Silver Shadow Info

Author
Discussion

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
Afternoon chaps

Does anyone have any pointers on where I can find more info on running a Silver Shadow? Differences between I and II, running costs what to look out for, LPG possibility etc?

Have tried the search function but it didn't really return anything.

Cheers,
James

Edited by nine6four on Saturday 18th September 13:30

atomicpunk

340 posts

203 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
This is a good starting point.

http://www.rrsilvershadow.com/EIndex.htm



Edited by atomicpunk on Saturday 18th September 14:11

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
atomicpunk said:
This is a good starting point.

http://www.rrsilvershadow.com/EIndex.htm



Edited by atomicpunk on Saturday 18th September 14:11
Fantastic, thanks.

Are they feasible everyday cars at 30+ years old? And what kind of costs would one be looking at for about 6,000 miles a year?

Cheers,
James

atomicpunk

340 posts

203 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
I have an early Shadow (1968) which I use as a weekend car, putting on around 3,000 miles a year. My daily driver is a later (1987) Silver Spirit, so if you're looking for an R-R for daily use, I say go for it!

A Shadow II would be the best option for regular use. It benefits from a lot of upgrades from the earlier cars (in typical R-R style, these improvements were introduced quietly, bit by bit). If you get a good one to start with, and have it serviced properly, then daily use is by no means unreasonable (if you can afford the fuel costs!).

Whatever you do, get any prospective purchase checked out by an expert before you buy. I use Nigel Sandell, www.nsandell.com, who is excellent. His website will give you an idea of basic servicing costs, but you should always make provision for any other work that will inevitably crop up from time to time.

If you have any specific questions, post them here as no doubt one of us will know the answers!

Cheers,
Darren.

Edited by atomicpunk on Saturday 18th September 15:50

Balmoral Green

41,116 posts

250 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
As PH search is not working, scroll through the pages of this forum and you will find a few threads on the subject, we have done the topic in the past in some detail smile

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Saturday 18th September 2010
quotequote all
Thanks all, will get researching away then report back!

Cheers,
James

ADP68

528 posts

173 months

Monday 20th September 2010
quotequote all
Darren
I didn't know you use your Spirit every day. Do you take any special precautions, e.g. only leaving the drive when it has warmed up, parking both day and night in a garage or underground work car park? Do you take a different car when there is salt on the roads or wash the underside with a hanging basket hose when you return home from work?
How many miles is your commute?
Andy

atomicpunk

340 posts

203 months

Monday 20th September 2010
quotequote all
Hey Andy,

No special precautions at all, to be honest. The car lives on the driveway at home and in the work (outdoor) car park. My daily commute is around 12 miles each way.

The car is used in all weathers, but I give it a good clean and wax most weekends and a weekly 'hose down' underneath when there's salt on the roads. It's surprisingly good in the snow, as I discovered last winter biggrin

Darren.

Edited by atomicpunk on Monday 20th September 15:41

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Monday 20th September 2010
quotequote all
Hi Darren

My research continues. Out of interest why did you decide to use the Spirit daily over the Shadow?

Cheers,
James

atomicpunk

340 posts

203 months

Tuesday 21st September 2010
quotequote all
Hi James,

My Shadow is a very early one, so nowhere near as suitable as the Spirit for everyday use - the Spirit has ABS, Fuel Injection, better heating and air conditioning etc. If it were a Shadow II, the difference would be much less, hence my suggestion that one of these would be a practical car for regular use.

How is the research going? I'm not sure where you're based, but if you're anywhere near London or Surrey I'm sure I could arrange for you to have a drive in one.

Cheers,
Darren

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Wednesday 22nd September 2010
quotequote all
atomicpunk said:
Hi James,

My Shadow is a very early one, so nowhere near as suitable as the Spirit for everyday use - the Spirit has ABS, Fuel Injection, better heating and air conditioning etc. If it were a Shadow II, the difference would be much less, hence my suggestion that one of these would be a practical car for regular use.

