RE: Rolls-Royce Cullinan: Driven

[Demonix]

It's like your Mrs's untidy kebab, looks on the outside aren't great but it's a very nice place to be on the inside!
Am sure the Saudi employer's of journalist killing hitsquads will love wafting around in these fugly 4x4 vehicular vajazzles in between signing death warrants.....

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, I was taking the piss about a supermini and van, but Estate..why not? I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about 10 years ago, or more. Why is RR entering the SUV market when it has never before? It doesn't suit their image because look at it this - the styling. does. not. work. If you say it does then you're either blind, being obtuse, or have no taste, take your pick. And hardly what RR are supposed to aim for.

[Dan the Deck]

nyxster said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Four big guys could easily be 600kg, don't forget.

Did you ever stop to calculate that at an average 1 minute per post you’ve wasted nearly 20 days of your life in the past 5 years posting this rubbish?

At a 500 gbp daily rate that equates to 10,000 in lost labour you could have been doing something more productive.

This explains your disdain for the wealthy. While you are sat around creating imaginary scenarios of fat men driving around in Rolls Royce’s requiring a LGV license the rest of society is doing something more productive.

[Ares]

Andy20vt said:

Ares said:

So they're ok if the owners do/don't conform to your blinkered, ignorant and wholly subjective assumption based on your hateful view of a human behind the wheel?

Sadly in my experience Ares, a large proportion do conform to my blinkered and ignorant description.

Based on.....?

Andy20vt said:

Ares said:

What do you think of the Elise driver sat in rush hour traffic? Do you pity his/her hollow life?

No idea, I don't have to do rush hour traffic thankfully.

So you can't answer based on an assumptive stereotype as you have with SUV drivers? Says it all really

[g3org3y]

Andy20vt said:

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?

I suspect you aren't their target market.

[Ares]

Andy20vt said:

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.

Except like-for-like, they're not.

[Ares]

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!

But it's only people that can't afford them that think they are vulgar. That says something, like to admit it or not.

[Ares]

Andy20vt said:

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?

.

Here's a quick tip. It's not an 'off roader'. Isn't trying to be. Isn't marketed as such.

[MC Bodge]

Ares said:

But it's only people that can't afford them that think they are vulgar. That says something, like to admit it or not.

On the other hand, you seem to be obsessed with defending this sort of vehicle.

Why bother?

Do your wealthy friends appreciate it?

[E65Ross]

MC Bodge said:

Ares said:

But it's only people that can't afford them that think they are vulgar. That says something, like to admit it or not.

On the other hand, you seem to be obsessed with defending this sort of vehicle.

Why bother?

Do your wealthy friends appreciate it?

Why bother posting anything in this website? Why bother saying it's ugly? Does it influence sales? No.

[DoctorX]

Even if some PHers have the wherewithal to buy one, these are going to mainly appeal to people in the Phantom market, not someone who just wants a posh SUV. It may look like a taxi, but that’s probably exactly what it will be used for in many cases, albeit a fancy one.

[DonkeyApple]

Andy20vt said:

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?

Of course. But how does someone so wealthy not understand that it’s not a 4x4 it’s an SUV. It’s not fake anything. It’s just a luxury SUV. A Defender is an off roader, a 4x4.

But, it’s just about the money. We all know that and you know it. . You don’t like the people who can afford to buy these things.

[Hereward]

Massive respect to the person who, in 10 years time, crops up in the Readers' Cars section saying he's just bought a 10 year old example for, say, £40k and is going to do the maintenance himself. Hopefully me!

[J4CKO]

Andy20vt said:

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?

It will go "off road", its not a Defender but it will get further than a Phantom would, probably far enough for the owners.

As for buying one "easily", I could sell the house and move to a slightly smaller one as well

But, again, thats probably not a typical way to fund one.

[nyxster]

Ares said:

Andy20vt said:

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.

Except like-for-like, they're not.

Audi RS6 Avant vs Range Rover Vogue

RS6
4971 mm long
1936 mm wide
565 litres bootspace, 1680 seats folded

Range Rover Vogue

5000 mm long
2073 mm wide
639 litres bootspace, 1943 folded

So the SUV is only marginally longer and wider yet has 14 percent / 20 percent approx more bootspace than the estate. It doesn’t exactly ‘kill the practicality argument for one of these dead’ especially if you account for the extra loadspace height the SUV likely has allowing you to transport bulkier objects.

Edited by nyxster on Tuesday 16th October 20:21

[Plug Life]

Ares said:

But it's only people that can't afford them that think they are vulgar. That says something, like to admit it or not.

You mean like footballers, oligarchs, sheiks and rappers are vulgar? You may have a point...

[Caddyshack]

I like it, I drive a Ffrr and if the funds allowed this would form one of my car fleet. It doesn’t have to be pretty and I will not go on anything more than a bumpy field (which I do a fair bit) the opulent feeling and lovely place to be would be enough for me. It wouldn’t be my only car but it fills a job and many, really wealthy people want to spend more and buy more exclusivety than you can buy for "just" £150k on a Range Rover

[bad company]

Ares said:

Here's a quick tip. It's not an 'off roader'. Isn't trying to be. Isn't marketed as such.

He didn’t say it was. He said it was a FAKE off roader.

[crugster]

Excellent use of the word 'absurd'.
Though only used once in the article

[Escort3500]

It looks like something Rees-Mogg would design (although it would have to be horse-drawn to befit the self-image he seeks to perpetuate).