Jump to content
EUROPAS GROßE
SPORTWAGEN COMMUNITY
Anmelden, um Inhalt zu folgen  
P.I.M.P

The death of Rolls Royce

Empfohlene Beiträge

P.I.M.P
Erster Beitrag:
Letzter Beitrag:

Ever since I saw the phantom, i don't consider rolls to be a great luxury brand anymore. One looks at that center console was all it took to see the resemblance of the 7-series console. NO, the MIMICKING. The front of the car looks like it could be the back. The inside is tacky, with a totally uninspired overall design. And why did they stop the corniche? Sure they could have improved it witha six-speed, but it was a phat car. Rolls is dead in my book. At least VW didn't kill Bentley

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »
skyline R-34
Geschrieben

Hyundai must have desgigned that car because its ugly as shit.

wanderer
Geschrieben

I dont think the Phantom is a bad looking car.

skyline R-34
Geschrieben

i mean the front doesnt look that bad but the back is a different story

kleinefisch
Geschrieben

If you believe that the Phantom is ugly, then you haven't seen it up close for real, and I don't mean in a showroom, but on the road. That car is gorgeous, especially in black, and I kinda like those black rims you see in the magazines.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

it's a striking car with amazing presence. It doesn't have the same "effortless superiority" that an bently does, but VW is slowly killing that, the sporty and debonaire bentleys are an endangered species, and judging by what VW and BMW are doing with their respective british marques, the Phantom is just so much more well done then continental GT it's scary. The phantom's image grows on you. Like most new BMW products, you have to see in person to get it.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

The Phantom reminds me of something I myself might have scribbled out on a piece of paper and labeled " concept Rolls-Royce ". As far as the armoured tank asthetic goes, I'm feeling it. It's the same sort of look that the Chrysler 300 is going for, which is to say stately, dignified and possibly proper. When done right, this is the end result.

It's been a long time coming for new cars that exude that feeling. Not aggressive, not mean, just composed. It's a breath of fresh air, and thats' why the 300 is so hot. If you can understand the Phantom's asthetic for what it is supposed to represent, which is classic British elegance, combined with Germanic solidity - then it becomes easier to appreciate it's appearance.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

it is designed to be imposing, have a striking presence and is definately the image of what a rolls royce is, bold and stately. Bentley is classy, sporty, and exciting, the chrysler 300 tries sporty, imposing, having no front bumper, and a roofline that at best confuses me, the design just isn't as put together as the phantom's is, and folks, let's not kid ourselves, the rolls has been engineered in munich for years now, they've had ZF trannies and BMW V12's forever.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Rolls has used BMW V12's only since the Silver Seraph of 1998, thats' hardly forever, and lots of folks use ZF transmissions. The Chrysler does a good job of looking lavish and large on an old E-Class platform, and it's really not going for quite the same effect as a Rolls. The interior of the 300 is very smartly layed out actually, and the roofline allows for a more upright seating position, and more head and legroom overall.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

Upright seating position like land rover upright? The E-Class already had the most upright seating of any car in it's class, the roof destroys the look of that car, it's just too damn tall. 6 years is a long time, and I suppose the Zf transmissions from germany are a whole lot better than the GM junk they were using before that. Opening the hood of your rolls to see GM is just twisted.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Perhaps the application is just not the best, because GM boxes are actually very good traditionally - in GM vehicles. And they work well enough in the Arnage.

The seating in the 300 is upright, but you can still recline the seats if you wish, I find it refreshing. You mean the old E is too tall or the 300? Because the 300 comes across as fairly wide as well, plus the roof itself is pretty flat, and this helps.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

GM transmissions are not good by any stretch of the imagination. They break - a lot, their shifting is erratic, at time smooth, other times rough, always protracted and never crisp, the Zf box is a definite upgrade in every way. Rolls used to have a reputation for awful reliability, that has faded, what has changed, BMW engines and ZF transmissions, bosch electrical, and zf power steering. The E-Class had the most upright seating of any car in it's class. The 300 looks too tall because the belt line is way too high on the car. The upright was to inflate leg room, which is good, but not really neccesary in a car with a 120" wheelbase. It's personal preference I guess, a commanding seating position is popular now, I'm just a fan of the low and in the thick of it position porsche and BMW use, maybe it's just cause I'm tall, I don't know. I know rolls has gotten better since they started infusing german engineering (which is better than american engineering), and the belt-line on the 300 is too high and the windows are small.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Well, connected to a 350, they ain't bad. I've personally had good experience with GM boxes, the old 4L60E 4-speed, otherwise known as Hydramatic as an example. They are certainly smoother and more responsive than what Ford uses in the Crown Vic which can behave harshly when you really nail it. I've never known GM boxes to break a lot, and I doubt police departments across the country and New York cab drivers have either.

