Articles by Robert Wilson

The key probably lies in the way it manages to be elegant yet unpretentious — and keenly priced. That combination has sold tens of millions of Volkswagens and like the Volkswagen Golf, the Mazda 6 is a thoroughly likeable and competent car despite not being exceptional in any area.All very nice, if an unlikely basis for a sports sedan. Yet like some fine-boned Ivy League graduate who has recently discovered the delights of pumping iron, the Mazda 6 has put on muscle in the form of the Mazda 6 MPS. It pumps up with a heavily revised and turbocharged version of the 6's 2.3-litre four-cylinder engine and all-wheel drive.It's a familiar recipe, followed by Subaru, Audi and Volvo for their flagship medium cars, but techno tragics will notice a couple of interesting details in Mazda's approach. For example, the engine uses direct injection, squirting petrol straight into the cylinder. Combined with computer-controlled spark timing, it makes for better low-down torque and lower pollution levels — so Mazda says. It's broadly similar to the system used by Volkswagen and Audi in their FSI engines.The all-wheel drive system is a part-time set-up that runs as a front-wheel drive when the going is easy and sends up to 50 per cent of torque to the rear wheels when the car's computer detects things are getting serious.The system has three automatically selected modes — normal, sports and snow — and works in co-operation with electronic stability control. In simple terms the MPS assesses how hard you are driving while at the same time deducing the road surface, and sends power to the rear wheels accordingly.It's a distinct improvement over previous part-time AWD systems that only drove the rear wheels if the front ones started to slip. One interesting detail for techno-nerds is that the power take off unit that sends drive to the rear wheels is water-cooled for greater reliability.Mazda says the MPS body is 50 per cent more torsionally stiff than a standard Mazda 6 — although one of the costs of achieving this is elimination of the load-through hole between the back seats and the boot.There's also visual muscle. The grille is larger to feed air to the turbo's intercooler, spoilers decorate each end of the car, side skirts lurk under the doors and larger wheels sit under flared guards. The effect is somewhere between the tailored sinew of a BMW and the all-out traffic-light aggression of a Subaru Impreza WRX.Inside it remains a Mazda 6, which is to say a recognisably Japanese car but with a distinct European feel. Little details, such as the red-tinged instruments and steering-wheel mounted cruise controls, evoke the Continent and the cabin has the modest but prosperous ambience of a Volkswagen Golf. The crisp, clear and powerful stereo is a highlight; the seats, with their small bases and not quite enough side support for the car's cornering abilities, are less memorable.Underway, the first impression is of bland steering. But more challenging roads reveal on-centre accuracy, freedom from kickback and tramlining, and even a little tactile feedback. The MPS turns in sharply without being skittish and settles down to display very impressive grip. Traction out of bends is strong and seamless as the computer sends more power to the back wheels. The computerised AWD system works well and its torque delivery to the rear wheels often flatters by tightening cornering lines. It's firmly planted and easy to drive by performance standards.A little more initial bite in the brakes might be nice to match the car's performance and handling, but pedal feel was good and they worked well on test. Body control through corners is excellent but ride makes an ambiguous first impression with a firm feeling that suggests wince-making bangs and crashes over rougher roads. But that never happens, and it copes quite well with noisy urban surfaces. Again, feel is more European than Japanese. Audi owners will find something subliminally familiar in a firm but padded gait.Unfortunately there was a cabin rattle in the test car, although it had probably already led a hard life in the hands of the motoring press. On the bright side, motorway refinement is better than expected in a performance AWD car — it will be a revelation to anyone who trades in a Subaru WRX.The six-speed manual gearbox (there's no auto) has a satisfying machined feel when driving the backroads but in the city it comes across as slightly heavy, particularly when combined with a somewhat hair-trigger clutch. The slightest flex of your foot sees it engage with a thump. You'll be left wondering, "what's wrong with me today?"All will be forgiven once you're moving. The engine belies its turbo badge with a wide torque band that begins at 2000rpm and doesn't stop until the rev-limiter cuts in. It's impressive, although like all turbo cars it can be thirsty if driven vigorously. We saw 15.4 litres per 100km.The only muted criticism might be of the engine's muted and uninspiring sound. Like a Saab turbo (but not the new V6 Aero) it sounds like a vacuum cleaner, only finding its voice at the top of the rev range.In every other aspect the 6 MPS is the car the four-cylinder Saab Aero should have been. There's something almost Swedish about its understated demeanour and determined competence, something almost German about its dark and sombre cabin. And while it doesn't quite have that Scandinavian design flair or outright German aggression, it makes up with genuine refinement and real ability.

