RE: Rolls-Royce Phantom SWB: Driven

[big_rob_sydney]

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Spoken from someone who clearly hasn't been in one. I've been in the back of a Phantom. They are a world apart from a high end S class, I can assure you.

Ross, you're right, I haven't been in one. But if you read what I said, none of it is wrong (and BTW, stalking is a bad thing...).

[Gandahar]

OpulentBob said:

Spot on, the car looks like it is squinting. Like you have to do to make it look good.

Too much slab like bodywork. The original Cayenne had the same problem, as did the Chris Bungle (sic) BMW 5 series design. Merc slimmed down the S class also after a podgy first attempt. But no, Rolls Royce going completely the wrong way. At this rate it will have a front end that free climbers do Gopro video's of, scaling the north face of the radiator.

The interior is pretty slab like as well, that dash so upright.

I'm sure it is brilliant to be wafted around in but I just cannot get over the aesthetics. I think the interior of the new Bentley GT hits the mark far better on the previous gen, which was not too shabby.

Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 5th October 20:51

[FastDad]

If this car didn't cost 400k, I suspect everyone would tear it to pieces..

[rare6499]

northwest monkey said:

The airbag warning sticker on the sticker is a bit jarring. I quite liked the interior up until that point, but now I've seen that I can't unsee it.

So I'm sorry Rolls-Royce, for now I'll be sticking with the C-Crosser as I'm not paying £500k to look at a sticker. Epic fail.

Surely that’s just meeting regulations, not exactly RR’s fault...

[ecsrobin]

big_rob_sydney said:

I suspect I haven't sold enough drugs, stolen enough oil fields, ripped off enough palliative care patients, nor asset stripped enough pension funds.

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Isn’t the roller technical German manufacturing given the parent company is BMW. I’m also led to believe it’s just a 7 series beneath it.

[cowboyengineer]

ecsrobin said:

I’m also led to believe it’s just a 7 series beneath it.

I take it you didn’t read the article.

Though the engine and chassis is made in Germany, by hand at a unique facility to rr

[E65Ross]

ecsrobin said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I suspect I haven't sold enough drugs, stolen enough oil fields, ripped off enough palliative care patients, nor asset stripped enough pension funds.

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Isn’t the roller technical German manufacturing given the parent company is BMW. I’m also led to believe it’s just a 7 series beneath it.

No it isn't, as clearly stated in the article. Even the last Phantom wasn't a 7 series underneath.

[E65Ross]

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Spoken from someone who clearly hasn't been in one. I've been in the back of a Phantom. They are a world apart from a high end S class, I can assure you.

Ross, you're right, I haven't been in one. But if you read what I said, none of it is wrong (and BTW, stalking is a bad thing...).

Nothing you said was wrong, but I was just highlighting your post because you didn't understand the purpose of the car beyond the high end German machines. To go in one and you will understand immediately. I've been in a CL65 AMG which had a lovely interior and an S63 which was also very nice, but the quality and details in the Phantom were in a whole different league. You understand very quickly once you've been in one.

[northwest monkey]

rare6499 said:

northwest monkey said:

The airbag warning sticker on the sticker is a bit jarring. I quite liked the interior up until that point, but now I've seen that I can't unsee it.

So I'm sorry Rolls-Royce, for now I'll be sticking with the C-Crosser as I'm not paying £500k to look at a sticker. Epic fail.

Surely that’s just meeting regulations, not exactly RR’s fault...

I'm not sure it is - pretty sure they could have done away with it for the press photos even if that is the case.

Ford Mondeo doesn't have it.



Or the Mulsanne.

[ecsrobin]

cowboyengineer said:

ecsrobin said:

I’m also led to believe it’s just a 7 series beneath it.

I take it you didn’t read the article.

Though the engine and chassis is made in Germany, by hand at a unique facility to rr

That will teach me to just read the comments

[MDL111]

northwest monkey said:

rare6499 said:

northwest monkey said:

The airbag warning sticker on the sticker is a bit jarring. I quite liked the interior up until that point, but now I've seen that I can't unsee it.

So I'm sorry Rolls-Royce, for now I'll be sticking with the C-Crosser as I'm not paying £500k to look at a sticker. Epic fail.

Surely that’s just meeting regulations, not exactly RR’s fault...

I'm not sure it is - pretty sure they could have done away with it for the press photos even if that is the case.

Ford Mondeo doesn't have it.



Or the Mulsanne.

I have one just like it in the same spot in my car - will need to check, but I think it is not a sticker - i.e. No way to get rid of it

[big_rob_sydney]

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Spoken from someone who clearly hasn't been in one. I've been in the back of a Phantom. They are a world apart from a high end S class, I can assure you.

Ross, you're right, I haven't been in one. But if you read what I said, none of it is wrong (and BTW, stalking is a bad thing...).

Nothing you said was wrong, but I was just highlighting your post because you didn't understand the purpose of the car beyond the high end German machines. To go in one and you will understand immediately. I've been in a CL65 AMG which had a lovely interior and an S63 which was also very nice, but the quality and details in the Phantom were in a whole different league. You understand very quickly once you've been in one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the initial superficial impression is positive.

