BMW X6 – Please, don't hate me. I can explain...

It was that time of year again and I was looking for a car big enough to carry everything in our house. For a two-week holiday with a young child, we had to bring a stroller, a travel bed, a changing mat, 850 diapers, all his clothes because he completely soils a shirt after wearing it about 3 minutes, his favorite teddy which is about 8 feet tall, etc. Long story short, the X6 was just large enough for it all.

The X6 xDrive3.5i, that is, and the name pretty much provides you with all the drive train details right there. An all-wheel drive, 3.0 liter, twin-turbo engine churning out 300 hp and 400 Nm (300 pounds feet) of torque married to a six-speed automatic with manual-shift mode. I was worried about fuel economy but I had read that the in-line six was easier on the front suspension and made the X6 more nimble than the heavier V8 engine. And considering it's massive weight, 2,220 kg, this Hulk-like coupe is remarkably agile, further proof of the always exemplary engineering efforts of the lab coat gentlemen (and gentlewomen?) at BMW.

Now, let me stop right here and address the issue of its styling styling and of some of the reviews the X6 has already gotten. When you first look at the X6, where the X seems to stand for excess, you're not sure where this vehicle is coming from. Is it a sedan/coupe inflated to SUV proportions? Or is it an X5 sculpted to look less like an SUV and more like a cartoonish, mean-eyed machine? Even a generally positive review in the FT.com referred to it as a 'beast'. And many others have commented on it's looks, often derisively, or have questioned whether the X6 has any practical value. Having spent two weeks with the X6, it's sleek-monster looks grew on me from an initial reaction of “Uh?”. And the power and comfort were, well, typical BMW. Not to cheat your out of my invaluable opinion, but I really don't have any convictions about the X6 styling one way or the other. And maybe that tepid response says something all by itself. Tell you what. I'll report. You decide.

What the X6 does have is mucho techno machismo. It has one of the most advanced rear differentials in the automotive world where the DPC (something called the Dynamic Performance control) continuously regulates the steam pumped to the rear to maximize handling and traction. And I was able to test all this over the San Bernardino Pass in Switzerland where we scrambled up and down the hairpin switchbacks with the ease of a marathoner doing a lap around the block. The permanent 4x4 helps the X6 handle surprisingly close to a 5 series, to the point where you have to stop and pop yourself out of the cabin to make sure you are still driving an SUV.

This vee-hickle (putting on my Southern accent, that comes solely from listening to Johnny Cash, which means I sound like a weirdo Canadian who moved to Tennessee two weeks ago and is trying excessively hard to fit in), has all the engineering acrobatics and technical precision we've come to expect from a BMW. The breaks are phenomenal and make the Mack truck-like X6 feel like a bicycle for the few seconds it takes to bring it to a halt from a high speed. Anti-lock and stability and traction control, woven with steering and suspension control, well, keep things under control. The system, I believe, is all run by a Hal 9000 computer/control freak which exerts a Catholic-school nun sternness just to make sure us humans are kept in check, you know. Control being the key word here in case you missed it. Dave? Dave? What do you think you're doing, Dave? Why don't you just let me do the driving, Dave? Wouldn't it be so much easier that way? Daisy...Daisy...But hey, that's just me. I'm kind of old fashioned that way. If I want to spin out of a curve and go flying off a cliff that is my prerogative, isn't it?

And, on a side note, I finally got gist of the head up display. It projects dashboard information such as speed or navigation instructions onto the lower end of the windshield. At first, you see this as a driving hazard distracting you from looking at the road. But once you get used to it, you realize that it takes less time for you to focus your eyes on the display and then shift your sight back to the road than it does to look further down and closer to you to read the speedometer on the dash. Good, I got it. A feature that's very helpful in saving you a split-second in reaction time which does, in fact, qualify as a safety measure when you're driving at break-neck speeds which BMW models often demand.

Interior finish on the X6 is BMW standard – that is, sporty, refined, conservative, reserved. The X6 seats only four (on sultry leather) which truly makes it a luxurious sport-ute without much utility to it. The sloping hatch gives it a cozier, womb-like rear seating experience, as in an elevated sedan, which the X6 essentially is, resulting in considerably less trunk space than the X5. But it has a horse-high seating position -- about 84 centimeters from the ground to the driver's hip (the X5 is about 51 cm).

Having recently driven the Jaguar XF, I realized how stilted and restrained interiors are not only on BMWs but on German cars in general. The Jag made me feel like I was sitting in Alistair Cooke's study from Masterpiece Theatre. By contrast, German cars give you the impression that you're sitting in your boss' company car. Hardly democratic but not exclusively chic either. Audi's are known for having slightly livelier interior designs than the competition, but for me, I put that down mostly to the red lighting in the display panels. With BMW's, interiors are all pretty much the same, which, I believe, is intentional. You're buying the brand, a BMW, and certain things are standard. Like designer clothing -- only the sizes vary.

As for economy, well, the X6 does have a drinking problem. BMW's own on-board computer was telling me my mileage was 15.4 liters per 100 km and I wasn't being much of a lead foot. I took it easy, hell, I was paying for the gasoline myself.

But would I recommend it? Yes, of course. BMW has been doing great lately, with a slew of products that come in as close to what they promise as possible. Though, I'm not sure how this car will find its buyers. It's really an X5 for those jaded, self-absorbed, insular rich folks who will say,” Oh, everyone has an X5!” If you are looking to get one, by all means, do so. It's BMW at its technological and mechanical finest. But what does this SUV do for you except seriously injure your pocketbook that you can't get by getting a more discreet 5 series (or even a 7)? That you have to answer for yourself. I reported. Now, you can decide.

The Chevrolet HHR LT – An American in Zurich

The first thing you inevitably ask about the Chevrolet HHR is: What does the HHR stand for? Well, it stands for Heritage High-Roof. What is that supposed to mean? I'm not sure because it doesn't really have such a high roof. But the heritage part is easy to explain. It's one of 'em olden times car, ya see.

The HHR reminded me of my days on the road back in the prehistoric 90s. You remember the days before e-mail? By the way, when was the last time you wrote a letter by hand? I'm guessing somewhere around 1996. For me, being the romantic that I am, I wrote letters up until 1998. I've checked it and that is true.

Where was I? Digressing again.

Yes, I was reminiscing about my days driving across America for an adventure travel company that I worked for and how the HHR reminded me of driving American cars, specifically Chevrolet's, around the US and Canada.

The HHR does capture the iconic Chevy feel. GM has fundamentally hit its mark here. You can see yourself riding this car into Yellowstone or Grand Canyon National Park and camping out for the weekend. It's got the boogie to make mountain driving comfortable and the cabin space that allows you to move things around.

It's odd how particular Chevrolet's can feel and it was surprising to me how much I missed it. It made me shed a WD40 tear as I recalled my 1984 Chevy Blazer which I once took with a friend across country from Montreal to Vancouver by way of St. Louis and Denver and LA. We camped or just slept in the car most of the way but it was, by far, the most expensive cross-country trip I have ever had with a rebuilt carb somewhere west of Denver and then a new transmission before we could even exit Colorado on the I-70. The garage gave us a banana-yellow 1977 VW Passat and the thing ran like a charm as we barreled to Las Vegas and back, trying to win the money we were spending getting this crappy Chevy to the Pacific. (That's how I was thinking at the time. Nostalgia has softened my recollection of that truck). The experience was a rational eye opener. You don't get burned like that if you buy German. I learned my lesson. Which is why I drive a Peugeot now.

The HHR is one of the most audacious of the retro design cars. That automotive fashion niche that began about 10 years ago with the New Beetle and was quickly followed by the Chrysler PT Cruiser which was actually designed by the same gentleman, Bryan Nesbitt, who brings us this latest bought of nostalgia which I find myself quite willing to indulge.

