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

Just days after the Saab 9-3X has been revealed, Audi has decided that this is a market it wants in on. For some reason. Well, anyway, it has jacked up the ride height of the A4 Avant, and given it a funky two-tone paint job. If you get a lighter shade in the main colour, the complementary colour will be a dark grey, but if you get a darker shade for the main colour, you get a lighter, silvery-grey for the complementary colour. This, of course, looks rather questionable if you choose the poo-brown colour - check it out in the picture gallery below.

NEWS: Audi A4 Allroad

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

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