The 300 is a passenger car, putting forth a different face than say a BMW. It can get away with being tall, and the windows and high beltline have a stylistic purpose, which I will go into more in my design analysis.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

i can't wait to read that. needless to say, the very interesting engineering in the 300 gives me quite a bit to say on that part too.

BMW is amazing in how they can make such large cars with so little useful space. Technically, a 5 series is in the same class of car as a civic.

Civic Vs. M5

Battle of the Compact Cars.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

Yeah, though I think the old GM F-body cars might take the cake for most size with the least useable space.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

hey man, the camaro/firebird may have been huge, but in terms of trunk space, it owns a mustang - or a 3, 5, 7, and some small SUVs.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

and by the way, you talk about the 4L60E as something past tense, the GTO uses that box, a number of GM truck/SUV vehicles use it, and the corvette uses a version modified to be bolted to the rear transaxle that they call 4L65E, but internally it's a 4L60E. This tranny isn't exactly new either. It's on everything they make. Pretty sure it's on suburban too.

Their new 5L50E they are putting on the STS is pretty good, but i'm not totally sure they make that. I know they don't make the 5spd on the CTS, and they gave it a GM designation. They also gave a GM designation to the Getrag 260 manual on the CTS.

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

You can pack a mighty grocery run in an F-car, and I would take a Firebird over a Mustang, but the backseat ain't for tall people.

I speak of the 4L60E in the past tense simply bacause it's not new, it's the workhorse of the fleet alright. A good solid box suitable for many applications - even Bentleys'.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

The ZF is a big step up. That said, everyone's old transmissions weren't that great. My rover has an old ZF 4 speed auto they tried to refresh. It isn't that great, it is an improvement over a 4L60E, but not much. I just don't get why they don't just make a 5 speed automatic, drop one in swap shift style (like ford did) or toss on a seccond over drive Chrysler did and gear around it outback. The extra gear helps.

I have news for you, tall people don't fit in a mustang either. A mustang is a big car, yet I can't figure out where all of the car is. There is no room up front, no room in back (at all), no trunk. Where did are they hiding it all. Outside the car it is big, yet inside it is not. The F-Car may be uncomfortable, have no room - front or back (and the ugliest steering wheel ever), but it does have an awesome trunk. Who needs an SUV when you can have a camaro?

LateNightCable
Geschrieben

No, the Mustang isn't roomy either, but the 93'-96' Firebird is really long, check out that nose. I think the Mustang gave the perception of being more practical ( and roomy ), thats' why it's still around, and the F-cars aren't.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

The mustang was - if very slowly, modernized in the most noticable ways. The obvious details and little things you'd notice in the F-Cars weren't. The Mustang just appealed to a wider crowd.

skyline_r34v
Geschrieben

I'd most certainly buy a Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am WS6 T-top rather than a Chevy Camaro SS or Ford Mustang Cobra.

I think it looks the best, fastest of the 3, don't know about the best handling of the 3 and it costs less than the 3.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

the WS-6 is gaudy and rediculous. I'm kinda glad that's gone, that car to me, with all it's stupid plastic trim and decals was the very symbol of everything wrong with american cars. The GTO is a much much better car. The Firebird and camaro were mechanically the same car, same speed, same handling, bit for bit the same cars. Well, their ram air was actually a little different (because of the pontiac's bizarre body clad and hood). The mustang, despite having a beam rear suspension, depending on trim, does handle better in Mach 1, Bullitt, and the IRS cobra versions. The Firebird/Camaro was faster, it was also more dated in terms of interior, refinement and style. The camaro looked cleaner, classier, more lasting in style, and was no more expensive.

skyline_r34v
Geschrieben

The camaro looks like complete dogshit IMO.

thepolarfoxqx
Geschrieben

people who enjoy fantastically overdone cheap plastic bodywork, lots of goofy holes, hoodbuldges, all the goony ricey details could never appreciate the elegant, simple, and sporty lines of camaro. Easily one of the more attractive american sports cars.

cam_1.jpg

2002_Chevy_Camaro_SS_1_lrg.jpg

VS.

The Nostril Mobile.

pontiac_firebird_trans_am_ws6_07.jpg

images%3Fq%3Dfirebird%2Bws-6%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Schreibe eine Antwort

Du kannst jetzt einen Beitrag schreiben und dich dann später registrieren. Wenn du bereits einen Account hast, kannst du dich hier anmelden, um einen Beitrag zu schreiben.

Gast
Auf dieses Thema antworten...

×   Du hast formatierten Text eingefügt.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Dein Link wurde automatisch eingebettet.   Einbetten rückgängig machen und als Link darstellen

×   Dein vorhergehender Inhalt wurde wiederhergestellt.   Editor leeren

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Anmelden, um Inhalt zu folgen  


×
×
  • Neu erstellen...