To its credit, the HHR does give you the full retro feel. The design is actually inspired primarily by the cult 1949 Chevy Suburban. The HHR and PT Cruiser are often referred to, perhaps simplistically and derisively, as 'gangster' cars because they recall the automobiles from old mob movies. As if only gangsters drove cars back then. The problem with the HHR is that the side windows are too small and too high up the door to easily level your Tommy Gun out and shoot at the cops giving chase. For those of you not into the drive-by thing, just wait until you have to lean out the window to pull a parking stub out of a machine or pay at a toll booth.

Those side windows coupled with a small windscreen and a not terribly high roof line give the cabin a cavernous feel. But it's not all bad. It is actually pretty spacious and when you're looking at it from the outside you're wondering where all the inside room is coming from because the HHR is only 4,47 meters long, which places this car in the compact wagon class.

The car is practical and handles well – responsibly, solidly and with little roll even if it does have a slightly elevated center of gravity. The 2.4 liter, 4 cylinder engine, with 170 hp and 220 Nm of torque, married to a 4 speed automatic transmission gives it a decent amount of pull, although the HHR never does feel light. Fuel economy is a better than expected 9 liters/100km (12.0 city/7.3 highway) and I did, in fact, notice how well the fuel gage held up. It's driving dynamics are comfortably American. There wasn't as much volleying on the highway as you would expect from a fairly lumbering wagon and its smooth acceleration doesn't provide much excitement but feels adequate and balanced.

The HHR also has a connection to Switzerland. Chevy is, sort of, a Swiss brand. Louis Chevrolet, was born in La Chaux-de-Fonds in the Jura region of Switzerland and emigrated to the US where he later founded the Chevrolet Car Company of Michigan. There is your history lesson for the day.

About 200,000 have already been sold in the US since it's launch there in 2005 but only about 3,000 to 4,000 will be making their way to Europe. But it was a treat to get a little Americana here. Sort of like finding a good bar & grill restaurant with great steaks and spare ribs. And if you want to be different then driving an American car in Europe certainly is that. Back in the US, for those of you looking for good economy with enough space while making a little statement of style -- that is, that you enjoy your driving the good old fashion American way -- the HHR delivers that.

Failure to Act Part I: I hear a creaking. Do you hear a creaking?

A few years ago, I was interviewing a Detroit-based automotive analyst and asked him where he thought the threshold was for gas prices to change the behavior of US consumers. He said it was 3 dollars a gallon. He was wrong. It's 4 dollars a gallon. And it's doing a number on consumer behavior right now. (Gasoline prices average 5 dollars a gallon in California.)

The current oil crisis (what is it today? 146 dollars a barrel?) is certainly the main catalyst of the sweeping changes we are seeing in the US automotive market today and threatening the very solvency of the Detroit 3 car makers. But it is just that – a catalyst. There are many other pieces that have been in place for years that have led to this crisis for the US auto giants and much of that can be blamed on the short-sighted greed of the automakers themselves, the health-care crisis in America that is beyond their control, the voraciousness of consumers who simply want big cars, and the inertia of the political leadership of the country who for decades understood that US dependence on cheap foreign oil was the soft underbelly of the economy but still failed to do anything about it.

Will oil prices fall back again to manageable levels like they have after previous shocks? And didn't we weather those just fine in the end? Maybe. But there are two main differences today.

First, the world's known oil resources have been pretty much mapped out, so we know what we have left, more or less. Any new reserves that have yet to be found will be minimal because technology has allowed us to find all major deposits which we've tapped into already. Also, demand is growing in rapidly developing mega-population economies like China and India (1.3 billion/1 billion people respectively who would like nothing better than to be able to shop like a Texan at Wal-Mart or any Westerner at a large box or department store).