That's why the Jetta — a Volkswagen Golf with a boot — is VW's mainstream US market small car. Americans wanting a hatchback VW get fobbed off with the old model Golf, still on sale in the US. In any other country — including here — the Jetta is well and truly medium sized.The Jetta replaces the Bora in Volkswagen's local line-up. It's based on the Golf 5 as the Bora was based on the Golf 4, which means it's got bigger as the Golf has grown.At 4.55m from stem to stern it's a significant 18cm longer than the Bora and 15cm shorter than the superseded Passat. Most significantly, it's 35cm longer than the Golf on which it's based. The result is a 527-litre boot, comparable with that of many large cars, as often happens when a hatchback is redesigned as a sedan.The Jetta's hefty boot symbolises some marketing baggage. It sits a little higher on the prestige car totem pole than the Golf, not offering that model's entry-level petrol and diesel engines and carrying a little more equipment. The most important inclusion is electronic stability control, the system that recognises the beginnings of a skid and takes partial control of the throttle and brakes. Other minor niceties include standard reversing sensors (much appreciated because the boot is invisible from the driver's seat), optional Xenon headlights — for a hefty $1890, they must be an insurer's nightmare — and a neat little inverted T-handle in the boot to hold plastic shopping bags.The view from the driver's seat is identical to that in a Golf. There's the same agreeable combination of textures, lights and colours giving the impression of expense and quality although there were a couple of rough road buzzes in the test car. For ease of use many of the controls are better than those of Volkswagen's sister marque Audi. But having no radio tuning button as part of the steering wheel audio controls is a puzzling omission, and the old-fashioned indicator stalk mounted cruise control is not the best.The diesel emits an industrial sound for the first few seconds after start, but once under way is hard to tell from a petrol engine. At freeway speed its muted drone is covered by road noise and a little bit of wind roar.It drives either a six-speed manual or Volkswagen's Direct Shift Gearbox twin-clutch automatic. The TDI's abundant torque and the DSG's smooth and efficient action are made for each other. It's the only auto-clutch gearbox that really does work as a substitute for the less efficient conventional automatic transmission. The only criticism might be how the first burst of torque can come on a little abruptly from very low revs, although once you get used to that it's a nice way to drive.On the open road the 2.0-litre TDI showed an unexpected ability to rev every bit as well as a typical petrol engine from not so long ago. Part-throttle and overtaking response was very impressive — by the seat of the pants it feels like a V6-engined petrol car of about 3.0-litres. Only a purist — and a hard-driving one at that — would complain about its speed and throttle response.Back-roads driving took a toll on fuel economy, which at 7.4 litres per 100km was not as good as VW's advertised 6.2l/100km for the DSG TDI, although there's little doubt the TDI would do at least that well on a constant speed highway run. It still beat the best figure for a petrol engined Jetta of 8.2l/100km and would give a range of 750km.The Jetta shares its fine handling with the Golf. Roadholding is impressive with a stable feeling at all times although Jetta feels more like a big car rather than a nippy hatchback. ESC, while standard on the Jetta, is unavailable on the Golf — a difference that would instantly put the booted version ahead of the hatch on our shopping list. Briefly switching it off revealed plenty of part-throttle wheelspin on damp surfaces as the front driving wheels struggled with the diesel's 320Nm. But even then torque steer was never intrusive. The electro-mechanical power steering on both cars is one of the better examples of its type, with accuracy and reasonable degree of feel.Considering the Jetta's role as the main US market Volkswagen its firm, at times almost harsh, ride comes as a surprise. American cars are usually at the other extreme: soft and flabby as a fast food-fed stomach. US road tests mention no concerns with the ride on their version. But Australia's Jetta has a typically European feel with disciplined compliance, but little plushness, over bumps. Its noisiness over coarse or broken road surfaces is also typically European.Combined with hard seats the result can be less than luxurious. In their favour the seats have more side support than some found in more overtly sporting cars, but they are not an ideal place to spend a day — particularly in the optional leather trim, which seems to emphasise their firmness. They let down a car which in other ways makes an excellent long-distance tourer.Range, luggage space and a roomy cabin are among its assets. There's plenty of back seat headroom for adults although realistically there's only room for four full-size occupants.The Mexican-built test car had a couple of minor quality problems. One of the radio tuning buttons stopped working and looseness in the transmission selector meant the key could be hard to remove from the ignition. Minor glitches sure, but they raise the nagging suggestion that more might be in store.However, two petrol models driven later had no obvious quality flaws. When the Golf 5 arrived here in 2004 every press car we drove had some kind of flaw so with two chances in three of getting a good one, the Jetta seems to be a better gamble, if not quite an acceptable improvement.But driving those petrol Jettas sowed the seeds of confusion. The 2.0 TDI is an excellent diesel engine but so are the 2.0-litre FSI direct-injection petrol engines. They make the petrol or diesel question a difficult one. Low fuel consumption, excellent touring range and a desire to commune with the authentically European version of the Jetta might tip a buyer towards diesel. However, the FSI models are better for refinement, top-end power and have better than average fuel consumption for petrol engines of their size.The 147kW turbo FSI engine shared with the Golf GTI makes the Jetta genuinely lively and while the 110kW non-turbo feels almost slow, even by comparison with the diesel, it's both torquey and nicely refined.But if diesel's your thing the Jetta is the cheapest diesel sedan on the market and by no means nasty. Although we hate to agree with advertising copywriters it does indeed feel more expensive than its headline price. However, selecting from a costly extras menu soon fixes that. If it rode a little more loosely and was screwed together a bit more tightly it would be outstanding rather than merely very impressive.

When Abba ruled the Australian pop charts, the box-shaped 240 series Volvos were the top-selling European car here. In 2006, the Abba-inspired musical Mamma Mia plays to packed houses around the world but Volvo has fallen off the charts Down Under, selling just under 3000 vehicles a year.Remove XC90 and XC70 SUVs from the equation and Volvo's passenger cars find fewer than 1000 buyers a year. Volvo sells more trucks.The S40 sedan and V50 wagon deserve better. The small twin models are a breakthrough for the Swedish maker, now owned by Ford. They're engaging and competent to drive in a way no Volvo has been since Abba's Waterloo won the Eurovision song contest. And now they are sensibly priced with the basic 2.4-litre S40 hitting the significant $39,950 price point and the V50 wagon at $42,950. Automatic transmission costs no extra — a nice touch and a sign Volvo is serious about lifting sales.The higher performance T5 version of the S40 and V50 has also had a price cut at the same time as gaining all-wheel drive. At $57,950, the V50 T5 is $5000 cheaper than last year's front-wheel drive model.Our review of the front drive S40 T5 was rapturous, possibly from shock that a Volvo could be anything other than turgid. Two years on, with another two driving wheels, the turbo V50 wagon doesn't seem quite as outrageously good but make no mistake, we're still impressed.The foundations of the S40/V50 are sound, no matter how many wheels are driving. It shares its suspension and floorpan layout with the Ford Focus and Mazda 3, both cars renowned for their fluent handling. The next Land Rover Freelander, due next year, is also tipped to share this platform, so it too should be a good thing on the road.The uniquely Volvo bits of the V50 are its body, interior, engines and safety systems.The body manages to retain the characteristic Volvo look — prominent shoulders and bumpers — while also introducing a lightness and elegance the brand hasn't seen in sheet metal since the P1800 models of the 1960s.It's just as sleek in wagon form, but it's not terribly big. Although the well-finished cargo area offers tie-down