How is the research going? I'm not sure where you're based, but if you're anywhere near London or Surrey I'm sure I could arrange for you to have a drive in one.

Cheers,
Darren
Thanks Darren, that's very kind of you. I'm pretty keen on getting one (your experiences have cemented this further) although it will probably be stacked behind an upcoming house purchase - so next spring.

I'll keep you updated with my progress, leaning more towards the Spirit for the reasons you mention above although the styling of the Shadow is still classic RR to me. How do the running costs compare out of interest. I fear <15mpg will put a cap on my enjoyment so would go for an LPG conversion which I understand is pretty straight forward on this era of 8 Cyl?

Thanks again,
James

atomicpunk

340 posts

203 months

Wednesday 22nd September 2010
quotequote all
If you're keen on a Spirit, I would definitely go for the fuel injected model - so that would be a 1987 car or later. Watch out for rust; these cars can go around the wheel arches and it's an expensive repair to do properly. There's very little difference between the earlier (carburettor) Spirits and the Shadow IIs - if anything, the Shadows are better put together.

Here are a few examples of what you can get for you money at the moment from some reputable specialists:

http://www.royceservice.co.uk/items/181

http://www.royceservice.co.uk/items/162

http://www.colbrookspecialists.co.uk/vehicle_sales...

http://www.hillierhill.com/sales.html

Cheers,
Darren.


Bluebottle911

811 posts

197 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
I used to have a Shadow 2 for everyday use about 15 years ago and was very happy with it. Fuel consumption is a bit on the heavy side at around 11 mpg. Personally, I would opt for a Turbo R instead.

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Saturday 25th September 2010
quotequote all
atomicpunk said:
Wow that is seriously good value and a lovely colour combo too!


Bluebottle911 said:
I used to have a Shadow 2 for everyday use about 15 years ago and was very happy with it. Fuel consumption is a bit on the heavy side at around 11 mpg. Personally, I would opt for a Turbo R instead.
Funnily enough I've been eyeing up Bentley's over the past few days, although my perception that the running costs were typically higher than RR?

I think my heart is still with the RR, maybe because I will keep my air-cooled 911 for high-speed thrills and am looking for some serious whafting to balance it's raw drive, or maybe it's because you see fewer clean (non wedding) RR's than equivalent era Bentley's?


Bluebottle911

811 posts

197 months

Thursday 30th September 2010
quotequote all
OK, I had better explain myself a bit more. It may help you to put my opinions into perspective if I tell you that I, too, have an air-cooled 911 – a 964 C2. I use both this and the Bentley as everyday cars in addition to a brace of Mercs (CLK500 convertible and E430 estate) so while they are all daily drivers, averaging between 3,000 and 7,000 miles p.a. each, total 20,000, none is a sole daily driver: each has different strengths and weaknesses and between the four, they fulfil all of my needs.

The downside of any Bentley or R-R for everyday use is the size in relation to some of our roads and most of our parking spaces and the fact that they project an image which some people find it difficult to handle. I therefore use mine primarily for longer journeys and would not drive it to my office (I could not afford the requests for pay rises that would follow!) or park it anywhere where the politics of envy might result in damage to my paintwork. So you do need a second, smaller and more discreet car to go with it (cue the 911).

Conversely, there are few other cars in which you can drive up to the front door of an hotel, ignoring the signs for the car park, and hand the keys to the doorman knowing that he will park it for you and that it will be waiting outside the door after lunch.

The Turbo R is my choice over a Shadow because the performance and handling are both vastly superior and it has other useful advances in what is basically the same chassis design, that significantly enhance its attraction for daily use, fuel injection and ABS being the most important.

Service costs may be higher, though by now that may be a reflection of the individual car more than of the model, but fuel consumption is distinctly better, because of FI. My Turbo R averages around 15, with 18 on a run, but my recollection of my Shadow 2 was nearer to 11 or 12.

If you want the R-R radiator grille / image, there is no direct alternative to the Turbo R, but the later Spirit / Spur will give you FI and ABS, though without the performance or handling, but you can effectively retro-fit the latter with a handling kit, either from Harvey-Bailey or R-R (probably the same thing, with an R-R label and a healthy mark up!).

If you want some of the performance advantage, there are turbocharged R-Rs (Flying Spur, very rare and expensive, only 50 produced, and one other, later model, I think – Silver Dawn, maybe? Someone here will know, or you can look it up) but I believe that these were not full-blooded Turbos with the performance of a Turbo R: I think they were known as “light pressure turbos” - a bit like Diet Coke!

Going back to Bentleys, there was also an LPT version of the Bentley Brooklands. There is the Brooklands itself, which was basically a Turbo R without the turbo, as was its predecessor, the Mulsanne S – both very nice cars, only lacking he performance advantage of the Turbo R, which may not be important to you, and the Brooklands all had 4-speed boxes. Avoid the Bentley 8 (low-spec. cheap and nasty alternative to the Mulsanne for poor people - relatively speaking, of course!), early Mulsannes (no real advantage over a Shadow 2, same goes for early Spurs / Spirits) and Mulsanne Turbo - very fast in a straight line but disinclined to go around corners!

Those are my thoughts and I apologise for upsetting the owners of some of the cars I have mentioned –we all have different opinions on the subject, and different reasons for owning the cars we do, thank God!

By the way, if you have the odd quarter million spondulis to spare, the new Mulsanne is WONDERFUL – I drove one last weekend (with a man from Crewe in the passenger seat, egging me on to explore its limits) and I am seriously smitten!

PS I was right and I was wrong about the LPT R-R. From the R-REC website:

For the 1997 model year the ‘light pressure turbo’ was introduced in the Silver Spur and Bentley Brooklands. It produced 300bhp, similar to the first Mulsanne Turbo, and 60bhp more than the standard unturbocharged engine (which was now only used on the Silver Dawn). By that time, the Turbo R engine was producing 385bhp.

Edited by Bluebottle911 on Thursday 30th September 14:16

nine6four

Original Poster:

313 posts

212 months

Thursday 30th September 2010
quotequote all
Bluebottle911 said:
OK, I had better explain myself a bit more. It may help you to put my opinions into perspective if I tell you that I, too, have an air-cooled 911 – a 964 C2. I use both this and the Bentley as everyday cars in addition to a brace of Mercs (CLK500 convertible and E430 estate) so while they are all daily drivers, averaging between 3,000 and 7,000 miles p.a. each, total 20,000, none is a sole daily driver: each has different strengths and weaknesses and between the four, they fulfil all of my needs.

The downside of any Bentley or R-R for everyday use is the size in relation to some of our roads and most of our parking spaces and the fact that they project an image which some people find it difficult to handle. I therefore use mine primarily for longer journeys and would not drive it to my office (I could not afford the requests for pay rises that would follow!) or park it anywhere where the politics of envy might result in damage to my paintwork. So you do need a second, smaller and more discreet car to go with it (cue the 911).

Conversely, there are few other cars in which you can drive up to the front door of an hotel, ignoring the signs for the car park, and hand the keys to the doorman knowing that he will park it for you and that it will be waiting outside the door after lunch.

The Turbo R is my choice over a Shadow because the performance and handling are both vastly superior and it has other useful advances in what is basically the same chassis design, that significantly enhance its attraction for daily use, fuel injection and ABS being the most important.

Service costs may be higher, though by now that may be a reflection of the individual car more than of the model, but fuel consumption is distinctly better, because of FI. My Turbo R averages around 15, with 18 on a run, but my recollection of my Shadow 2 was nearer to 11 or 12.

If you want the R-R radiator grille / image, there is no direct alternative to the Turbo R, but the later Spirit / Spur will give you FI and ABS, though without the performance or handling, but you can effectively retro-fit the latter with a handling kit, either from Harvey-Bailey or R-R (probably the same thing, with an R-R label and a healthy mark up!).

