RE: Bentley Continental GT: Driven

[Loyly]

I think it's absolutely stunning. I've always held a deep affection for the Continental. I would jump at the chance own one of these if I had the cash and the services of a great valeter to keep it looking incredible.

[topaz]

So it is in the same weight category as many SUV's. Love them or hate them an SUV is more practical for genuine touring. I'd take a Range Rover Sport SVR over the Conti and spend the difference on a Cayman for the weekend. Not that many Bentley owners would think of saving money, how low rent.

[E65Ross]

topaz said:

So it is in the same weight category as many SUV's. Love them or hate them an SUV is more practical for genuine touring. I'd take a Range Rover Sport SVR over the Conti and spend the difference on a Cayman for the weekend. Not that many Bentley owners would think of saving money, how low rent.

I very much doubt any of these will be used for genuine touring. What they will be used for though, they will be far superior to an RR SVR. Having been in both a FFRR and a RRS, the interior quality won't be a patch on the Bentley. Nor will they drive as well. Totally different kettle of fish.

[RumbleOfThunder]

E65Ross said:

topaz said:

So it is in the same weight category as many SUV's. Love them or hate them an SUV is more practical for genuine touring. I'd take a Range Rover Sport SVR over the Conti and spend the difference on a Cayman for the weekend. Not that many Bentley owners would think of saving money, how low rent.

I very much doubt any of these will be used for genuine touring. What they will be used for though, they will be far superior to an RR SVR. Having been in both a FFRR and a RRS, the interior quality won't be a patch on the Bentley. Nor will they drive as well. Totally different kettle of fish.

Yep, bit of a lame comparison apart from weight, like that's what drives peoples decision when buying cars.

[E65Ross]

RumbleOfThunder said:

E65Ross said:

topaz said:

So it is in the same weight category as many SUV's. Love them or hate them an SUV is more practical for genuine touring. I'd take a Range Rover Sport SVR over the Conti and spend the difference on a Cayman for the weekend. Not that many Bentley owners would think of saving money, how low rent.

I very much doubt any of these will be used for genuine touring. What they will be used for though, they will be far superior to an RR SVR. Having been in both a FFRR and a RRS, the interior quality won't be a patch on the Bentley. Nor will they drive as well. Totally different kettle of fish.

Yep, bit of a lame comparison apart from weight, like that's what drives peoples decision when buying cars.

A Lotus Elise may weigh the same as an old hatchback....hatchback is more practical so might as well buy that instead

[underphil]

very nice

except for the front lights - why did they go with a ring of individual LEDS? - looks a bit cheap/tatty in my opinion

[1974foggy]

For me it just smacks a bit like driving around waving two fingers at everyone. Same with Rolls Royce.

[greenarrow]

E65Ross said:

topaz said:

So it is in the same weight category as many SUV's. Love them or hate them an SUV is more practical for genuine touring. I'd take a Range Rover Sport SVR over the Conti and spend the difference on a Cayman for the weekend. Not that many Bentley owners would think of saving money, how low rent.

I very much doubt any of these will be used for genuine touring. What they will be used for though, they will be far superior to an RR SVR. Having been in both a FFRR and a RRS, the interior quality won't be a patch on the Bentley. Nor will they drive as well. Totally different kettle of fish.

Yeah, I was just wondering how an SUV like a RR would drive as well on a tour, of say, France and Germany as this Bentley.

Fabulous motor. Always loved the Conti GT. Remember that Top Gear feature when they took one on a rally stage? It was absolutely immense.

[PhantomPH]

1974foggy said:

For me it just smacks a bit like driving around waving two fingers at everyone. Same with Rolls Royce.

Spend some time in one - that’ll normally change your mind. Such a gorgeous place to sit and theshove in the back when your foot goes down is surreal. Almost impossible not to like it for what it is.

For the people choosing between this and an Aston, it’s horses for courses. You will know which is right for you - they both do different IMHO. Or you could do what my old boss did back when it was a CGT or a DBS and just buy both.

[Kenny Powers]

1974foggy said:

For me it just smacks a bit like driving around waving two fingers at everyone. Same with Rolls Royce.

With the greatest of respect, that viewpoint probably says more about you than it does anything else.

[bluemason]

M1C said:

I might be in the minority....but i'm not sure about it.

I like a lot of the details....but all together....it looks (at least on the screen)..a bit...lumpy....frumpy....strange.

I mean...on the road i do think it'll be very striking and probably very nice......but....wheras the XP9 concept was like....lovely and all in proportion...this isn't.

I actually think the current/previous version is a more cohesive design.

You mean the exp10?

Reason being that the exp10 is a 2 seater with less fussy details,lines or creases. and hence the cleaner and more appealing design.But imo the new conti should have been a 2 seater and the flying spur would have been a more practical 4 seater.

[Balmoral]

scenario8 said:

E65Ross said:

Pumpsmynads said:

Balmoral said:

For me, the GT has always been a "Marmite" car, but one that I both love and hate at the same time.

That is literally not what marmite means

the whole idea of "marmite" is you either love it OR hate it....not a bit of both!

My four year old seems to have redefined the phrase similarly to Balmoral in that he swings from loving it to hating it.

I’m sure he’d ruin the back seats of a sumptuous automobile just as soon as his Dad remarries well*

• Naturally this is never going to happen. For all manner of reasons. (Don’t worry George).

Schrödinger's Marmite.