Choosing between Arnage T, Turbo S/RT, Conti R? :-)
Discussion
Hello,
I'm 38 yrs old and hesitating about what to buy (for evenings in town and some longer drives too).
I wanted some views / opinions, between:
1) Turbo S or RT at £20K
+:
wonderful old-school decadence
affordable to buy
torque! (I get the impression the torque is a big part of the Bentley experience)
-:
square lines
is too vintage to drive??
2) Arnage T at £30K
+:
more modern to drive I assume?
younger image (esp in silver on black)
quilted diamond-stitched leather
torque!
-:
less old school charm and decadence
3) Conti R at £40K (T is too expensive)
+:
motoring monument
old school decadence
possible apreciation over the years
graceful lines and elegance
in a dark colour + T wheels + mesh grill, wouldn't look out of place in a collection of supercars
more dynamic / younger coupe image rather than saloon car image
-:
lower torque
old fashioned to drive??
more expensive to buy
I guess it boils down to these 3 questions:
- Is an Arnage T (the 450BHP 4-speeder) MUCH more modern and competent to DRIVE than a Turbo S/RT or Conti R? Or does it just look more modern?
- Does a Conti R feel a bit feeble and low on torque compared to a Turbo S/RT or Arnage T?
- Does a Conti R compensate the higher price and lower torque with a much bigger possible financial appreciation upside?
Thanks for your help and feedback! :-)
I'm 38 yrs old and hesitating about what to buy (for evenings in town and some longer drives too).
I wanted some views / opinions, between:
1) Turbo S or RT at £20K
+:
wonderful old-school decadence
affordable to buy
torque! (I get the impression the torque is a big part of the Bentley experience)
-:
square lines
is too vintage to drive??
2) Arnage T at £30K
+:
more modern to drive I assume?
younger image (esp in silver on black)
quilted diamond-stitched leather
torque!
-:
less old school charm and decadence
3) Conti R at £40K (T is too expensive)
+:
motoring monument
old school decadence
possible apreciation over the years
graceful lines and elegance
in a dark colour + T wheels + mesh grill, wouldn't look out of place in a collection of supercars
more dynamic / younger coupe image rather than saloon car image
-:
lower torque
old fashioned to drive??
more expensive to buy
I guess it boils down to these 3 questions:
- Is an Arnage T (the 450BHP 4-speeder) MUCH more modern and competent to DRIVE than a Turbo S/RT or Conti R? Or does it just look more modern?
- Does a Conti R feel a bit feeble and low on torque compared to a Turbo S/RT or Arnage T?
- Does a Conti R compensate the higher price and lower torque with a much bigger possible financial appreciation upside?
Thanks for your help and feedback! :-)
Hi chaps,
I viewed several Bentleys today and drove 3: Conti R Mulliner, Conti T and Arnage T (I had eliminated the Turbo R).
Very very interesting and informative. And enjoyable!
First up was the R Mulliner:
Instantly, it felt floaty and wallowy. Not an ounce of sporting aptitude, just a nice cabin and regal stance. Didn't suit me. The floatiness was unnerving and felt poorly tied down. Dissapointing for me. Power? Rapid but only just enough (I drove over in a 577bhp 996TT...).
Then the Conti T:
Within seconds it felt like a totally different car. Real sporting intent, much much betterwell tied down, even chuckable. Much more direct and alert steering, perfect comfort despite the well controlled body movements, much more engaging, more confidence inspiring, more stable. Simply sublime! A real surprise and a revelation. Power? Same thrust as the first car, ie just enough to be called generous.
Finally the Arnage T:
The interior is just to die for but actually somehow felt less special. And with more ordinary styling than the majestic Conti, the car felt less achingly desirable. To drive it felt more alert than even the Conti T. Tremendous thrust with strong modern
brakes. A nicer V8 noise too. The Arnage feels way more modern than the Conti T, yet it feels like a fantastically
accomplished car rather than a classic motoring monument to covet.
