No Motorsports should be in the Olympics. In fact no team sports like Basketball or Soccer should be either imo

I dont. I think the level of resesrch that goes into a pole is far less than a 2-stroke powered go kart?

Rarely, if ever, has a British-based vehicle maker had so much to celebrate, but at the same time, so much to lose sleep over. Land Rover's mud-plugging, mountain-climbing, snow, sand and ice-eating Discovery 3 is undoubtedly the best 4x4 of 2004. It hugely embarrasses lesser opposition such as the Mercedes M-Class and BMW X3, and even makes the excellent Volvo XC90 seem a bit redundant.

All things considered (including a tempting initial purchase price from £26,995 and traditionally strong residual values), the Disco 3 might just prove to be the greatest vehicle the Midlands manufacturer has made. But it's as if some people - politicians included - seem determined to sabotage the launch of the new Disco, the stability of the Solihull operation and workforce and, consequently, the very survival of the firm.

The workers in Britain are doing a good job, but they and the unions which represent them have to take their share of the responsibility for the uncertainties. So does Land Rover's owner, Ford, which wants to see greater efficiencies after investing billions of pounds in the firm. But it's the 4x4-loathing politicians who are doing the real damage. The Mayor of Paris had a pop at such vehicles on the eve of the Disco 3's launch, but he would, wouldn't he? After all, French firms and workers don't build 4x4s. But Land Rover of Britain does. Which makes me wonder why London Mayor Ken Livingstone is effectively declaring war on the company, the workforce and its world-class products.

First he described 4x4 drivers as "complete idiots". Then, when I invited him during a TV show to withdraw the insult (which I assumed he'd made in the heat of the moment), he reiterated his sentiments. It seems he really does think that me in my old, but well maintained Landie, Sir Richard Branson in his Range Rover and The Queen in her two top-of-the-range versions (one for her, the other for the minders) fall into the "idiot" category.

Furthermore, in the very week when Land Rover was allowing the world's press to test drive the greatest new British-built 4x4, there was yet more talk of Livingstone's already punishing congestion charge being doubled for drivers of all-wheel-drive cars. Prospective purchasers of the Discovery 3 who have to commute into the English capital on a daily basis may therefore have to pay around £2,400, instead of the usual £1,200 per annum, in congestion taxes. And such an unjust financial penalty will make the purchase of any Land Rover, even a baby one, untenable to many.

Congratulations Ken, you've just lost the company and its hard-working employees some much needed customers.

Still, you'd imagine that Livingstone's Labour masters in central Government must be putting plenty of work Land Rover's way, what with all the military action they've been embarking on around the world? But I understand the firm has not had a substantial military order from the Defence Department since 1997 - the year Labour came to power. I just can't understand why there is such loathing in the corridors of power for the 4WD cars in which British workers specialise and lead the rest of the world.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Take the Citroen C4, Vauxhall Astra Panoramic and the new Ford Focus and what have you got? Three of the biggest stars of this week's Paris Motor Show. The French firm knows its Xsara has, over the years, lost its looks (if it had any in the first place), and so has taken several brave steps forward by designing a replacement that's deliciously unconventional. It doesn't really matter if the C4 floats your boat or not. The point is - whether you like it or loathe it - Citroen must be given credit for daring to be different, making a bold statement and moving the game on.

The same can be said of Vauxhall's Astra. It's nothing like its predecessor, and I'd go as far as saying it's as visually appealing as anything else out there - BMW and Audi hatches included. But not content with that, Vauxhall has introduced its Panoramic windscreen in time for Paris. I know some readers have concerns about possible insurance problems (see letter of the week, opposite), but for £1,000, the driver and front-seat passengers get a huge, unique, curvaceous and airy glass expanse from the edge of the bonnet over their heads and into the roof. In the nicest possible way, it's abnormal.

Which is why I can't understand Ford's strategy with its latest Focus. True, the inside has changed for the better. But the exterior design has gone backwards. To my mind the firm had three choices: 1. Take the safe route and introduce improvements, tweaks and reworkings, but essentially allow the incoming Focus to look like the still handsome outgoing version (in the same way Porsche has done with the Boxster). 2. Adopt a more exciting, risky strategy by axing the current car in favour of a mould-breaking new one (as Citroen did with the Xsara-replacing C4). 3. Do the unthinkable and produce a new Focus that doesn't look as good as the old one. In short, press the self-destruct button.