But quality of manufacturing is something that comes from the pursuit of incremental improvement in industrial processes across the board. When someone likes the feel of carpet, they may not appreciate that an engineer has worked their butt off to get every last widget working quietly, efficiently, and reliably. And this is the core of my problem; other manufacturers spend billions on developing their product to get quality across the board, not just in the tactile surfaces.

When you look at things like the JD Powers quality survey, it never ceases to amaze me that cars with "big names" often do very poorly in reliability terms. Forums members defend them till the cows come home, but there is no defense when said paperweight is loaded onto a trailer for recovery after a failure leaves the occupants stranded at the side of the road.

Which brings me back to my original point. I'm sure its nice, but it strikes me that its bought by rich people wanting to make a statement, as opposed to people who want a reliable, luxury car.

[Denorth]

big_rob_sydney said:

When you look at things like the JD Powers quality survey, it never ceases to amaze me that cars with "big names" often do very poorly in reliability terms.

Not sure I can find J.D. Power rating for RR Phantom, so how do we know that it does very poorly?

[Burwood]

MDL111 said:

northwest monkey said:

rare6499 said:

northwest monkey said:

The airbag warning sticker on the sticker is a bit jarring. I quite liked the interior up until that point, but now I've seen that I can't unsee it.

So I'm sorry Rolls-Royce, for now I'll be sticking with the C-Crosser as I'm not paying £500k to look at a sticker. Epic fail.

Surely that’s just meeting regulations, not exactly RR’s fault...

I'm not sure it is - pretty sure they could have done away with it for the press photos even if that is the case.

Ford Mondeo doesn't have it.



Or the Mulsanne.

I have one just like it in the same spot in my car - will need to check, but I think it is not a sticker - i.e. No way to get rid of it

If the label is not visible then it has been removed or photoshopped out for marketing purposes. ALL new cars must be sold with one, according to the law.

[PugwasHDJ80]

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Spoken from someone who clearly hasn't been in one. I've been in the back of a Phantom. They are a world apart from a high end S class, I can assure you.

Ross, you're right, I haven't been in one. But if you read what I said, none of it is wrong (and BTW, stalking is a bad thing...).

Nothing you said was wrong, but I was just highlighting your post because you didn't understand the purpose of the car beyond the high end German machines. To go in one and you will understand immediately. I've been in a CL65 AMG which had a lovely interior and an S63 which was also very nice, but the quality and details in the Phantom were in a whole different league. You understand very quickly once you've been in one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the initial superficial impression is positive.

But quality of manufacturing is something that comes from the pursuit of incremental improvement in industrial processes across the board. When someone likes the feel of carpet, they may not appreciate that an engineer has worked their butt off to get every last widget working quietly, efficiently, and reliably. And this is the core of my problem; other manufacturers spend billions on developing their product to get quality across the board, not just in the tactile surfaces.

When you look at things like the JD Powers quality survey, it never ceases to amaze me that cars with "big names" often do very poorly in reliability terms. Forums members defend them till the cows come home, but there is no defense when said paperweight is loaded onto a trailer for recovery after a failure leaves the occupants stranded at the side of the road.

Which brings me back to my original point. I'm sure its nice, but it strikes me that its bought by rich people wanting to make a statement, as opposed to people who want a reliable, luxury car.

Where you are going wrong is supposing that reliability is a problem- most of these cars are extremely pampered. live in heated garages and do relatively few miles per year (i have a client who does 3k per year in his). They then get serviced every year. Honestly reliability is not a concern.

Luxury on the other hand is- what they want is a silent car that can waft around at 80-90 with total poise ensuring that they are safe, secure and luxurious. There is an element of a statement about them, but its not a statement of "loook at me", but often a reward for success.

[big_rob_sydney]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Where you are going wrong is supposing that reliability is a problem- most of these cars are extremely pampered. live in heated garages and do relatively few miles per year (i have a client who does 3k per year in his). They then get serviced every year. Honestly reliability is not a concern.

Luxury on the other hand is- what they want is a silent car that can waft around at 80-90 with total poise ensuring that they are safe, secure and luxurious. There is an element of a statement about them, but its not a statement of "loook at me", but often a reward for success.

I suppose if you took the absolute worst car in the world in terms of reliability, and drove it so little (perhaps rolling down hills where possible?), you might arguably get away with saying "It's reliable; what are you worried about".

3k a year is nothing. You can't claim "it's reliable" by doing such little mileage, and I think trying to suggest so is disingenuous.

[PugwasHDJ80]

big_rob_sydney said:

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Where you are going wrong is supposing that reliability is a problem- most of these cars are extremely pampered. live in heated garages and do relatively few miles per year (i have a client who does 3k per year in his). They then get serviced every year. Honestly reliability is not a concern.

Luxury on the other hand is- what they want is a silent car that can waft around at 80-90 with total poise ensuring that they are safe, secure and luxurious. There is an element of a statement about them, but its not a statement of "loook at me", but often a reward for success.

I suppose if you took the absolute worst car in the world in terms of reliability, and drove it so little (perhaps rolling down hills where possible?), you might arguably get away with saying "It's reliable; what are you worried about".