Conclusion: if I can find the right spec Conti T at the right price, then I will treasure it. If not, I would glady enjoy an Arnage T, which is however more the choice of the head than the heart.
I viewed several Bentleys today and drove 3: Conti R Mulliner, Conti T and Arnage T (I had eliminated the Turbo R).
Very very interesting and informative. And enjoyable!
First up was the R Mulliner:
Instantly, it felt floaty and wallowy. Not an ounce of sporting aptitude, just a nice cabin and regal stance. Didn't suit me. The floatiness was unnerving and felt poorly tied down. Dissapointing for me. Power? Rapid but only just enough (I drove over in a 577bhp 996TT...).
Then the Conti T:
Within seconds it felt like a totally different car. Real sporting intent, much much betterwell tied down, even chuckable. Much more direct and alert steering, perfect comfort despite the well controlled body movements, much more engaging, more confidence inspiring, more stable. Simply sublime! A real surprise and a revelation. Power? Same thrust as the first car, ie just enough to be called generous.
Finally the Arnage T:
The interior is just to die for but actually somehow felt less special. And with more ordinary styling than the majestic Conti, the car felt less achingly desirable. To drive it felt more alert than even the Conti T. Tremendous thrust with strong modern
brakes. A nicer V8 noise too. The Arnage feels way more modern than the Conti T, yet it feels like a fantastically
accomplished car rather than a classic motoring monument to covet.
Conclusion: if I can find the right spec Conti T at the right price, then I will treasure it. If not, I would glady enjoy an Arnage T, which is however more the choice of the head than the heart.
Hi Allister,
Regarding the Continental R:
- Yes, the Conti R Mulliner that I drove felt very old. I was dissappointed because I was expecting, if not a sports car, at least a sporting feel. The Conti R felt how I imagined a '70's Rolls Royce would feel. All spongy and vague.
- The Conti T on the other hand felt incomparably better tied down and precise. Although it felt no faster, it was genuinely sporting, with a deliciously sharp helm (the steering rack is different on the T) and perfect ride (very comfortable without a hint of wallowing). The Conti T felt like a modern classic, combining classic charm with modern competence. I fell in love with it... Problem is, they are more expensive to buy, yet a strong case can be made for the rarity value meaning stronger residuals compared to a Conti R...
- The Conti did indeed feel like it would put up with regular use without problems or issues, though hard to be sure on the sole basis of a test drive.
As for the Arnage (I tried a 2002):
- It felt more modern again compared to the Conti R, and notably more dynamic and responsive (going and stopping). The low-down shove of the engine felt like another level altogether.
Seeing as you are looking for a car to drive regularly, I think the choice will be a no-brainer to be honest. You would probably have preferred a Conti R as a garage queen, but go and drive one of each and I think you would go for an Arnage as a regular driver.
That leaves what Arnage to buy, and I'm struggling with the same questions as you:
- I eliminated the facelift model because I couldn't understand the price difference. Sure, it corrects the minor faults or the previous Arnage (headlamps, armrest compartment that opens when you put your arm on it, loose and imprecise gearlever and german heating controls), but I'm not willing to pay £10-£15K was these small improvement.
What Desrestrictor says is interesting about the later models being better honed however... and I wonder if a test drive would be enough to feel this? As it is, I think I prefer the incredible value for money of the first models.
- Problem is, I'm tempted to spend a bit more and go for a 2007 500BHP (instead of 450) 6-speeder (instead of 4) model. These are supposed to be MUCH more responsive and modern. I especially like the tiptronic style gearlever gate - I love driving my X5 4.6iS using the tiptronic manual control, and I would like to drive my Arnage like that too (I like to use full throttle in higher gears without the car deciding to change down). On the face of it, the 500 appears to offer better value compared to the facelift model. But I don't think I want to spend that much as I suspect the law of diminishing returns is at work here (not to mention slippery residuals - and I would like to add a Porsche 996 GT3 to my little collection too...).