Second, even if this is simply a spike similar to previous ones (and that would be good news for the global economy, though, not for the atmosphere) with all the change in thinking about the environment, global warming, dependency on foreign oil, the sedentary nature of a lifestyle dependent on automotive transport, etc., it's still bad news for automakers. Consumers seem to have made a cosmic shift in their thinking and are looking for ways to insulate themselves from any future price shocks. It is likely they'll forgo gambling on buying large vehicles and downsize their consumption of fuel by buying more efficient automobiles.

So where does this leave GM? The automotive behemoth that for a while came to define American industry. Well, are you hearing that sound? That thick, creaking metallic sound? It sounds like a hundred tons of steel collapsing on itself. It sounds like an industrial colossus crashing to its knees. It's GM. It's going down first.

Some facts to consider:

• Many Wall Street analysts seriously consider GM at risk of bankruptcy

• Ford recently reported SUV sales down 55 percent from last year

• Ford F-150, the nation's best selling vehicle for 26 consecutive years (yearly sales reaching 950,000 units at one point) is now down 40 percent in sales.

• The world economy needs about 85 million barrels of oil a day – more than 20 of those go to the US alone

General Motors has come inevitably to the only fate it made possible for itself with its decisions to focus on pick up trucks and SUVs back in the roaring 90s. And all the Detroit 3 campaigned against tougher CAFE standards that would have forced them to make more efficient cars and, hence, be more competitive with the Japanese and Korean brands today. As things stand now, if you increase economy standards federally, you're just giving the Asian automakers even more of a sales boost than they're already getting from the oil markets.

Also, I've always thought that CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy), the federal mileage standards that insanely apply only to passenger cars and not trucks or SUVs, was a silly way to regulate emissions. Directly regulating emission of CO2 and N-O-x gases makes much more sense. Even if it may seem to be essentially the same thing, it isn't. Certainly for new diesel technologies coming on the market now that can trap noxious gases which are strictly limited by current rules in California and several other Northeastern states. But those CAFE standards did help increase fuel economy in American cars which went from 13.8 miles per gallon in 1975 to 27.5 in 1989 and help stabilize US consumption of oil. The SUV and pick-up craze of the 90s wiped out any progress that change brought in reducing consumption and the number of barrels of oil needed to keep the US economy afloat has increased steadily since 1990.

In all fairness, as an automotive writer, and disregarding environmental concerns for a moment, some of the SUVs and pick up trucks that GM, Ford and Chrysler put out were great vehicles that offered a lot of value and practicality and were fun to drive too. This is not to criticize every vehicle they put out, even though quality standards and technology failed to keep up with Asia and European cars. It's just to say, they laid their gamble on the SUV craze and forgot to remember that fads and fashions all come to an end.

GM in particular is in real trouble. They're too big and have too much weight to carry with their responsibilities towards their retirees (health benefits and generous pensions). They just cannot downsize easily because they need to stay big to fund those liabilities. But in this regard it is not their fault. The health-care crisis is one of those things that keeps going on and keeps getting ignore because of ideological blindness in the American political culture which refuses to address the issue. So much for Can-Do Americanism. It's old news now that GM spends more on health-care per vehicle it builds than on the steel it needs for it. That's insane. And no relief is coming any time soon, no matter who wins the presidential election.

The current shift to smaller cars in the marketplace due to higher gas prices can be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back. This change in the market should not come as a surprise to anyone, but it's pretty shocking how quickly it's moving now. And it's a boom solely for the Asian brands since European's will have trouble selling cars profitably in the US market for some time given the strength of the Euro.

But there is also a lesson here for those CNBC and Wall Street Journal folks who are just so in love with American capitalism. What the hell went wrong with the American auto industry? And why are the European automakers not in distress? Don't they have even higher labor costs and more regulation and taxation to deal with? And don't they sell smaller cars with less margins?

The lesson is simple: quality products. Often American capitalism is about sales and marketing and flash and image and branding and all that other crap. The people getting so high on watching their investment portfolios temporarily flourish ("the business of America is business") on some company selling a cool business plan instead of bona-fide business model tend to forget that longevity in the marketplace requires making something of quality that people want to buy. And those socialistic Europeans are so weighed down by their welfare state and over taxed, over-regulated economy they cannot conceivably compete with American industry, can they? Well, the European automakers are just not as threatened by the Asian brands. They have competitive quality, better technology and more style and performance.

