Ford's new MPV is under wraps

I see that Fiat expects Maserati to make a profit in 2007. If it does, it will be the first time in 17 years, admits Fiat’s CEO, Sergio Marchionne.

“Maserati will finally return to profitability in 2007,” said Marchionne. “We will definitely break even this year,” said Roberto Ronchi, Maserati’s CEO. No, listen to the Don, Roberto: break even is not the same thing as profitability, capisca?

Anyway, how can a company remain in the red for 17 years and continue trading? I once ran a small company and 17 minutes in the red was enough to have cheques bounced. Mind you, my occasional negative profit was minuscule: last year Maserati lost 33 million Euros; and the year before that, 85 million Euros; and the year before that….

So how does Maserati intend to ‘return to profitability’? (My money’s on Don Corleone.) By building the most expensive production Maserati ever - the Quattroporte Automatica. No penny pinching then, or cutting back to cope with the lean times: nope, let’s large it.

It is believed that Ford is to follow Maserati’s large-it example and build a V8 Focus and a V12 Mondeo, and upgrade the Galaxy to a Ferrero Roche. And the troubled Chrysler organisation is to relaunch the Neon as the Chandelier.

A quick moan about the utterly fascinating subject of bootspace. I’ve been writing about cars for years and never realised there’s a difference between bootspace measured in dm³, and that measured in litres. I thought that since 1dm³ = 1 litre, they’ll be the same. But oh no, life is never that simple.

Ford, for example, measures bootspace in terms of the number of 1dm³ solid blocks you can fit in the back. Many other manufacturers measure the number of litres of water you could pour into the space – in other words, filling up every little nook and cranny. The two figures are totally different. Ford’s method makes sense in that it gives a far better indication of useable space but it does mean you can’t compare, say, the luggage capacity of a Renault Clio with that of a Ford Fiesta (although many magazines do). Moral: never believe what you read in the press. Well, not always…

How to spot a loser

My cat thinks in binary code: Tuna. Not Tuna. So while we communicate well on a certain level, our recent conversation about the proposed introduction of intelligent road studs was a bit limited. For those who’ve missed this story in the press, these ‘studs’ are a new sort of cats’ eyes with built-in cameras to take pictures of speeding motorists. 

We’ve always been told that ‘safety cameras’ are there to reduce accidents, not to generate income from motorists. Of course they are. And no doubt these road-level ‘studs’, too, will be highly visible as a warning to speeding drivers. Perhaps they’ll be a slightly paler grey than the surrounding Tarmac, or something.

However, the whole scheme sounds implausible for a different reason. Anyone who has ever met a cat will realise that the term cats’ eyes is itself a misnomer. There is no way on earth that cats would agree to sit in those little tunnels under the road, ready to pop their heads up when they hear an approaching car. “They use dogs,” agreed my cat through a mouthful of John West’s best. Which is a relief; as the introduction of intelligent dogs’ eyes hardly seems feasible.

The graveyard of my failed relationships

I’ve been trying out some voice-activated computer software, so I’ll no longer have to tire my delicate little fingers by typing. My first attempt didn’t go well. ‘Hello,’ I said clearly into the mic, and the word ‘ambulance’ appeared on the screen. I tried again. ‘Wallow,’ appeared and then, after an almost imperceptible pause, ‘Ha.’

I called the software helpline at £100 a minute. “Wallow-ha, my computer doesn’t understand me. What do I do?” They told me it would learn. We would learn together. It just takes time, they said.

I gave it time. I gave it most of the afternoon. I tried repeating whatever words the computer came up with, and then repeated its rendition of that, and eventually – I thought – some great truth might be revealed. We worked our way from ‘wallow-ha’ to ‘alien neighbour’ and I switched the computer off.

Thank goodness there’s no such thing as voice-activated cars, eh? But the tide of progress is merciless and unstoppable. “Clearly an important contribution to extra safety on the road,” says BMW of its voice input software. Yes, clearly. Until the day I say “switch on the radio” and my car thinks I want to call an ambulance, or that my neighbours are from another planet, or that I’d like to accelerate hard on the wrong side of the road.

Mmm - nice...

I’ve just been taking a look through some old car magazines from the late Eighties and early Nineties; don’t ask why, it just seemed like a good idea at the time. Doing some data crunching for a magazine, I was struck at just how cheap today’s cars – or should that be how costly they used to be?

If you wanted an entry-level Citroen AX back in 1992, you’d have paid £5764, with a range-topper costing £9154. A Ford Escort 1.8 Ghia was the thick end of 13 grand, while a Merc 300E was a rather strong £30,587. I could go on, but I’ll resist the temptation, because I’m sure you get the point.

Suffice to say that in many cases, you were paying about the same number of sovs 15 years ago as you are today, for a supposedly equivalent car. Except the greenbacks of 1992 were rather more valuable, and the cars of today are infinitely superior to those of two or three generations ago.

So don’t let anyone tell you that new car bargains don’t exist any more. Compared with 15 years ago, car makers have never offered so much for so little. The problem is that today’s car depreciate faster than ever before, so while buying costs may be lower than ever, it’s the running costs that can cripple you.

Bhung us a Pony

Have you seen the latest Kia TV ad? How? Why? What? When? Where? I should think these questions are familiar to the chairman of the Hyundai Kia Automotive Group, who’s just been sentenced to three years in the slammer for embezzlement and fraud.

He will also have been asked “How much?”, and in case you are wondering, Chairman Chung (or should than be Bhung?) was convicted for embezzlement totalling around 100 million US dollars. So where is he now? Languishing in some damp, rat-infested hell-hole reserved for cheats and fraudsters? Nope, he is on bail, foot loose and fancy free, and still chairman of the company where he continues to pull all the strings.
Apparently, company executives were expecting Chairman Bhung to receive only a fine and to be ordered to spend six months driving a Kia Picanto. “Three years is a bit harsh,” said a spokesman, adding: “I should think six months in a Picanto is enough for anyone.”

In the old days, we used to think that in naming the Hyundai Pony, the company was invoking cockney rhyming slang. Now I’m wondering if it might have been a reference to a £25 back-hander. In view of inflation, perhaps we should look out for a Hyundai Monkey. Meanwhile, we are told that overseas Kia and Hyundai customers will not be affected by the verdict. So if you want to continue funding Chairman Bhung, you are free to do so. But it might be worth asking your Kia or Hyundai dealer if they give a discount for cash.