Conclusion, I think I'll probably go for a nice early Arnage T at £30K-£35K. And it sounds like you might too! ;-)
Regarding the Continental R:
- Yes, the Conti R Mulliner that I drove felt very old. I was dissappointed because I was expecting, if not a sports car, at least a sporting feel. The Conti R felt how I imagined a '70's Rolls Royce would feel. All spongy and vague.
- The Conti T on the other hand felt incomparably better tied down and precise. Although it felt no faster, it was genuinely sporting, with a deliciously sharp helm (the steering rack is different on the T) and perfect ride (very comfortable without a hint of wallowing). The Conti T felt like a modern classic, combining classic charm with modern competence. I fell in love with it... Problem is, they are more expensive to buy, yet a strong case can be made for the rarity value meaning stronger residuals compared to a Conti R...
- The Conti did indeed feel like it would put up with regular use without problems or issues, though hard to be sure on the sole basis of a test drive.
As for the Arnage (I tried a 2002):
- It felt more modern again compared to the Conti R, and notably more dynamic and responsive (going and stopping). The low-down shove of the engine felt like another level altogether.
Seeing as you are looking for a car to drive regularly, I think the choice will be a no-brainer to be honest. You would probably have preferred a Conti R as a garage queen, but go and drive one of each and I think you would go for an Arnage as a regular driver.
That leaves what Arnage to buy, and I'm struggling with the same questions as you:
- I eliminated the facelift model because I couldn't understand the price difference. Sure, it corrects the minor faults or the previous Arnage (headlamps, armrest compartment that opens when you put your arm on it, loose and imprecise gearlever and german heating controls), but I'm not willing to pay £10-£15K was these small improvement.
What Desrestrictor says is interesting about the later models being better honed however... and I wonder if a test drive would be enough to feel this? As it is, I think I prefer the incredible value for money of the first models.
- Problem is, I'm tempted to spend a bit more and go for a 2007 500BHP (instead of 450) 6-speeder (instead of 4) model. These are supposed to be MUCH more responsive and modern. I especially like the tiptronic style gearlever gate - I love driving my X5 4.6iS using the tiptronic manual control, and I would like to drive my Arnage like that too (I like to use full throttle in higher gears without the car deciding to change down). On the face of it, the 500 appears to offer better value compared to the facelift model. But I don't think I want to spend that much as I suspect the law of diminishing returns is at work here (not to mention slippery residuals - and I would like to add a Porsche 996 GT3 to my little collection too...).
Conclusion, I think I'll probably go for a nice early Arnage T at £30K-£35K. And it sounds like you might too! ;-)
Yes, the Conti R Mulliner seemed to be the real deal: 420BHP (it certainly felt as fast as the Conti T that I tried back-to-back), flared arches, high price, etc.
It was located near Paris:
http://www.lacentrale.fr/auto-occasion-annonce-156...
(if you're surprised by the high price, it's normal as LHD cars currently command higher prices than RHD, and the exchange rate compounds this)
The steering rack however was slow and wooly compared to the sharp and lively Conti T. And the suspension was wollowy compared to the well-controled T. This despite the T having twice as many miles as the R Mulliner. Still, maybe it was a bad one, and I should try another... But frankly, even if all other things were equal (steering + suspension) I'd rather save 160Kg and forego some legroom (I sat in the back of each and they felt comparably tight).
It was located near Paris:
http://www.lacentrale.fr/auto-occasion-annonce-156...
(if you're surprised by the high price, it's normal as LHD cars currently command higher prices than RHD, and the exchange rate compounds this)
The steering rack however was slow and wooly compared to the sharp and lively Conti T. And the suspension was wollowy compared to the well-controled T. This despite the T having twice as many miles as the R Mulliner. Still, maybe it was a bad one, and I should try another... But frankly, even if all other things were equal (steering + suspension) I'd rather save 160Kg and forego some legroom (I sat in the back of each and they felt comparably tight).