I actually believe, in a Darwinian sense, that tighter regulations and more taxation make businesses more competitive, not less. It's like someone on a strict diet and exercise regime. It puts them in better shape. It may be too late to save GM but to help free the country's economy from its dependence on imported oil more taxes, more regulation and government-funded research into sustainable sources of energy is the only way to go.

Four Bucks a Gallon! We're in the game now, Buddy Boy!

Well, it's finally here. Gasoline in the US is now 4 dollars a gallon. Although pump prices always spike this time of year as the summer driving season begins, there is also that small matter of oil going for like 650 bucks a barrel or so. So, the safe bet is to get used to it. It's not likely to get better soon. Most evidence actually points to it getting far worse.

US consumers have had inexpensive gasoline for a long time. Prices in Europe right now are above 8 dollars a gallon. But, of course, the market here has always been adjusted to high fuel costs and the current crisis probably doesn't represent a paradigm shift like it does in the United States. In Europe, anything above a 2 liter engine is considered big.

The US market has begun adjusting in a fairly radical way. The Ford F-150, the defining vehicle of the American automotive industry, is no longer the country's biggest seller. That honor now goes to the Toyota Camry, followed by the Honda Accord – two well-built, extremely reliable mid-sized sedans. The Detroit 3 have been avoiding taking that hint for far too long. The consequences are crashing down upon them now.

But there is also something exciting going on here. The energy of the moment is palpable. Alongside that sense of apprehension at not knowing exactly what is coming also comes an anticipation for it. There is the possibility of improvement here.

Looking back at the last year or so, I realize how much less driving I've been doing, despite my occupation. Even when I test a vehicle I don't rack up the miles like I used to and try to get things done quicker and less painfully for the environment. As for my own car, I often leave it parked and walk or take public transportation. When I do take it, it's for short commutes to go shopping or visit friends who live outside the city.

This isn't something that I've done with any amount of deliberateness. I just did it without thinking much about. And not only do I not miss hoping into the car 8 times a day, I've come to realize that, with some Zen-like effect, the walking coupled with the psychological reward for my non-polluting ways has reduced my stress levels somewhat.

It's like this dream I once had. I'm in a parlor with a group of eccentric people. Three of them are sitting at a table playing cards. One of them, an older gentlemen, asks me to sit and play. I don't know what the game is and I'm not even sure what the stakes are but a sense of excitement takes hold of me and I can't wait to play. I feel like whatever happens, things will never be the same again. But somehow, I'm not worried at all. It's going to be a wild ride but it's going to be fine in the end.

The Beginning of the End - Is the automotive age, as we have known it, over?

I hope not to be one who readily assumes a grievous tone as they portend of a dire future only to drop whatever the current subject may be on a dime for a new paradigm every time the headlines change. Remember how in the 70s we were running out of oil? Now, as the planet warms, we can't run out of it fast enough. But with oil at 122 dollars a barrel and rising and our dwindling oil supplies having the potential to send the global economy into a tailspin, it's obvious that game-changing events are quickly closing upon us.

The current crisis does not necessarily spell the end of the automotive age as we know it, not yet, but it just may be the beginning of the end. And one has to say, finally! As much as I enjoy the rush of a gasoline powered acceleration, you have to ask yourself why, with all the technological advances we've had since 1885 (and from first flight to the moon within 66 of those years), is humanity still stuck with this primitive propulsion system we've had for over 120 years? Namely, the internal combustion engine.

Even before the food crisis, we had ample science telling us the agricultural math just didn't add up for growing bio-fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel. We couldn't possible make anything beyond a single-digit percentage dent in our use of fossil fuels. The EU has a proposal to have bio-fuels make up 10 percent of supplies by 2020 but the European Environment Agency has asked the EU to suspend the plan fearing it may cause unintended consequences in food supplies and won't do much to address the rising emissions which are the cause of global warming. Bio-fuels emit less CO2 than carbon-based fuels, but their use alone, with all their limitations and our ever growing total emissions, wouldn't have much of an impact on global warming.

So what are the alternatives? Hydrogen? Battery-Electric? A giant windmill on the roof of your car? Well, actually, all of those technologies are electric propulsion. Hydrogen-powered cars convert the energy into electricity to drive the car and batteries simply store electricity from an outside source. Even the windmill would have to deliver power to a battery unless you were into funky transmission systems. So, the only question is how we produce the electricity that will power those cars. Solar and wind are as environmentally friendly as we can get and the only drawback seems to be our own unwillingness to invest in these technologies.

The main limitation in this regard is the ability of batteries to store enough energy to power a car for 500 kilometers or so and have re-charging be as quick and convenient as gassing up a car is today. But improvements in battery technology are coming along, however slowly. Tesla Motors, the California start-up making an electric roadster claims the car can run up to 400km on a single charge. You will have to give up the rush of a rumbling engine for the low-key, baritone droning sound of and electric acceleration with tons of torque. And you'll be giving up the horsepower and the romance that comes with it. But so what? I mean, riding a horse is fun but I'm not going to be using one to get to work.

The good news is that you don't have to give up the concept of an automobile. We can still live in a world that affords you the comfort, convenience, mobility and enjoyment of your own set of wheels. It will just be powered with technology from the 21^st century instead of the 19^th.

Would Top Gear succeed or flop in America?

(from left to right: Top Gear hosts Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hamm and James May)

There have been some minor rumblings about bringing the BBC's Top Gear to US television. As Jay Leno confirmed in a recent Sunday Times piece, NBC has bought the US rights to Top Gear and has asked him to host the American version of the show. Leno turned them down (wisely, I believe) and in his column he explains why he thinks a direct translation would not work. I agree. At least, not on network television.

There are many challenges to a US adaptation of the show, the main one being that the BBC's independence from advertising allows it's hosts, in particular, the lethally-tongued Jeremy Clarkson, to bread and fry any car they don't like. In fact, that is the main appeal of the BBC show and part of a trait that is perhaps uniquely British – reveling in the language of clever insult and sardonic savaging.

For the show to survive on network/commercial television it would have to get most of its sponsorship from the automakers themselves, who are one of the largest buyers of prime-time TV advertising anyway. Leno says it himself in his column, that you couldn't criticize the cars anywhere near how they do so on Top Gear because the car makers would pull their advertising and the network would pressure the hosts to tone it down and hence, the formula is no longer. Leno should know something about all the sensibilities required for working in TV; his Tonight Show has been the leading late-night talk show for about 15 years.

But even if NBC were to take the show to cable, like the Discovery Channel, owned by NBC Universal, you still have the fundamental problem of whether there is really any sizable audience for such a show. A cable channel would not be dependent on ad sales and would require a much smaller audience for the show to be a hit, but they would still need to have broad appeal. Why wouldn't there be? Because, there is no equivalent car culture in the US as there is in the UK or Germany, which has about half a dozen popular car shows on TV too Some of those German shows air on private networks that run on advertising dollars. Those advertisers include automakers and, hence, the reviews are relatively sedate. (Besides Germans love their domestic makes and never really dog them. Fortunately, German cars happen to be pretty good anyway.)

Top Gear gets about 8 million viewers in the UK, a country of 65 million people. That would be comparable to something like 30 million viewers in the US, numbers only American Idol achieves on network TV. In Germany and the UK, these shows have broad appeal, primarily to a male audience, yes, but to the general male audience. The same kind of viewer who watches football matches and F1 races on Sunday. Just about every adult male is a potential viewer. There is no comparable generalized male demographic in the US. Even NASCAR is a particular kind of sport and not nearly as mainstream as football, basketball or baseball. In Europe, football (soccer) and F1 are the big sports. And other motor sports such as WRC are huge too.

