aren't delicious to drive.

Take the Actyon for example - it's name may sound like one of the moons of Uranus (I think it's really just "Action", with the 'i' replaced with a 'y' - as you do), but it manages to take the horrible body shape of the BMW X6, and make it soooo much worse. Of the two pictures below, the BMW is first, and then - brace yourself - is the Actyon.
Okay, the BMW is pretty awful (well, some like it, some don't), but the Actyon simply looks wrong, like a joke. "Hey, don't you think it'd be funny if you saw cars that looked like this running around?" said one designer to the other. "Ssangyong like ugly stuff, let's show it to them first." And there is the history of the Actyon.

The Ssangyong website claims that "Actyon's distinctive crossover look incorporates the sleek lines of a coupe into a small SUV". Well, I also learned from the website that the name Actyon was actually coined, despite my speculation, from "Active" and "Youth" (supposedly it's target market) and as soon as you think about how active the youth of today are, bam, Ssangyong's credibility is in tatters. Don't believe a word they say. It is ugly.

Then there's the grandaddy of ugliness. The Stavic (or Rodius in some markets) has the most ill-conceived face in the motor industry, in my humble opinion. The grille reminds everyone I know of a burnt thong.And when you combine that with an "unmistakably" proportioned profile (below), you get a car that has a "sophisticated look". Ssangyong's words, not mine. I told you not to believe a word they say.
Which brings me to the C200. It looks brilliant, and even if you take away all the futuristic LED lights, the looks still have substance. It will, apparently, be the renaissance of Ssangyong, and is indicative of their long-term plan - to add "stylishness and progressiveness" into their model line-up. I can't wait - if they start making cars like the C200, I've got a feeling I'm really going to start liking Ssangyong.But sadly, if a past record is anything to go by, then it is all lies. Ssangyong's new models couldn't possibly have "stylishness and progressiveness" - not if they say so, anyway. But I want them to prove me wrong so badly. Please prove me wrong, Ssangyong, and I'll never Ssay anything horrible about you again.

PARIS MOTOR SHOW 2008: Ssangyong learns what Sstyle means