If you want some of the performance advantage, there are turbocharged R-Rs (Flying Spur, very rare and expensive, only 50 produced, and one other, later model, I think – Silver Dawn, maybe? Someone here will know, or you can look it up) but I believe that these were not full-blooded Turbos with the performance of a Turbo R: I think they were known as “light pressure turbos” - a bit like Diet Coke!

Going back to Bentleys, there was also an LPT version of the Bentley Brooklands. There is the Brooklands itself, which was basically a Turbo R without the turbo, as was its predecessor, the Mulsanne S – both very nice cars, only lacking he performance advantage of the Turbo R, which may not be important to you, and the Brooklands all had 4-speed boxes. Avoid the Bentley 8 (low-spec. cheap and nasty alternative to the Mulsanne for poor people - relatively speaking, of course!), early Mulsannes (no real advantage over a Shadow 2, same goes for early Spurs / Spirits) and Mulsanne Turbo - very fast in a straight line but disinclined to go around corners!

Those are my thoughts and I apologise for upsetting the owners of some of the cars I have mentioned –we all have different opinions on the subject, and different reasons for owning the cars we do, thank God!

By the way, if you have the odd quarter million spondulis to spare, the new Mulsanne is WONDERFUL – I drove one last weekend (with a man from Crewe in the passenger seat, egging me on to explore its limits) and I am seriously smitten!

PS I was right and I was wrong about the LPT R-R. From the R-REC website:

For the 1997 model year the ‘light pressure turbo’ was introduced in the Silver Spur and Bentley Brooklands. It produced 300bhp, similar to the first Mulsanne Turbo, and 60bhp more than the standard unturbocharged engine (which was now only used on the Silver Dawn). By that time, the Turbo R engine was producing 385bhp.

Edited by Bluebottle911 on Thursday 30th September 14:16
Wow great write up John, and much appreciated.

Yes understand your point about the image thing. Not that I’m particularly bothered what people think but I could see it becoming somewhat tedious with colleagues and non petrol heads treating you like a Russian oligarch or 3rd world dictator. Maybe keeping the Porsche a wee bit dirtier might help on the days I want to be a tad subtle!

What I like about my 964 is that it has old school charm with some important mod cons (ABS, power steering etc). The Turbo R and post 87 Spirit seem to tick similar boxes wich is why they are the two on my shortlist now. 15-18MPG (25-30 on LPG) is quite manageable too and would ensure that I get the most out of the car.

Thanks again for all the valuable advice here. Once the house situation is sorted I will keep you updated with my search! And in the meantime any other snippets of information and experiences are always appreciated.

All the best,
James

driver

55 posts

266 months

Tuesday 14th December 2010
quotequote all
I'm thinking of getting a Shadow II as well - I've always thought they were lovely looking cars.

I've only ever driven a Shadow I though, which had very vague steering - literally no feel at all - and that was a 1976 'compliant suspension' car. Are the SSIIs a lot better in that respect?

I was also put off that car when I looked through the old service invoices and found that they were often in the region of £3,000. I've heard elsewhere that Shadows are expensive to maintain, especially the hyrdraulics, SSII air conditioning and I wonder about the cooling system which seems to be prone to silting of the aluminium block.

How much per annum would I need to budget for servicing - assuming I start with a well-maintained car?

MarsellusWallace

1,180 posts

203 months

Tuesday 14th December 2010
quotequote all
Starting with a well maintained car I would imagine it will cost you around £2000 per year to maintain the car properly as long as you are not doing too many miles.On a Shadow it's not just a case of routine maintenance,these are old and complicated cars and they take a bit of looking after.

vpr

3,727 posts

240 months

Thursday 16th December 2010
quotequote all
I have just picked up a Shadow II. Have always fancied one.

Surprisingly nice to drive, very quiet, no clonking,rattles etc. Just as you'd expect. Not as much body roll as I thought.

Very nice