Amazingly, I think Ford has chosen the third option. I know the external appearance of a motor car isn't everything. Driving experience, reliability, build quality, value for money, depreciation, interior design, safety, servicing, repair and insurance costs plus fuel economy are also of major importance.

But what astounds me is that Ford has seemingly got it absolutely right in all those difficult areas, but screwed up with the overall styling. I speak as somebody who last week drove the new Focus to an English seaside resort, parked it up on the esplanade behind an old model and asked passers-by which of the two was more appealing to the eye. The old shape won.

If, like me, you're not convinced by the look of the new Ford before it's even gone on sale, imagine how unimpressed we're going to be with it over the next few years, as that's how long it will be around. It's close to being the ugly duckling of the small family hatchback bunch already. So where's it likely to end up by, say, 2009, when fierce competition from ever-improving rivals will embarrass the physical appearance of the Focus still further? It's a great car, but it's a shame - a real shame - how it looks.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

they look ok ( if you like that sort of styling) but they are like Fiats.. look great, have a nice price tag attached to them but its as though they have some kind of self destruct button hidden away waiting for the warranty to run out and then... POW the car is fubarred leaving the owner with a large bill and wishing they'd bought a Renault or Seat 

Speaking of cute iccle baby cars... I saw one of those kia picanto thingies the other day.. ohhh bless they are soo cute and dont even look too bad

But WHY would anyone need a bloody great 4 X 4 in London ??
Love Lynda XX.  :headscratch.gif:

The point of a 4x4???? To go offroading. So what do most 4x4 drivers do with thier offroader?? Go grocery shopping. Rediculous. I just can not fathom why people buy offroad vehicles and use them for town driving. Catering to the demands of people, Jeep, Land Rover et al all make luxury 4x4s....so

The point I'm getting to is, WHY the F*** do peole want luxury 4x4s. Its rediculous.
By nature, 4x4 is an offroad machine but people feel impowered by driving them so now we have luxury 4x4s......

Absolutely amazing.

50 pence  :ohmy: 

Ahhhhh, but biggest isn't always the best !!
Love Lynda XX.  ;-)

People might not like me saying this, but if you put the emotions, traditions and local pride to one side, the part closure of Jaguar's Brown's Lane plant makes a lot of sense. The Big Cat is married to a corporation called Ford. The couple have three marital homes - Brown's Lane, Coventry, Castle Bromwich in Birmingham and Halewood, Merseyside. Make that four if the engineering and design centre in Whitley, Coventry, is counted. No marriage needs that many separate bases, so some of the Brown's Lane Estate is being sold off, making the pairing more financially solvent.

That seems like perfect sense to me, particularly when you realise a big chunk of the operation - the head offices, Heritage Trust and wood veneer facility - will remain at the famous venue which continues to exist as a Jaguar plant, merely on a smaller scale. It's just that all car production will now be at Castle Bromwich and Halewood.

True, there will be redundancies, but the Jaguar top brass insists that with positions on offer at sister company Aston Martin, the overall loss might be 100 production jobs, rather than the thousands sensationally reported originally. I also understand that those workers who want to retire early will get very favourable severance deals.

Nobody, least of all me, is underestimating the impact redundancies can have. But car workers - as with the rest us - have to accept that lower-than-expected sales, market penetration and profits (or in Jag's case, losses) inevitably mean cutbacks.

Jaguar is engaged in a global battle with Mercedes and BMW. Both built plants in the American south, and Audi has done the same in Hungary. Yet we get all hot under the collar because Jaguar will only have two proper factories in England. If and when Jaguar production moves abroad, we can begin to worry a bit. But when car building is simply being shifted from one part of England to another, start believing - as I do - that this is better in the long run for the viability of the company and its workforce.

Do you really think a forward-thinking man like Jaguar founder William Lyons would, if he was alive today, let sentimentality get the better of him? Or would he say Halewood and Castle Bromwich are more appropriate sites, and that part of Brown's Lane has had its day? It's my guess he'd go for the second option.

Car companies are not unlike other operations I could mention. Did Arsenal become a lesser team when it moved from Woolwich to Highbury, and will it become worse when it moves to its new stadium? I think not. The Daily Telegraph didn't deteriorate just because it left its historic home in Fleet Street for Wapping. And Auto Express has got better, not worse, since it moved from offices in south London to its current headquarters in the capital's West End. Even if there are some painful job losses at Jag, com-panies competing in an international business environment have to move onwards, upwards and occasionally out. That's merely what Jaguar is doing, while still managing to retain part of its spiritual home at Brown's Lane. What's the problem?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Back in March, I exposed the problem of variable message signs on the M1 and M25. They were switched off when they should have been relaying important traffic information well in advance of the scene of a serious accident. Seven months later, little, if anything, has improved. The authorities still can't be bothered to use their expensive overhead electronic information boards effectively in an effort to divert unsuspecting motorists away from trouble spots.

I had to be at Heathrow for a 9pm flight to South Africa last month, and did everything I could to ensure I'd arrive in plenty of time. About five miles away, I congratulated myself for doing a journey of around 100 miles in less than two hours. But I was premature. Only a minute later, with the airport nearly in sight, it was time for some serious emergency braking, queuing and agonising time wasting. I'm not merely talking about excessive traffic levels or a shunt that took out a lane. This was hardcore gridlock caused, from what I can gather, by a serious accident nearly 12 hours earlier on a neighbouring road.

So chaotic and unpoliced was the scene that drivers stuck for ages were running out of fuel, thereby adding to the mayhem as they had no choice but to abandon their vehicles and walk for help. Others attempted, in desperation, to use the hard shoulder or banking to escape. With the airport tantalisingly close, I was now averaging around 2mph. Thousands of my fellow car and bus occupants were in danger of missing their flights. I had to use aggressive, possibly illegal, potentially dangerous driving manoeuvres, and had no choice but to park in Heathrow's rip-off short-term car park in order to make my flight.

When there's a major road incident, the emergency services must deal with the tragic damage on a local level. But separate from that, the Highways Agency, Department for Transport, local authorities, police forces and any other relevant agencies must concentrate on the bigger picture, think nationally and steer drivers away from the mayhem.

Warning signs are no good to drivers once they've already joined queues caused by accidents, roadworks or closures. We need the warnings tens, scores or even hundreds of miles in advance, so we can take alternative routes. Had I, for example, faced variable message signs reading 'Major delays on M25/M4 Heathrow' or something similar, I could have taken one of the numerous back roads into the airport. Car drivers, unlike rail and bus passengers, can do this, thereby staying away from trouble spots and creating much-needed space for ambulances, fire engines, recovery trucks and police cars.

But we can do our bit only if we're told well in advance. The warnings must be carefully worded to reflect the seriousness of the situation. They could even be displayed in green, amber or red, depending on the severity of the chaos ahead. How difficult is it for the highway, safety and environmental authorities to do this? Not very - they simply can't be bothered. Installing a network of electronic information boards and typing in a few meaningful messages is obviously too much like hard work for them. It just isn't good enough.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I hope I'm horribly wrong, but I think it's only a matter of time before we see another British factory calling an abrupt halt to vehicle production. Ford has already proved the point that it's possible to stop building cars in Dagenham, and indeed the rest of the UK, without the expected backlash. It should have come from the Government, unions and customers, but they're seemingly content to stand by and see the US giant transform itself from a leading UK car maker to a mere importer. There's a very big difference between those two activities, but nobody, apart from those who've lost their jobs, seems to care.

Have sales suffered since Uncle Henry decided there'll be no such thing as a Brit-built Ford car? Not really. Vauxhall took over the number one slot in August, but the blue oval clawed it back again and will, at year's end, maintain its regular position as top dog. And that could be all the encouragement GM/Vauxhall, Britain's traditional number two, needs before it abandons or further curtails its UK activities.
The former chairman of Vauxhall, Nick Reilly, is the new Daewoo/Chevrolet boss and apparently sees more of a future for himself at GM's operations in Chongchon 2 Dong, Inchon, South Korea, than Luton, England.

True, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, limps on, but does the General in Detroit need it? Yes, yes, yes would be my emphatic answer, but I'm a biased Brit keen to see as many UK car production lines as possible. GM is the world's largest corporation, and the hard-nosed guys who run it have barely heard of Ellesmere Port, nor acquired an emotional attachment to it.

