RE: Rolls-Royce Cullinan: Driven

[J4CKO]

I think the actual purchasers will agonise less over them than we are doing,

Is it big - Check

Is it posh - Check

Is it comfy - Check

Is it fast - Check

Can I afford it - Check

Then, chooses some options, colour and stuff, drives it and enjoys it, if they dont like it then I guess they buy something else.

I am not sure whats left to buy that doesnt offend a lot of us on here ? was BMW's last week.

I am guessing the owners wont give a toss about whether anyone else likes it.

[bloomen]

A fine Moscow taxi.

I would hope all these SUV makers will club together to increase the width of Britain's roads and parking spaces. Soon enough vehicles of this magnitude will barely be usable here.

[skyrover]

Genuinely looks like an Asian knockoff in my eyes.

Come on, we Brits are supposed to at least get the proportions right, even if we cant build a reliable car to save our lives.

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Andy20vt said:

How is a van a status symbol? No idea, but if you need ultimate practicality then a van probably fits the bill. Most large estate cars are far more practical than your average SUV's which tend to be big on the outside but small on the inside. Kills the practicality argument dead really for one of these.

I have to disagree with you on that. I've owned a large estate car and two SUV's and both SUV's are/were much bigger on the inside than the estate car.

[Willy Nilly]

If you were going to buy a Rolls, why would you buy this rather than a Phantom?

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Willy Nilly said:

If you were going to buy a Rolls, why would you buy this rather than a Phantom?

Personal preference, personal choice.

[anonymous-user]

I genuinely don't know how you could own and drive one of these without a red face. It's so embarrassing it's on a par with walking around in public with your penis hanging out.

There is no need for Rolls Royce to have an SUV in the model range. The popularity SUVs argument doesn't wash. Where's the RR supermini? Or Estate? Or van? They're popular too.

[DoctorX]

That symmetrical dashboard is clearly designed to make switching between left and right hand drive as easy as possible (a bit like an SD1). Just not cricket on something so pricey and for this skinflint approach to design I shall take my business elsewhere.

[Wills2]

Willy Nilly said:

If you were going to buy a Rolls, why would you buy this rather than a Phantom?

Because you've already got one or don't want one? And probably any number of other cars as well and this is just an addition to the "fleet" or a replacement for another SUV.

[donkmeister]

the author of the article said:

two-and-three-quarter

I see what you did there
Have one of these, sir

[DonkeyApple]

Kierkegaard said:

There is no need for Rolls Royce to have an SUV in the model range. The popularity SUVs argument doesn't wash. Where's the RR supermini? Or Estate? Or van? They're popular too.

I would have thought an SUV made perfect sense. RR has always been about large, lofty and wafty luxury. The Phantom is probably taller than some crossovers. Surely, the real question is to ask why RR spent several decades making saloons when that wasn’t where true luxury and comfort was to be found?

[catso]

bristolracer said:

It's vulgar.
A Rolls should not be vulgar.

I have to confess that I 'saw' Rolls-Royce Cunnilus as the thread title.

A bit fishy if you ask me...

[TooMany2cvs]

DonkeyApple said:

Kierkegaard said:

There is no need for Rolls Royce to have an SUV in the model range. The popularity SUVs argument doesn't wash. Where's the RR supermini? Or Estate? Or van? They're popular too.

I would have thought an SUV made perfect sense. RR has always been about large, lofty and wafty luxury. The Phantom is probably taller than some crossovers. Surely, the real question is to ask why RR spent several decades making saloons when that wasn’t where true luxury and comfort was to be found?

I suspect the sales figures will give the answer in short order.

Quite why there's "no need" for any manufacturer to launch a car that'll undoubtedly sell well is another question. What else do they get out of bed for if not to sell cars and make money?

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes it's odd isn't it. The more brash, tacky chrome and shiny bits the better. Designed for magpies? It's the same with houses at the moment in the UK. Looked at a show home last week as we're thinking about buying a place for the eldest daughter. Show home had been kitted out inside like what can only be described as a 'tart's boudoir'. Old fashioned frills, latticework, shiny chrome knobs, pointlessly shaped glass ornaments everywhere, plus an ornamental chandelier FFS - in a modern 2 bed house!

When I was at art college I was inspired by Bauhaus and some of the great Danish furniture designers like Arne Jacobsen. They were forward thinking and ahead of their time. Real quality design, less is more, simplicity of form and function, not harking back to the past or sticking shiny bits of tat everywhere.

[nyxster]

DonkeyApple said:

I would have thought an SUV made perfect sense. RR has always been about large, lofty and wafty luxury. The Phantom is probably taller than some crossovers. Surely, the real question is to ask why RR spent several decades making saloons when that wasn’t where true luxury and comfort was to be found?

Returning more to their original form

[MC Bodge]

Ares said:

Indeed. Time for Cliche bingo. (and a plethora of people that care so little about the car that they can't stop talking about it)


I know two people who have one on order. One replacing a Bentayga, the replacing a Range Rover SV. They didn't buy their current cars as fashion statements, and aren't buying these for that reason either. It's called choice.

Thank you for that, PH Alderley Edge correspondent

[DonkeyApple]

TooMany2cvs said:

I suspect the sales figures will give the answer in short order.

Quite why there's "no need" for any manufacturer to launch a car that'll undoubtedly sell well is another question. What else do they get out of bed for if not to sell cars and make money?

I think that because we can’t afford one we are supposed to hate it and hate those who can?

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

I think that because we can’t afford one we are supposed to hate it and hate those who can?

Nope it's not about hating something you can't afford. I can easily afford to buy one of these (or another similar overpriced SUV) but I would choose not to spend my money on one because at the end of the day it's a FAKE off roader that's designed for showing off only. Land Rover Defender however if I lived in the sticks then hey why not?

[J4CKO]

Andy20vt said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes it's odd isn't it. The more brash, tacky chrome and shiny bits the better. Designed for magpies? It's the same with houses at the moment in the UK. Looked at a show home last week as we're thinking about buying a place for the eldest daughter. Show home had been kitted out inside like what can only be described as a 'tart's boudoir'. Old fashioned frills, latticework, shiny chrome knobs, pointlessly shaped glass ornaments everywhere, plus an ornamental chandelier FFS - in a modern 2 bed house!

When I was at art college I was inspired by Bauhaus and some of the great Danish furniture designers like Arne Jacobsen. They were forward thinking and ahead of their time. Real quality design, less is more, simplicity of form and function, not harking back to the past or sticking shiny bits of tat everywhere.

People like different stuff, you see Stone Lions on gateposts of Bungalows, if they like them then thats all that matters, just because you like ancient German design houses doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong because its old, minimalist and generally regarded as tasteful.

[Murph7355]

Horrific.