3k a year is nothing. You can't claim "it's reliable" by doing such little mileage, and I think trying to suggest so is disingenuous.

You missed my point- i'm not making any claims as to the reliability or otherwise of RRs- you asked the question as to why someone wouldn't buy a high reliable germanic luxo barge, and i was making the point that the buyers of RR Phantoms care nothing for reliability- its an irrelevence to them, they don't even consider it when buying a car. what they care about is quiet and luxury- having spent some time in both the Phantom and a S63, the Phantom destroys it in the luxury stakes.

having said all that, having seen the quality standards of RR i suspect they are no more unreliable than any other modern car (which is to say very reliable) and the "vaunted" reliability of germanic cars is a bit of a misnomer. modern Fords and Honda's are statiscitcally more reliable than their german counter parts

[E65Ross]

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

E65Ross said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I just don't understand this type of car. When the German manufacturers make plenty of high end machines, and they have better reliability, what is the purpose of these beyond the ostentatious and crass display?

Spoken from someone who clearly hasn't been in one. I've been in the back of a Phantom. They are a world apart from a high end S class, I can assure you.

Ross, you're right, I haven't been in one. But if you read what I said, none of it is wrong (and BTW, stalking is a bad thing...).

Nothing you said was wrong, but I was just highlighting your post because you didn't understand the purpose of the car beyond the high end German machines. To go in one and you will understand immediately. I've been in a CL65 AMG which had a lovely interior and an S63 which was also very nice, but the quality and details in the Phantom were in a whole different league. You understand very quickly once you've been in one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the initial superficial impression is positive.

But quality of manufacturing is something that comes from the pursuit of incremental improvement in industrial processes across the board. When someone likes the feel of carpet, they may not appreciate that an engineer has worked their butt off to get every last widget working quietly, efficiently, and reliably. And this is the core of my problem; other manufacturers spend billions on developing their product to get quality across the board, not just in the tactile surfaces.

When you look at things like the JD Powers quality survey, it never ceases to amaze me that cars with "big names" often do very poorly in reliability terms. Forums members defend them till the cows come home, but there is no defense when said paperweight is loaded onto a trailer for recovery after a failure leaves the occupants stranded at the side of the road.

Which brings me back to my original point. I'm sure its nice, but it strikes me that its bought by rich people wanting to make a statement, as opposed to people who want a reliable, luxury car.

You're unfortunately just showing that you just don't "get" the point of a Phantom.

It's like driving a Hyundai coupe and say "why would you want an Aston Martin" because the Hyundai does everything you need and does it very well. You know, however, that the Aston will be the nicer place to sit and spend time. It's the same with the Phantom, but you just don't appreciate that it is better than a 7 series/S class/A8 etc.

[big_rob_sydney]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

big_rob_sydney said:

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Where you are going wrong is supposing that reliability is a problem- most of these cars are extremely pampered. live in heated garages and do relatively few miles per year (i have a client who does 3k per year in his). They then get serviced every year. Honestly reliability is not a concern.

Luxury on the other hand is- what they want is a silent car that can waft around at 80-90 with total poise ensuring that they are safe, secure and luxurious. There is an element of a statement about them, but its not a statement of "loook at me", but often a reward for success.

I suppose if you took the absolute worst car in the world in terms of reliability, and drove it so little (perhaps rolling down hills where possible?), you might arguably get away with saying "It's reliable; what are you worried about".

3k a year is nothing. You can't claim "it's reliable" by doing such little mileage, and I think trying to suggest so is disingenuous.

You missed my point- i'm not making any claims as to the reliability or otherwise of RRs- you asked the question as to why someone wouldn't buy a high reliable germanic luxo barge, and i was making the point that the buyers of RR Phantoms care nothing for reliability- its an irrelevence to them, they don't even consider it when buying a car. what they care about is quiet and luxury- having spent some time in both the Phantom and a S63, the Phantom destroys it in the luxury stakes.

having said all that, having seen the quality standards of RR i suspect they are no more unreliable than any other modern car (which is to say very reliable) and the "vaunted" reliability of germanic cars is a bit of a misnomer. modern Fords and Honda's are statiscitcally more reliable than their german counter parts

I believe I understood you well enough. Rich people, quiet cars, opulent surfaces, etc, etc. Fine.

But when these cars are assembled by hand, this is where the issues surface. You're also saying they're not unreliable, but in the same breath you're ignoring the fact you mentioned yourself, that these cars basically go nowhere, and are, therefore, "reliable."

And if I may ask a serous question; you say you've "seen" the quality standards. What, exactly, have you seen?

[MikeO996]

big_rob_sydney said:

I believe I understood you well enough. Rich people, quiet cars, opulent surfaces, etc, etc. Fine.

But when these cars are assembled by hand, this is where the issues surface. You're also saying they're not unreliable, but in the same breath you're ignoring the fact you mentioned yourself, that these cars basically go nowhere, and are, therefore, "reliable."

And if I may ask a serous question; you say you've "seen" the quality standards. What, exactly, have you seen?

But why are you saying they’re unreliable? I can’t imagine you have any evidence of that.