I'm not trying to talk up the frightening prospects of GM doing a Ford and withdrawing all its UK facilities. But I am being realistic in predicting that's exactly what could happen. How come? Because GM is on the brink of stripping out one in five jobs in Europe. That's 12,000 people. Although most of them will go in Opel in Germany, more need to be dumped from elsewhere, and if I was an employee at one of the comparatively tiny, globally irrelevant factories with a Saab or Vauxhall sign over the door, I'd be very, very twitchy.

Look at it from where the Yanks are standing; Europe is that small piece of land sitting somewhere between America and their new friends in Russia. Ellesmere Port and Trollhattan, Saab's heart in Scandinavia, probably aren't even perceived as being European locations. Logistically, they're a headache. They're relatively tiny and out of the way. They have no economies of scale. They're not building anything that can't be built elsewhere, possibly for less money. All things considered, they're probably more trouble than they're worth.

The Vauxhall brand can survive in the UK, just as Ford's does, without a single car being built here. Country of origin doesn't seem to bother many buyers. And in the case of MG Rover, 'Made in Britain' almost seems to have negative connotations. These firms' bosses are businessmen. And there's nothing to prevent them from diversifying into the property industry, by bulldozing factories for homes. It'll certainly be more lucrative than churning out cars which make them little profit, and often bring them nothing but heavy financial losses.

Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

There's only one motor industry phenomenon that's astonished me more than Skoda's transformation from joker to serious player in the past decade or so. And that's the demise of Mercedes. The Stuttgart company still has probably the most recognisable badge on the planet. All over the world, the words Merc or Benz have been generic terms for classy, luxury vehicles. And the firm still has the widest product line-up imaginable, with everything from the Smart ForTwo to the SLR supercar. But it's losing the plot. The machines continue to look the part, but progress for this maker and its customers means the cars aren't as good as they used to be.

I'm not just jumping on the 'bash Mercedes' bandwagon here. Years ago, I highlighted the problem of production being farmed out to countries such as Thailand and India - slightly dubious car building nations with vastly different and often inferior manufacturing habits. A senior director argued at the time that his company makes vehicles to the same exacting standards whether they're built in the Third World or Germany. I've never believed that, and dealers and other insiders have confirmed my doubts.

Problem number two is longevity. Mercedes is adamant its cars are as well built as ever, and that owners don't need to replace them earlier than they used to. But as somebody who occasionally sits behind the wheel of new Mercs and compares them with the bomb-proof Eighties S-Class which still sits on my drive, I can confirm you can see, feel, hear and almost smell the differences between the past and present motors.

And the straw that breaks the camel's back is that questionnaires worldwide - such as the Auto Express Driver Power Survey - have repeatedly revealed today's Mercedes customers are comparatively unhappy with their cars. Compared to what, exactly? Well, Mercs of the past to start with, but also products offered by rivals. It sounds corny, I know, but 'they don't make 'em like they used to' just about says it all on this occasion.

As I said, I'm not being wise after the event. I've repeatedly questioned the company's product demise. But at the end of last month, Financial Times readers - the people who drive or are chauffeured around in models wearing the three-pointed star - saw on their front pages a headline reading 'Poor quality of Mercedes' cars dents profits'. It was illustrated by a graphic showing the sickening slump in Merc reliability in the past decade.

I was rather hoping that the German manufacturer would hold its hands up, acknowledge the difficulties and explain itself. But it almost seems in denial. As with an alcoholic who doesn't see himself as a drunk, the firm admits it "can't put its finger" on the problems. Indeed, it doesn't even concede that it has any.

But it does, and they're huge. Mercedes has done the hard bit - building a brand and reputation known and respected globally. Now it's in danger of blowing all that, as it's lost the knack of making cars that keep the customers satisfied. Top brass need to pop across to the Czech Republic and Skoda HQ to see how the job should be done.

Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

People talk about a Car of the Year, but for me, there was no such thing. Cars of the year? Now that's an entirely different matter. There were several. So, with a little bit of help from readers who respond to my writing, plus radio listeners, TV viewers and Motorists' Association members who've contacted me, here goes...

Best budget model by a mile is the £5,495 Kia Picanto 1.0 GS, and I also have it down as my favourite city car. The Honda Jazz (a machine for town, country, motorway and anything else you care to throw at it) is the ultimate supermini, although I use that description loosely because this vehicle is more like a proper family hatchback.

The year's biggest, most significant battle has been in the mid-size hatch sector, where Citroen's C4 just nicks it. BMW's 1-Series could have secured the crown, but only if it was a few thousand pounds cheaper. Honda does it again in the MPV category with the FR-V - a genuine multi-purpose vehicle which is as happy as a six-seater as it is as a cargo carrier. Toyota's under-estimated Corolla Verso might not be the largest, but in diesel guise, it is the best and cleverest seven-seater, with rear chairs that can be hidden in the boot.

Audi's A4 gets my vote as top saloon. And while it's far from perfect, the Citroen C5 HDi estate (avoid the the petrol engine and saloon body) sneaks in as my favourite load-lugger. But there's a proviso - only if it's less than £15,000. Two relatively old gems - the Nissan 350Z and Mazda RX-8 - get the sports car and coupé prizes respectively.

The best executive motor I've driven in 2004 is Chrysler's 300C which, sadly, doesn't go on sale until next year and therefore cannot be included in my list - and that's why the sub-£40,000 Jaguar XJ wins. It's difficult to believe that there's currently a better luxury car than the big Jag, but there is such a vehicle. If you're spending more than 40 grand, it's the Audi A8. No apologies from me for ruling out Mercedes and BMW.

Clearest winner of the lot is the off-roader of the year - the all-new Land Rover Discovery. This model could have quite easily taken the luxury, estate, executive and MPV prizes, too. It's that good. Top soft-roader is the capable Kia Sorento D, which is also great value. The Aston Martin DB9 is easily my supercar champ, the concept prize goes to the Chrysler ME Four-Twelve, while my hybrid king is the Toyota Prius.

And if you allow me a little self-indulgence, my drive of the year was the enchanting Audi Le Mans concept. Coming back down to earth, I struggled to get too excited about any convertibles, so the £12,000 Fiat Barchetta gets my vote. The used car pick is the outgoing Ford Focus, which deserves to be transformed into a modern classic.

I make that five Japanese models picking up class wins, three Brits and Germans (all Audis), two French, two Americans (assuming Ford and its Focus are from the US) and one Italian. As I said, I can't honestly say that one motor stands out as the Car of the Year. But if I had to opt for three covering the bottom, mid and top ends of the market I'd go for the Picanto, Corolla Verso and Discovery. They're the best of the best.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

It looks easy, but as somebody who's tried and failed for years to master the art, I can tell you it's not. Michael Schumacher can do it, as can actor Al Pacino, guitar legend Eric Clapton and French footballer Zinedine Zidane. I'm talking about the skill of making difficult tasks seem desperately simple.

These people are not headless chickens. They adopt a less-is-more approach that doesn't involve screaming and shouting, or losing sleep over inferior opposition. Some of them are wrongly accused of arrogance, but none is guilty. It's justifiable confidence you're witnessing with these naturally gifted, lucky people.

I believe Toyota has similar qualities. This is a company which keeps its head down and gets on with the job. The results are world class. In a league table of international car manufacturers, I would say it's number one. Toyota and Lexus-badged products are arguably joint top for quality, reliability and customer satisfaction. And as I discovered when I recently rode in the back seat of a driverless Toyota in Tokyo, the firm already has the ability to build models which don't need me or you to control them. Plus who else is doing a better job than the company at selling desirable cars with alternative power sources? Nobody.

In view of its successes, how difficult do you think it is for Toyota to build off-roaders capable of taking on the current 4x4 champs from Jeep and Land Rover? Yet when I see the tame styling of its 2005 Land Cruiser, I wonder if the designers were awake as they worked on it, because this model is far from a stunner. But putting 
 
its appearance to one side, what a capable and confidence-inspiring set of wheels it is. While the car doesn't do the rough stuff any better or worse than its two rivals, it beats the US and British offerings for quality.

I know this because I've recently driven 400 miles in a Land Cruiser. Toyota contacted me and hinted it was fed-up with my conclusion that Jeeps and Land Rovers are pretty much the only tools for hardcore off-roading. The company vowed to make its point and force me to eat my words. When Mercedes once asked me to test its M-Class in the mud, it provided only a sand pit outside its US factory to play in. Confident Toyota went much further by dispatching me to rural South America, handing over the keys to the new 166bhp 3.0-litre Land Cruiser with manual gearbox, and ordering me to follow a nutcase rally driver called Israel.