Also, Jeremy Clarkson is a contradiction of a television personality. He can be an acerbic jerk or a witty cynic with a hidden humanity; often, all in one sentence. This, I believe, is too...just too 'much' for a mainstream American audience. In the US you are either 'edgy', in which case, you have no broad appeal, or a milquetoast host, like Leno himself, who's mass appeal comes partly from the fact that he's not the type to cut anyone down mercilessly, let alone the product of a major sponsor.

Also, a show where a host talks wittily about cars would come off as odd and peripheral to critics. Americans tend to see cars as utilitarian and only a very small percentage are buffs of any kind. In a success-obsessed culture, critics unfamiliar with what is to them an alien sub-culture would ask of a talented host like Clarkson (or Hamm or May), why is this guy's talent being wasted on some low-brow car show? The Top Gear hosts are smart, witty gents. 'Smart' and 'cars' don't mix so easily in a American culture subdivided and pigeonholed into niches.

And where are the fun and affordable cars to talk about? If you're only covering high-end brands like BMW or Lexus or Mercedes, that can alienate your average viewer who has no reasonable chance of ever owning one. Conversely, many of the models that have any mythology attached to them, that bear any character, are actually pick-up trucks, since that is what the domestic automakers have been focused on for the last 15 years. But with oil at 117 dollars a barrel do you really want a host to be waxing poetically on all the fun she/he had driving across country in their old '93 Chevy Z71, which gets about 13 miles per gallon?

It's tempting for auto enthusiasts to want a show like Top Gear to come to the US and expect it to work. The US is just as much a car culture as the UK, right? Just as much, yes, but very different. Americans drive a lot because they have to; which may explain why as consumers they prefer large, comfortable vehicles to small, nimble performers. They also see premium brands more a measure of wealth than as vehicles with superior driving dynamics. Many observers have noted that cars in the US are a commodity and often taken as an appliance by consumers. Some automotive writers have made that point to explain the popularity of Toyota models which may be unexciting to journalists but are extremely reliable and therefore a favorite for consumers. The percentage of time commuters in the US are spending in their cars is ever rising, much of it stuck in unbearable traffic. And maybe those drivers don't want to go home and watch a show that is just about driving.

Mad Max Mosley - "I'm not a Nazi but I play one in grainy sex videos"

In a recent interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Fomula One boss Max Mosley “has defended his right to pursue an 'eccentric' private life” and continues to resist demands that he resign before the end of his term as head of Formula One next year.

Mosley, president of the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the body that oversees Formula One, was caught on video role-playing a Nazi (and alternately a concentration camp prisoner) in an S&M dungeon with 5 prostitutes. You can find the video on YouTube, where you actually hear him shouting in German, which he learned as a teenager.

It all sounds bad enough, but Mosley is also the son of a notorious Nazi-sympathizer. So his insistence that this is just some private 'eccentricity' is of no comfort to his critics (nor to this humble blogger). Mosley's father was the infamous Sir Oswald Mosley, head of the British Union of Fascists, who's second wedding was held at the Berlin residence of Joseph Goebbels (Hi, honey, no need to make supper, we're going over to the Goebbels' tonight) and was attended by Hitler himself.

But hey, there have been more twisted, Nazi-themed sexual fetishisms haven't there? Like this.

Now, I've always thought that one day someone ought to write the definitive book on the psycho-sexual subtexts of Nazism - you know, given all that leather and the barking of orders and stuff. First on the list to be interviewed would be Paul Verhoeven, director of Robocop, Basic Instinct and other exceptionally subtle films with very little sexual and violent content. Just check out the Wehrmacht and SS-style uniforms in his Starship Troopers (Verhoeven lived under German occupation as a child in Holland) and you'll have a laugh, especially seeing Doogie Howser dressed as a proto-Nazi. Extreme satire or fetishism? Maybe both.