Skip to main content

Get your act together, Volkswagen

The naming of cars is an important and serious business. The sort of thing that pushes Jeremy Clarkson and his Top Gear buddies to the realms of ecstasy. Which is why I wonder about the sanity of those in charge at car manufacturer Volkswagen. It seems they name their models by picking nouns that look interesting out of a foreign language (i.e. English) dictionary.

They are so random in their selection.

For example, there's:
  • the one named after a dog-related wild animal, (Fox/Lupo), 
  • the pair named after hit-ball-with-stick games (Polo/Golf), 
  • the one named after a wind (Sirocco), 
  • the one named after a spelling mistake (Passat), 
  • the one named after an Essex girl (Sharan) 
and a couple that are so boring I can't even remember what they're called.

Come on, Volkswagen. You can do better than this. A five-year-old can do better than this...

Image from Wikipedia


  1. Polo and Golf are meant to be aspirational, surely, the Golf for 80s yuppie chaps who have no time to play golf, the Polo for Sloane Rangers who would like to watch a match with all those muscular stallions but are far too busy in D&G to waste time with sporting events.

  2. The canine type wild animals? Meant to be fun and fast, similarly the Sirocco: hot, fast and sultry.

    Passat - I just don't know, is it something in Latin?

    Nothing wrong with Essex girls, I married an Essex girl. Admittedly, she's from the posh end (Suffolk border), but I always thought the girl's spelling was Sharon...

  3. Brian

    Your thesis should surely be about why cars should have names rather than numbers?

    I'm not attracted by any of VW's names (Polo - can't play; Golf - can't stand it; Beetle - hate them etc ) nor any other names that I can easily think of as I write this; however give me an XC90 or a 940SE, or a DB7 or an XK150 or even a 220SL and I'll be in my element.

  4. ...oh and I forgot to mention my wife's take on this subject...she'll only buy a new car if it's red - sh'e not bothered who made it or the name or whether it goes fast or is safe, as long as it's red and looks nice!

    Back to the drawing board.....


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope