A matter of taste: Rolls-Royce vs Maybach vs Bentley - Page 3

The Rolls, Maybach and Bentley are in fact just kitsch status symbols. The Bugatti is an aesthete's luxury toy first and foremost. For getting around comfortably and tastefully, just give me a VW Phaeton, a Citroen C6, or a Lancia Thesis--and a good driver. Even Audis are just middle class tacky trophies these days.

How would a Rolls look in a matte finish?

I don't think it would help its appearance at all. Someone in Indy has a black Ferrari with a matte finish, and it looks okay on that car though.

Yes. The one in the background, please. I need the sunroof.

Cannot imagine spending phaeton money on such a dull car just so I can be anti-showy. It's like the hipster version of car buying. "I am so fucking rich but no one knows and I am so cool for hiding it so well."


Hell I have never seen a phaeton. Let me rephrase that, I have never noticed a phaeton since it looks so incredibly dull. When the world of gattica finally takes over that's what everyone will drive and it will be available in 10 shades of gray.

Not saying everyone should drive a bright orange lambo but geez you can have a little fun in life.

Well I am off to a whine a cheese event. Think I will take the loud obnoxious bright yellow sports car just to be a dick.

That photo doesn't do the Phaeton justice: it looks grimy. The car is really quite beautiful, in the way the first Infiniti Q45s were beautiful: high quality construction and engineering with a restrained design. If you liked flashy cars, it wasn't your kind of ride. Looking again at the Bentley, I like it even more, especially the front headlamp cluster. It looks much more thoughtfully designed and actually gives the car a less massive look, as opposed to the front end treatment of the Rolls, which if anything, reinforces the bulk of the car. I do like the Rolls dash. A car this costly should look very different to less expensive cars, and the dash treatment with the large areas of wood does just that. That center console on the Bugatti looks like a miniature surfboard. I can't see why they brought it so far back that it extends past the footwells. The back of the car doesn't look all that roomy, and the center console plank makes it seem even less so, no matter how "elegantly" it is trimmed. The Citroen C6 looks ungainly, especially the back end. It looks like an exaggerated bad-dream version of an Audi A6. That is a shame, because I always admired Citroen limousine designs, from the DS and CMs, through the Pininfarinas. That Lancia Thesis looks like it was made by Kia, terrible. Hyundai puts that to shame.

I suppose one has to 'read' the Lancia Thesis in context: in Italy it says "high-level government/military official" or "old-fashioned middle/upper-middle class family", and the design doesn't look gimmicky because it connects to familiar lines. I did like the Thema better, fwiw (more restrained design, shared platform with Saab 9000), and the K was horrible. The C6 is a rare successful reinterpretation of the past. And yes, the Phaeton really does look a lot better than it does in that crappy pic I posted. I agree that too much understatement ends up having the opposite effect, but if you see a Phaeton in the flesh (so to speak) you'll see that it isn't understatement overkill. If we want to talk serious luxury cars, then Bristol is probably my favourite maker.

Well, Maserati is in a different ball park, obviously. Though all three brands are owned by the same parent company. Talking of large sedans, I confess that I had a soft spot for the 1st gen. Quattroporte, though I would never drive one (even if I could afford it, which is never going to happen).

This sounds like ringing praise to me . I understand the distaste for ostentation, but there are reasons to admire and desire these cars (particularly the Bugatti, in my opinion) beyond prestige, reputation, cache, etc. The Bugatti is no less than an awesome piece of automotive art; the others are at least very impressive pieces of machinery. For what it's worth, I do think the Galibier is a far more successful concept than the Veyron: the latter is less appealing as a sports car than the former is as a luxury sedan. I'd take a 430 Scuderia, a 911 GT2, or even an R8, before the Veyron.

It is praise, albeit in a strictly qualified sense. I do agree that the Galibier is an exquisite machine and a very interesting object overall. And I agree that there are excellent reasons to desire it, ceteris paribus. But things are seldom equal, so that car would be a good fit in very few people's lives.

The Veyron had some interesting design elements, such as the control on the floor for the crazy setting. It did look like something new, a bit like the Ferrari F40 and Enzo in their day. I'm not sure exactly what's so impressive about the Rolls, Bentley and Maybach qua machines.

I like this story

This is exactly my point. Cars don't have to just be about transportation, just as clothes don't have to just be about comfort and keeping warm. If you view your car the same was as a dishwasher or refrigerator, then, of course, none of the super-luxury sedans mentioned in this thread make any sense. For someone who loves cars for reasons beyond strict utility, it's a different story. You might as well point out that expensive, bespoke clothes are also only a good fit in very few people's lives. Can you imagine what the average income, non-enthusiast thinks of a $6,000 handmade suit? I think the F40 and Enzo are totally different animals as compared to the Veyron. The former two were ostensibly designed for actual performance as the utmost objective. The Veyron was designed to realize the emotional appeal of an idea formed free of practical reality. Thus, it took forever to figure out how to keep the car from lifting off the ground--if Bugatti simply wanted a car to outperform the others before it, it would have ditched the ridiculous engine and body design early on in the process. However, the notion of a 1000-hp, 16-cylinder engine was essential to the idea they were going for, reality be damned. The Rolls, Bentley, and Maybach are impressive for their packaging of power and luxury. If you want the most of those things in combination, and you can afford them, they are excellent choices. I see nothing crass about it.

Yes, I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I'm just saying that for most people it is difficult to pull off a car-as-aesthetic-object in real life.


I think this analogy breaks down a little too soon for your liking: a suit is much less conspicuous (and expensive, in absolute terms) than a car.


Good point. But some people will find that sort of fiat velocitas, pereat mundus mentality quite appealing.


I just don't get this is. It's a bit like saying that a Corvette is impressive because of its packaging of a relatively inexpensive car and a very powerful (if unrefined) engine: the whole is at most the same of its parts. What I mean that neither power nor luxury are difficult to achieve, and their conjunction isn't achieved in any particularly interesting way in any of those cars.