points, fold-flat rear seats and a built-in net barrier it failed The Australian's highly subjective and capricious mountain bike test — I had to take off the front wheel, dammit.An irritated flick through the owner's manual revealed Volvo quotes a mere 417 litres of luggage volume, only 13 litres more than the boot of the S40 sedan. But Euro-wagons are traditionally more briefcase than suitcase, and by their standards the V50 isn't particularly tiny.Its small rear hatch opening is more of a problem than outright lack of space.The passenger compartment is slightly snug but redeemed by very comfortable front seats. Their useful little pockets on the leading edge of the cushions are becoming an unofficial Volvo trademark - they make up for small door pockets. But they could use more side support to match the cornering capabilities of the AWD system.Decor remains a combination of avant-garde and functional minimalism. The so-called floating centre console (it has an open storage space behind it) contains four easily comprehended buttons for stereo volume, tuning, air temperature and fan speed.It's only when confronted in other cars with unwanted blizzards from the climate control and the previous drivers' questionable taste in music that you realise how well set up the Volvo console is. It makes up for the novelty of having the key in the centre of the dashboard. The Dolby Surround stereo also sounds great although disappointingly, it won't play MP3 format CDs.Volvo's safety extends to six airbags, electronic stability control, anti-whiplash seats, integrated child seats in the rear and an intelligent driver information system — this holds incoming phone calls and minor warnings (such as for low washer fluid) if it detects the driver has a high workload from hard driving or heavy traffic. The idea is to minimise distraction.Even without this feature the S40's European crash test rating is five stars.Safety is expected from a Volvo, but the V50's finesse on the road is still a novelty. The steering is light but accurate, and sharper around straight-ahead than any other model in the range. By sports sedan standards there's a slight hesitation just after the wheel is turned. Thank a weight bias to the front and a relatively soft suspension. To be fair, Volvo doesn't market the wagon as a sporting vehicle, preferring to concentrate on all-wheel drive as part of its safety package. It still does a credible imitation of a sports sedan in the tight stuff with strong grip and nicely adjustable throttle balance through corners.Performance doesn't feel quite as sharp as the front-wheel drive S40, and by Volvo's own figures the AWD versions are 0.3 seconds slower to 100km/h. The extra 100kg of the rear driveshaft, differential and axles also seems to have slightly diminished sharp throttle response of the old car.The figures still say maximum torque is produced from 1500rpm but the wagon needs twice that on the tacho before it really starts to move — although it's happy to pull high gears in city driving. It's not so much that the Volvo is peaky, just that the direct-injection Mazda 6 MPS has established a new benchmark for low-rev torque in small-engined turbo performance cars.Fuel consumption was reasonable by the gluttonous standards of performance turbo cars, with 12.8 litres per 100km over our test.A pleasant gearshift and clutch combination seems less twitchy than our memory of the front-drive version.Enthusiasts might complain that it's a little light, but it's positive enough and easy to use with a gradual clutch take-up.Automatics will, of course, account for the majority of sales but Volvo's offering of a six-speed manual as test car made the point that it's an appealing set-up.Ride is firm but somehow springy, like a rubber-coated pavement. Some might find it hard, but in our opinion it successfully straddles the competing demands of sportiness and comfort and is free from the outright crashing and jarring that has marred other performance Volvos.All-wheel drive seems to have taken some of the sharpness off the V50 but has also smoothed some of its rough edges.For those who miss those edges the Ford Focus XR5, on sale mid-year, will offer the old S40's sharp combination of five-cylinder turbo engine and front-wheel drive. Despite feeling a touch softer and heavier, with all-wheel drive the new S40/V50 remains our favourite Volvo. It may never sell by the truckload, but it certainly deserves to outsell Volvo trucks.