Our journey was long and fast. Most of the region of Costa Rica we barrelled through had no paved roads or ones with potholes the size of bath tubs. The Land Cruiser proved unbreakable, which was just as well as we drove on some frighteningly narrow passes. Intriguingly, a hi-tech computer factory already exists in San Jose, the country's capital. I wouldn't mind betting a Toyota 4x4 plant will follow. The firm knows Costa Rica well, and virtually has its own punishing off-road course ready for action. Meanwhile, the company is merely toying with Jeep and Land Rover in the same way a big cat calmly plays with a pair of scared mice. Toyota's holding back for now. When its purr turns to a growl, there will be casualties.
Mike Rutherford

Article from: Auto Express

It has not been a good year so far. In fact, January has thrown up some unexpected, bizarre and plain scary motoring moments. It's as if the media in general, and the BBC in particular, have collectively decided that 2005 should be the year to kill the car. Or at the very least, kick the motorist. In view of the tragic flooding that has occurred in Britain and other parts of the world in the past few weeks, I was wondering how long it would take environmentalists to blame car exhausts for global warming - which is being held largely responsible for the recent extreme weather conditions.

Not long was the answer. An environmental author, more interested in selling his published works than telling it like it is, was on BBC TV. He was talking climate change and using the old tactic of mentioning the car exhaust pipe over and above every other polluter. Never mind truck, van, bus, coach, train, ship and aeroplane emissions! Never mind the damage done to the atmosphere by everything from agricultural to industrial output, from electric lights to inefficient domestic boilers. The so-called experts rarely refer to the fact that some central heating systems, for example, cause more pollution than some cars.

Later in the day, ex-environment minister Michael Meacher was on the same network calling for more efficient vehicles and, to be fair, more action on aircraft. But this was the same Michael Meacher whom I saw occupying TWO business class seats on an international flight. And the same Michael Meacher who got into a huge chauffeur-driven limo when he arrived at Heathrow. And he has the audacity to lecture us on our travelling habits!

More political hypocrisy comes from the Department for Transport, which is the second highest-spending Ministry when it comes to travel costs, according to the latest figures. John Prescott's personal fiefdom, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, comes third in the table, and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about why that is.

Still on the subject of travel expenses, it's been revealed the British taxpayer is being forced to shell out thousands in transportation costs for Scotland Yard minders to accompany Cherie Blair as she makes charity speeches from which she profits. Is that right?

The icing on the cake is that this month the BBC gave the oxygen of publicity to the formation of a dubious new anti-roads pressure group which says it's fighting proposals to build new motorways. What new motorways, exactly? If my memory serves me, much of this action involved using illegal activities such as trespassing and vandalism, not to mention stupid and dangerous acts like protesters chaining themselves to earth-movers.

Should the Beeb be encouraging this sort of behaviour? It's unlikely the formation of a new pro-car or pro-roads pressure group - particularly one with possible law-breaking intentions - would qualify as important news on the BBC. Panorama should investigate.

Meanwhile, the war on the owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles warrants more space in some sections of the media than the latest goings-on in Iraq. Just pray this hypocrisy and anti-car bullying doesn't continue for the remaining 11 months of this year.


Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Two decades ago, a struggling and somewhat comical SEAT prepared to have a dabble in the UK market, which the then-naive Spanish firm knew next to nothing about. It had absolutely no idea how its unknown products would be received by British consumers. It even asked me, of all people, to thrash one of its early Ibizas around Europe for more than a week, so I could compare it with its many, and mostly superior, rivals.

On paper, it wasn't a bad vehicle. But under a harsh, high mileage, mid-winter, 12-day test route, the car proved to be appallingly built. After collecting it - allegedly "fresh from the factory" in Barcelona - the Ibiza barely reached the middle of France before needing mechanical attention, serious oil top-ups and a new radio. By the end of this punishing, cross-Continent appraisal, it felt years old. In short, the car was a dog.

So was another one I stupidly bought with my own money a few months later. Bits of trim falling off I could put up with, but doors that failed to close, never mind lock, due to faulty central locking were unacceptable. With the benefit of hindsight, me and the other mugs who put our money into SEAT then were either brave or foolish. There were far better small cars on sale.

How times change. Today, the current Ibiza is one of the top superminis on the market, if not the best, considering its price, good looks, vastly improved build quality and resale value. Image isn't a problem, either - for the company or the country. SEAT and Spain might have been automotive also-rans, but as far as I'm concerned Barcelona is poised to become the new Turin, Spain the new Italy and SEAT the new Alfa Romeo. I'd go further still and say that I would currently prefer to buy and own a new car from the Spanish company rather than Volkswagen, in view of the recent and unexplained slump in the quality of VW-badged motors. And I'm not alone. Yes, I know that they're more or less the same under the skin, but just as Skoda now beats the German marque on quality, so too does the SEAT brand.

I've just driven the ageing but still desirable Leon to the launch of the 2005 Toledo. I remain mightily impressed with the Leon's looks and classy, refined driving experience, despite its low cost (from £10,215), and impressive economy (up to 50mpg in real world conditions). Climbing out of the Leon into the new Toledo proved again that SEAT is improving at a pace few other car makers can keep up with. It doesn't really matter whether you like the bold lines, which are the work of British design chief, Steve Lewis. I think the Toledo - and the recent Altea, come to that - is the sort of car you'll love or hate the look of. And I suspect that will also be true of the new Leon and Ibiza, which are being worked on right now by Lewis and his team.

Design-wise, SEAT is ahead of the game, standing out from the crowd, and being acknowledged for its 'dare to be different' attitude. It's all part of the Spanish firm's plan to do in this decade what Skoda did in the last - reinvent itself, overtake several bemused rivals and become the most improved car company on the planet.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

The war being waged on 4x4s and their occupants is becoming more intense, ugly and devious. I'm not going to give it the oxygen of publicity by naming it, but the organisation that's been formed to object to SUVs being used on urban roads is resorting to tactics which are highly provocative and possibly even illegal. And the abusive words spewing from the mouths of this new direct action group, and other self-proclaimed environmentalists, are becoming more unreasonable and extreme.

I took part in a BBC Watchdog programme with these people. I listened to their over-simplistic arguments and witnessed their bullying tactics, and concluded if they're really interested in the fact that there's limited road space, they'd be asking why a bus occupies so much of that valuable space whether it's full or - more often than not - half empty.

How come there's an obsession with pollution from 4x4s (some of which can return 40-50mpg) when under-occupied bus exhaust pipes are massively polluting? And why are other types of transport ignored? These are the reasonable questions the fundamentalists don't address. Instead, they make misleading generalisations which are beamed into people's homes on prime-time TV; statements such as: "4x4s are more polluting than other cars. They contribute to climate change at a far greater level and they're very unsafe."

On the very same Watchdog programme, another hater of all-wheel-drive vehicles claimed 4x4s were "drowning people out of their homes, drying up the drought zones of the world and killing people in very large numbers". The implication was that no SUVs means no floods, no droughts, no deaths. Utterly absurd.

For my part, I managed to say on air that if anyone is serious about tackling the problem of traffic-related deaths and injuries, vehicle pollution and lack of road space, then the discussion needs to be widened. It needs to encompass all the people and veh-icles responsible for such issues. SUVs make up a tiny part of the big picture. I also pointed out that many 4x4s occupy less space, drink less fuel, pump out fewer emissions and perform better in pedestrian or vehicle-to-vehicle collisions than some family cars.

And if these SUV-hating activists have a problem with 4x4s, then they also have a problem with sleeker family motors, don't they? You might think not, but the answer is yes. If you caught the Watchdog programme, you might have seen protesters putting their fake 'parking tickets' on the windscreens of cars that were very obviously Land Rovers and Jeeps. These documents say, among other things, that it "ought to be a criminal offence to drive" in certain types of perfectly legal, taxed and insured vehicles.

Since they raise the question of law-breaking, why aren't police nicking protesters who ambush drivers, obstruct vehicles, interfere with free-flowing traffic or even touch other people's valuable cars, which they have no right to put their hands on?

After studying a recording of the Watchdog programme, and playing it back in slow-motion, I saw at least one woman driving a family car being accosted by two protesters, one of whom was wearing an official-looking uniform that was anything but.


Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express