Of Citroëns and Auto Express

Auto Express is one of those magazines that I stopped reading a long time ago. Something about the way the features were written sucked all the joy from the subject. The feature that brought me to that point was a supposed celebration of a Ferrari anniversary (probably the 50th) which failed to convey any magic of the cars the magazine gathered to mark the occasion.

If the issue I borrowed from a work colleague today was anything to go by things have improved as Auto Express. AE does seem a little more serious than its main (only?) rival, Autocar. With my mind in an analytical frame it seems that Autocar’s writers put more of themselves into their features than the Auto Express team. I still prefer Autocar as it seems to carry a greater variety of interesting features.



One of the features in Auto Express was a first drive of the new Citroën C5. It was the second review I had read and I am worried that the C5 will be a disappointing car. At the behest of fleet managers Citroën have restricted hydro-pneumatic suspension to the top models. Fleet managers are unable to appreciate the virtues of hydro-pneumatic suspension and are not prepared to pay for it on the mainstream C5s. It does rather beg the question; what are the people who do appreciate the self-levelling, smooth-riding virtues of hydro-pneumatic suspension supposed to buy?

I can’t wait for this…

The Porsche Panamera. Porsche’s 4-door saloon has had something of a stop-start development program. Initially I think it was intended to be a replacement for the 928. The economic climate of the early 1990s saw Porsche halt development – I think Porsche had some serious financial troubles of its own at the time. Now I think Porsche are one of (if not the) most profitable car companies in the world and they can afford to expand into new niche markets.

I’m not sure why the Porsche appeals as much as it does. The pictures in this week’s Autocar suggest that it is a handsome thing; long, low and sleek. Given Porsche’s reputation you can be sure it will be great to drive. I’d love to get my hands on one.

Thoughts on this week’s Autocar

If I understand these things correctly a blog should be topical and updated regularly. Being topical isn’t necessary, I suppose, but it is interesting that the more I write the more ideas come for future entries – which is great for ensuring a steady stream of entries.

Every week I read Autocar, it is a good way to get an overview of the important motor industry news and it is a good read to boot. It is interesting to see what stands out. In the 2007 Green Grand Prix a passing mention is made of Mercedes’ BlueTec low emissions engines. It is interesting that Mercedes have focused on reducing hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and particulates at the expense of slightly higher CO2 emissions. Because that approach isn’t compatible with a CO2 based tax system BlueTec isn’t coming to the UK. So is an obsession with carbon dioxide actually harming the environment by increasing emissions of other pollutants?

Pet Peeves: “The indicator stalk is on the wrong side”

In a right hand drive car where the gear lever is to the driver’s left which is the correct side for the indicator stalk? Is the proper position for the indicator stalk going to be the same for a left hand drive car where the driver applies the right hand to the gear lever? Indicating and changing gear are often done in close succession so why make it difficult by expecting the same hand to do both?

Having spent plenty of time driving right-handed cars with indicators on the right and gear lever on the left – not just my Hondas but also my German-built Ford Granada coupé of 1977 vintage – I have to say that it is a better arrangement. Indeed it used to be the standard arrangement for British cars, which is why it annoys me when people claim that the arrangement is wrong. It annoys me even more when Autocar criticised the Vauxhall VXR8 (an Australian Holden, set up correctly for its native RHD market) and yet the Kia Cee’d was praised for the same arrangement.

It goes to show that the unfamiliar is too readily accepted as wrong, even by people who should know better.