Back then a Holden sportscar was a snorting, fire-breathing beast – the Monaro GTS 350 or a Torana A9X were examples of the breed in its prime.How the world changes. In 2006 it's goodbye Holden Monaro, hello Holden Tigra.Not even Holden dares suggest the Tigra is any sort of replacement for the Monaro. A customer too late for the last of those muscular and macho V8 coupes is not going to be contented with a 1.8-litre folding metal roof runabout. But to many buyers a convertible with the convenience and security of a metal roof is irresistible, no matter what sort of car lies beneath it.Folding metal roof convertibles are not our favourite type of car here at The Australian. Like many technologies that promise the best of all possible worlds, the reality can fall a little short of the dream. The complex roof folding and storage mechanism takes space out of the boot but adds weight to the car and rain sealing is not always the great leap forward over a well-sorted cloth roof you might expect. Nor is body rigidity, despite a solid roof. They're not cheap either, making for expensive little cars that can be slower, clumsier and more cramped than they should be.So the Tigra did not find a warm welcome in our office. But it was so eager to please that after a week we had to admit it's one of the better examples of its type.Underneath the Tigra's coupe-convertible bodywork is the engine and running gear of the former Barina SRi, before Holden replaced the nameplate with a rebadged Daewoo Kalos. The SRi meant a 1.8-litre engine and a five-speed manual gearbox. The Tigra's folding metal roof brings its weight up to 1248kg – about 160kg heavier than a Barina – so it was never going to be as lively as the SRi was. And at a recorded 8.4 litres per 100km on test it uses a little more fuel than you'd expect from a car of this size. But we appreciate Holden's Opel Ecotec engines more than ever, having driven their crude Korean-made replacements. The Ecotec L850 is refined, sweet revving and torquey although its 92kW is not enough to make the Tigra hugely fast.From experience in the Holden Astra we know the Ecotec also works quite well with an automatic transmission but due to a quirk of Euro-centric product planning none is available in the Tigra. It seems a strange omission from a car that Holden says will sell overwhelmingly to women but it adds to the Tigra's modest dynamic credentials as a sportscar rather than just another flaccid old boulevard cruiser.The interior is familiar old-model Barina – not an environment we praised highly at the time but since its replacement by a measurably worse model, we've recently grown fonder. Fit and finish are praiseworthy, although you might argue it's a bit dull for a sportscar interior. There are few differences from the old Barina except a large hood over the centrally mounted trip computer (an odd inclusion in a sportscar) and silver trim on the centre console. A less welcome note from the past is the awkward stalk-type cruise control that used to be in the Commodore.Settling into the Tigra was not easy. Generally, car seats are a set-and-forget exercise but the Tigra's combination of high cushion, low roof and non-reach-adjustable steering wheel didn't allow that luxury. When my top half was comfortable my knees were splayed like a giraffe on a go-kart and when my legs were lined up my neck was cricked. The wheel was either too close or too far away. This was as puzzling as it was annoying because I am – in biometric terms at least – a regular guy. Buyers, be sure you fit your Tigra before you sign anything. The seat itself seems comfortable and supportive.The Tigra's dynamics are pleasing with a fast turn-in and adjustable, nicely balanced feel in corners and an abundance of modulation in the brakes. Being front-drive it seems free from nasty habits although like any semi-fast short wheelbase car it can get lively when braking hard on bumpy roads. The steering feels dull but the gearbox has an appealing snickety feel even if a purist might say its throws are a fraction long. Ride is comfortable, usually fairly soft with only the occasional shimmy going through the body when the top is down. Top-down it's surprisingly calm behind the wheel, even with the optional wind blocker folded down. With the roof up the Tigra becomes a quiet if cosy little coupe. To its credit there are no dashboard squeaks. Raising or lowering the two-piece metal top takes 18 seconds. The procedure is to undo two clips above the windscreen before using a switch mounted in the driver's door. Perversely you pull up on this switch to put the roof down – this backward logic fooled me more than once. With the roof up there's a generous 378 litres of storage space by Holden's figures – quite a substantial boot in lay terms. Pull back an internal divider to let the roof nestle into its storage space and there's still 147 litres of cargo space, enough for a weekend away so long as you're not into outdoor pursuits. There is also a shelf behind the seats with 70 litres of storage space. It takes the place of the rear seats. The Tigra's major gimmick is its power-operated bootlid. This might be good for impressing your friends but in everyday use having to wait several seconds to open or close the boot soon becomes tedious.With the extinction of the Monaro the Tigra is Holden's only sportscar for the time being. While it won't excite Monaro fans, and doesn't particularly excite us, it's good at what it was designed to do. The Tigra is well-sorted and well-built by the standards of folding metal roof convertibles but its manual transmission means it will automatically be crossed off many shopping lists. That's almost a pity.Verdict:

"Traumatic asphyxia with associated visceral injuries resulting from low-velocity compression of the torso," is the Medical Journal of Australia's summary of the typical driveway accident injury. That's surgical jargon for crushed lungs, ruptured internal organs and young lives in the balance.Last weekend's tragedy when Wallabies rugby legend Phil Kearns ran over his 19-month-old daughter, Andie, in the driveway of their Sydney home was almost a textbook case in its combination of unpredictable child and heavyweight vehicle.Each wheel in an average sized four-wheel drive carries a load of about 500kg. "It's effectively no different to a steamroller," says consulting engineer Michael Paine. But if it misses the child's head, their chance of recovery is surprisingly high.A study published by the MJA in 2000 found "final outcome was recorded as satisfactory or good for 34 of the 41 survivors, with a full return to normal activities and no significant physical or psychological sequelae (effects)". Head injuries killed 13 of the 14 children who died in driveway accidents in the 12 years of the study, from 1988 until 1999.The NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People found that between 1996 and 2003, 31 children died in driveways. Of these, 19 deaths involved 4WDs.The MJA study found driveway accidents are a significant hazard, accounting for 12 per cent of child pedestrian injuries and 8 per cent of child vehicle deaths. It concluded that 4WD vehicles are more likely than passenger cars to run over children."Both 4WDs and light commercial vehicles accounted for a much higher number of the fatalities in our study than would be expected from their prevalence on the roads," it found.At the time of publication 4WDs and light commercial vehicles accounted for about 30.4 per cent of registered motor vehicles in NSW but were involved in nearly two-thirds of the deaths in driveway accidents — giving them a 2.5 times greater risk of fatally running over a child compared with other vehicle types.In a 2002 paper, consultant engineer and safety expert Michael Paine pondered why, and suggested several possible factors. They included the increased danger to children posed by the large wheels of a 4WD as opposed to a car, and the poor side visibility of many 4WDs: "The relatively poor field of view to the side due to the height of the driver, (means) that small children can approach the danger zone at the back of the vehicle without detection by the driver," Paine wrote."The diameter and cross section of their tyres is bigger which might be leading to a greater risk of them crushing a child in these situations," he said yesterday. "And while recent visibility studies have found passenger cars can have worse rear visibility than many 4WDs there's been no attention to visibility out to the side."But engineer and road safety advocate John Cadogan says 4WDs are an easy target. "They've become the de facto family station wagon so they do tend to be found in driveways and around children. I think that's why they're over-represented," he says.Demonising types of vehicles and owners avoids the main issue, says Cadogan. "The only way to be safe is to be diligent. For example, getting in your car or 4WD or any vehicle and taking off backwards down the driveway because you're late is a negligent act." Paine and Cadogan agree technology such as reversing cameras can play a part in reducing the risk of a driveway accident.Lexus and Land Rover offer reversing cameras on their 4WDs and Ford offers one on the Territory crossover vehicle. But aftermarket systems can be fitted to many other vehicles."You can buy an aftermarket reversing camera to fit most vehicles for about $500 installed," says Cadogan. When you think of the horror of running over your own child — because most drivers who run over kids are their parents — it would be money well spent.Cadogan says even devices as simple as extra mirrors are worthwhile — so long as the driver gets into the habit of using them."It really comes down to diligence."Other technologies, such as ultrasonic parking aids, are directed more towards protecting vehicle bumpers than detecting children. "They can be set up to be more sensitive but then they go off so often that drivers end up ignoring them. If you are in your own driveway the temptation is to think it's a false alarm rather than someone behind you," says Cadogan.Paine agrees."Vehicle devices can help but they're no substitute for adult awareness and supervision," he says. "You just can't leave a child near a vehicle that's likely to move."Awareness is the key, says Paine, citing a public education campaign conducted by state roads bodies that appears to be cutting the driveway accident rate."The number of cases has dropped dramatically in the last two years," he says.Cadogan says there are three steps parents can take to make their driveways safer."Firstly identify where your kids are and don't even move the car if you're unsure," he says. Secondly, he advises fitting a reversing camera or extra mirrors but cautions devices alone don't save lives. "And finally, write to your local federal MP and ask why there's no rear visibility standard for vehicles in the Australian design rules, because believe it or not, there's none."