Dear car makers

Yes. I freely admit I gave up coupes. I handed in my RX8, already a bit of a fence-sitter on the coupe lifestyle list, gleefully overlooked the Monaro, shunned the 330d coupe (secret shame; I actually like the design of the current 3-series coupe) and chose a four-door car.

This is not an excuse to start making drop-dead gorgeous sedans*. I'm looking at you, Lamborghini and Aston-Martin. It's bad enough that the Maserati Quattroporte was vaguely-affordable in American, if not British money.

What's that, Porsche? No. I said "drop-dead gorgeous". Not misshapen, badly proportioned and frankly, a bit too contrived. Even though the Estoque and Panamera will undoubtedly share DNA, a four-door 911 with the engine at the front and looking more like a stretch Boxster limo is not going to be tempting.

In other news. House viewer did not run screaming, seemed to quite like the place. Took my number to call directly. Gave them lots of opportunities to say they "thanks but no thanks" to avoid me being hopeful. So, I hope they can get the money and hope they really do like it.

* No, I cannot afford these cars, but I find it quite easy to not "dream of owning" typical supercars because of their impractical nature. I already own the best possible car I could need or afford (though something that makes it shrink for parking would be nice). However, I am very interested in this crop of "super-saloons" from supercar makers. Like the economy, it seems these things come in cycles, with Aston Martin and Lamborghini both pitching serious grand tourers in the 70s with the Espada and Lagonda, though the Espada remained a 2 door car. Maserati's car has always been around in one form or another; the version that interests me most is also the rarest and probably ugliest, but carried a lot of Citroën technology from the SM.

Small things

Still working away, waiting for call from viewers but I know they'll be at work, so hoping this evening.

Randomly poking Top Gear magazine with the long-term tests in - one of the cars I'd considered, the Nissan Qashqai is there.

This smallish "practical" car has a smaller 2.0dCi engine than my 1,975Kg monster Citroën. It also takes longer to get to 60, and is 25mph slower (not that it matters, I'll never use the ability to do 140 anyway).

Their tested MPG? In a manual transmission version?

33mpg.

It makes me feel a lot happier about pouring £82 of diesel into the C6 on Tuesday night; it doesn't need all of that to go Birmingham-Hawick and back (it'll do Birmingham-Glasgow and back on a tankful as long as I don't dawdle or do insane speeds) knowing that in real terms, choosing a far more practical sort of vehicle would not have saved anything on fuel.

It's much the same decision that I took when I got the RX8 - the 1.6 Beetle Cabrio genuinely returned 30mpg typically. Is anyone getting good economy from their modern-ish cars at the moment?

Side note: The more I check this the more I am convinced it's correct; the instant MPG readout sits around 40 at 85mph, at which point the C6 has lowered 10mm or so and raised the spoiler; at 70mph it hovers around 35mpg, making me think it's not geared for that, and the spoiler is lower.

Another side note: Forget more airbags, pedestrian friendly bonnets and IR cameras; the "safest" bit of technology I'm finding myself using on the C6 is the speed/cruise control. It has two functions, like a lot of modern cars (the A160 also has it and it's from 2001) - it can hold a speed, or it can limit you to a given speed. I have it preset for 30 and switch it on by habit when going through towns now. Contrary to the reports people gave when such technology was mooted as mandatory, I do NOT feel like it's "limiting my driving experience". Frankly, driving in town is about hazard awareness and paying attention to what's going on outside the car and not about "car control" - and the reason many people get done for 36 in 30 is that the cars have a "comfortable" pace - I think the bulk of drivers do not speed in town because of an anti-social need to do so, but because modern cars are so isolating, 30 feels like you're standing still (there's also the aspect of "points of reference"; older cars had the windscreens, pillars and stuff closer, which made you feel like you were going faster). Hell, in the Citroën, 100 feels like you're making "fair" progress and in terms of perception there's very little in it between 75 and 95mph.

I think that as long as drivers have the freedom to switch on the limiter themselves - not the GPS-connected, nannying technology proposed - then a 20/30/40 limiter for urban driving would not be unwelcome. In fact, I think most sensible drivers - the bulk of people on the roads, especially those that drive out of necessity - would welcome such a device to avoid getting tickets or speeding, and indeed, allow that little bit of extra concentration to be moved from ensuring that in good conditions you don't exceed the limit, to watching the road ahead. Curiously I don't really need it at 40; the car seems happy with that as an urban pace - but 30, it definitely wants to sit at 36ish. Each car will probably be different, I found Seras to be very happy at 30.

When driving back from Hawick, I popped the limiter on for 62 along the A7 - a road I'll normally tackle at 80-90. Once I'd adjusted my braking, I made the sort of smooth progress I was proud of making when I first passed my test and was quite determined not to be a boy racer (I'm still not; I can control my car moderately well for a start); it would be much nicer for passengers (I kept glancing at my Jade plant, and wondering "if that's what the plant is doing in reaction to these forces, what happens with my passengers") and I didn't lose much time, probably because of the low traffic levels - the mad speeds are a response to being stuck behind things on a deadline, and ended up being a habit.