I agree Allister and reached same conclusion for same reasons.
Every single car I've ever owned cost me almost nothing in depreciation, and this really does bring a warm glow to ownership. It's great when owning madly desirable cars can be framed as being economically reasonable... and indeed this allows me to own 5 to 6 cars without my other half being able to call me unreasonable! lol :-)
Every single car I've ever owned cost me almost nothing in depreciation, and this really does bring a warm glow to ownership. It's great when owning madly desirable cars can be framed as being economically reasonable... and indeed this allows me to own 5 to 6 cars without my other half being able to call me unreasonable! lol :-)
Allister,
The salesman who showed me the Arnage T said that they are reliable but that parts were expensive. Example: he was driving an Arnage T in Monaco when the Alternator packed up. It cost him £2500 to fix. That's the kind of thing to expect, and I'm OK with that.
An Arnage is said to cost about the same to run as a modern Ferrari, i.e. pretty reasonable so long as the engine or gearbox don't break. The 6.75L Bentley engine is pretty unstressed and the gearbox is well proven, plus they tend to be driven gently compared to sports cars. So I'd say it's a safe bet compared to a Ferrari.
I think a £35K Arnage will hardly depreciate - maybe £2K per year for 3 years, allow a generous £5K max / yr on servicing and maintenance for 10K miles / yr, and then there is a fuel and insurance differential. I haven't done the sums, but I feel a new Merc will cost quite a bit more than a used Arnage over 3 years...
People tend to be very risk averse and pay way over the odds for peace of mind. It's human nature. Also, most people simply assume that the running costs of an Arnage are absolutely bloody horrendous, when in fact they are just "high".
Also, an Arnage presents improbable value due to being fantastically un-PC and being an environmental disaster, and many many people are put off by that image. So take advantage! ;-)
The salesman who showed me the Arnage T said that they are reliable but that parts were expensive. Example: he was driving an Arnage T in Monaco when the Alternator packed up. It cost him £2500 to fix. That's the kind of thing to expect, and I'm OK with that.
An Arnage is said to cost about the same to run as a modern Ferrari, i.e. pretty reasonable so long as the engine or gearbox don't break. The 6.75L Bentley engine is pretty unstressed and the gearbox is well proven, plus they tend to be driven gently compared to sports cars. So I'd say it's a safe bet compared to a Ferrari.
I think a £35K Arnage will hardly depreciate - maybe £2K per year for 3 years, allow a generous £5K max / yr on servicing and maintenance for 10K miles / yr, and then there is a fuel and insurance differential. I haven't done the sums, but I feel a new Merc will cost quite a bit more than a used Arnage over 3 years...
People tend to be very risk averse and pay way over the odds for peace of mind. It's human nature. Also, most people simply assume that the running costs of an Arnage are absolutely bloody horrendous, when in fact they are just "high".
Also, an Arnage presents improbable value due to being fantastically un-PC and being an environmental disaster, and many many people are put off by that image. So take advantage! ;-)
ADP68 said:
We've arrived at the same conclusion Alex, but I think Arnage's are falling at a greater rate. I know they're not the same, but Arnage Red Labels are now in the early 20's but were 10k more just a couple of years ago. Probably because 2-3 years ago they were 'current' models and now aren't.
Yep, although depreciation should largely tail off.A well kept Arnage Red Label might have been worth £10K more a couple of yrs ago and dropped to £20K, but it's not going to drop another £10K in the next couple of yrs... It's reaching the asymptotic part of the curve, where less and value is shed each year.
The best Turbo R's command £20K and will stay at that level given sympathetic maintenance.
In your position I would do the scheduled services with a specialist and all other interventions (unscheduled repairs) with your cheap competent chap. That way you get a bit of the best of both worlds. I have often bought cars with the intention of keeping them forever, yet circumstances do change, so service history is a factor...
Gassing Station | Bentley & Rolls Royce | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff