the German engineers probably thought they were in a time machine, looking at 30 year old technology, I would imagine.
I'd imagine that any "german" Bentley would be as reliable as any other German car....which means "glitchy but okay". They are beautifully made, though.
It's funny that some cars could make a MB 6.3 look like an economical easy to live with machine :shades:
Some new RR and Bentleys are cool, but they have to be careful to avoid the nouveau riche [non-permissible content removed] image, which can be seen now and then especially in the Continental.
The Germans also get a huge ego boost over controlling what has become such a big part of British culture.
In France they have a derisive term for cars like an old Bentley---they call them "A baker's car" meaning that someone is trying to look rich but isn't, so they buy an old beat up luxury car and try to live off the image.
I don't quite see the resemblance...but a nice looking car none the less.
I agree, that Grand Marquis is a handsome rig. :P Seriously though, I can see the connection Lemko makes between the cars. I think it's in the way the front-end is upright overall, but slightly wedge-shaped.
Wow! Was that your Grand Marquis? Nice car! Mine was white with a dark blue half-roof and dark blue leather interior. It also had those nice turbine wheels. It had tires with a thicker whitewall. They looked really sharp on that car!
Thanks, it was my first car! At the time of that picture (96?) I had Michelin XW4s on it, they had a very thin white wall. It was the same tire the newer Town Cars had at the time. My car had the grey velour and had every option except the Tripminder computer. Did yours have the "Instaclear Windshield?" I loved it, was like a rear defroster for the windshield.
Hmmm! I don't remember. What I do remember is that it had a separate button for the antenna so I could raise or lower it rather than it just raising on its own with the radio. It had an excellent AC system. I'd be confident about leaving ice cream on the seat in the middle of a blacktop parking lot in July with the AC on. It also had a feature where the door lock and interior would light up when I pulled the outside door handle.
Good 'ol R12 freon. Mine was great too. My 89 TC was converted to R134A and was good, but not like the GM. I would have to assume they were the same system.
The Rolls is much more deftly styled. All its edges are rounded, giving it a more massive and powerful look (a large pile of sand looks more massive than the equivalent large box); also thinner side moldings avoid the "stuck on" look. The Mercury's concave wheels are rarely a good styling feature, as they make the body look clumsy on top of them. The flatter wheels and hubs of the Rolls give it a streamline look.
I just looked up the specs on the Silver Seraph...122.7" wheelbase, ~212" long overall, ~59-60" tall. I can believe most of those. But then, I saw one stat listing it as 83.7" wide! Were these things seriously that fat?! And if so, did they have to be registered as a truck, or something different? I've heard that in some states, once you go over 80" wide your car would get registered as a truck...supposedly it happened with the 1960 Ford? And if you're over 80" wide, I think the EPA classifies it differently. And I noticed that the EPA's website doesn't list the Silver Seraph in it fuel economy ratings.
That long wheelbase might help the car look more streamlined, too. That car's about the same length as a Grand Marquis, but wb is over 8" longer, so that cuts down on the overhang. Also, I don't think it's the flat wheels themselves that make the car look sleeker, but the fact that it has a wider track, so the body doesn't seem to overhang so much on the sides.
Massive rear end overhang, a perennial American car motif, does not flatter a car....EVER....also a longer wheelbase gives a better ride.
The downside of long wheelbase is of course maneuverability and the fact that you have to strengthen the frame more.
Rolls are locomotives on rubber tires, that's true.
Are they worth the money you pay in 2010? Probably not. Are they impressive to drive? Oh, yeah. It's amazing how fast they are for their weight and size.
Massive rear end overhang, a perennial American car motif, does not flatter a car....EVER....also a longer wheelbase gives a better ride.
I think a bit more rear overhang can make a car look better, but only to a certain degree. I guess it's kinda like Goldilocks and the 3 bears...there can be not enough, too much, and just right. And it all depends on the overall style of the car.
As for that Silver Seraph, for awhile I didn't like that style of Rolls, as it just seems a bit generic compared to the older ones. But I think it looks a lot better than some of the new ones... These things make me think of a cross between (among?) this,this,this, and this!
Well sure, proportion is everything. It's probably more of a sin on a coupe, as it gives the impression that the body will slide off as the car speeds up. Excessive overhang would be something like those Caprice blobs from the 90s.
Someday we'll have bell bottoms and tail fins again.
Hopefully not at the same time! It'll look like the bizzarrely anachronistic world of the later episodes of "Happy Days!" We'll have '70s hairstyles and fashions in a 1950s world!
Not an overhang, but I think the Lexus GS has a weird disporportionately short trunk. I won't even get into what I think about Asian automotive styling in general :shades:
Ha...I remember watching Laverne and Shirley as a kid, and the 70s styles threw me off so much I didn't even know they were supposed to be in the 50s, rather I thought they were just eccentric. It wasn't until when a Happy Days character was on the show that I got it. I remember street scenes with old cars, and just assumed the 50s cars were boring used cars in the 70s.
I think the problem with the Lexus GS is that the roof is just way too big for the car in general, and as a result, the C-pillar is just too far back in relation to the rear axle.
Stylistically, I think it makes the car look awkward, but I imagine if they shortened the roof to give it better proportions, it would make the back seat uninhabitable.
The Lincoln MKS has sort of the same affliction:
I don't think adding any more rear overhang to the car would help. However, at 112.9", the wheelbase is awfully stubby for a car of this size class. Heck, a Chevy Malibu is something like 112.3"! I think if they kept the C-pillar on the MKS as is, but moved the rear axle and everything behind it back a few inches, it would balance the car out. As is, the car just looks like it would "see-saw" too much going down the road, although I'm sure its suspension is sophisticated enough to prevent that.
Yeah, that Lincoln definitely needs more wheelbase.
I wonder if the GS was designed for increased rear headroom, and they didn't think of how awkward it would look. As it is now, it wouldn't take much to give it a rear hatch like a BMW 5er GT.
To be fair, I think even BMW is getting guilty of this trend...
Although I think the 3-series does a better job with that reverse-slant on the rear door and the elongated C-pillar than most. BMW also does a pretty good job with proportioning the wheelbase and the overall length. The 3-series is only about 178-179" long, yet rides a 108.7" wb. So that's kinda like a compact car with a midsized wheelbase.
I can guarantee that the GS's design, regardless of intent, did NOT result in additional headroom. It's always been one of the poorest headroom cars in its class, as far as I'm concerned. I tried the original one, and I've tried the current one. VERY tight, to me, at least.
Wow...so it's really kind of a pointless car, as the Germans pretty much kick it to the curb in that segment. I wonder why it sells at all - maybe it has a plush ride, and I guess it should be very reliable. I was reading a German-market buyers guide magazine, and they didn't have much in the way of nice words for it other than that it has more standard equipment than the domestic competition - and in Germany you can get a GS with no sunroof, no nav, no leather.
Ok, I'll defend my car's honor, I guess. I have a GS400. It has a silky smooth V8 that makes vroom vroom noises and makes the car pretty darn fast. It handles better than a 5-series without a sports package but probably a tad worse than a 5-series with a sports package. The ride is good. The steering and brakes are spot on.
I am a somewhat tall fellow and I have plenty of room up front. The back seat and trunk beat the 5-series hands down. I am comparing the prior generations of both cars, but the interior of the Lexus uses nicer materials than the BMW. I love BMWs. I've already had a couple of them and I am currently shopping for another. However, just about everything on the Lexus just seems better quality than the BMW.
Also, I can change the oil myself for less than $20 and in less than 20 minutes. It has't required anything else in the past year. It has bulletproof reliability particularly when compared to a BMW.
I think BMWs have nicer looking exteriors in general, though. Plus, you can get a manual transmission in one.
I must admit, I'm the worst guy I know on headroom, 6'5" and none in the legs. I wanted to fit in the GS (I actually like the looks, think it's the best-looking Lexus), but I not only hit my head, I had to tilt my head even with the seat all the way down. I has the same experience in my friends first gen GS years ago. Surprisingly, the current gen 5 series has just enough head room for me, even with the mandatory sun roof. Too bad I can't get past the looks.
I think the previous GS like yours was/is probably more relevant than the current unloved model, and as I have always loathed the styling of the E60 5er, I'd probably pick it too, especially in V8 guise. Like most cars, the current GS looks to have bloated up a bit...and knowing Lexus, numbed up as well. The first GS was the best looking IMO...maybe as it wasn't an in-house design.
I'm 6'3", but with long legs and a more average torso. I remember sitting in the GSes at auto shows, but can't remember if I had any issues or not. I really don't mind the styling of the current one, with the exception of the disproportionate C-pillar that sits too far back.
I think one thing that might be causing that look in C-pillars these days is that BMW-esque jig in the rear door. Back in the old days, that jig used to be down toward the base of the C-pillar, so only a small part of the rear door kicked back and the bulk of the C-pillar had a forward thrust to it, like this:
However, somewhere along the line, the old Rambler-esque "Reverse Slant" C-pillar got dusted off and introduced to a new audience... And Rambler wasn't the first to do it, as GM and Mopar both played around with it in 1953. I think the first modern car I really noticed it on was the 2002 Nissan Altima, but then that look, which takes that BMW window jig and moves it toward the top of the window, started to really catch on.
Back in the old days, the rooflines were more upright, and they had wraparound rear windows, so the overall C-pillar didn't take up too much room. Plus, they had those longer decklids and weren't as concerned about space efficiency, so they put the C-pillar where they thought it would look good, not where it would help out with back seat interior room. These days though, with more focus on interior comfort, plus aerodynamics, and the fact those old wraparound windows weren't cheap to make, probably forces the roofline into a more serious rake, and when you add in the stubby rear-ends of today's cars, it just makes the whole thing look a bit awkward.
That 1916 Hudson is very cool and very rare. You'd have to do something about those wood spoke wheels though, or they'll do something about you.
8 feet tall? Really? Sounds a bit hyperbolic, but you know, I don't know.
Back in 1916, most cars on the road were Model T Fords, and of the remainder, most of them were short-lived both in manufacturing and in reliability. But the Hudson was a good ol' car. I'd love to have this car, absolutely.
I liked that car too, very unusual. Something special about that top setup, never seen one like it before. Is it similar to the old fashioned "California top"?
The car also looks very modern for 1916 with its lack of brightwork and its streamlined cowl. It must have been very modern at the time.
yeah, those bids for the '59 are pure BS.....nice car, but I don't think it would sell for the current bid.
the '73 CDV: why bother restoring? And incorrectly at that: awful velour-ish interior, digital (are you SERIOUS?) gauges, ick. Nice outside, horrible inside, and nobody cares. 1973 ANYTHING American sucks.
the Longest Story In The World doesn't make an '81, non-loaded Olds 88 coupe worth a whole lot, really, even with the low miles (and seller is comparing it to bubble-top Bel Airs and Impalas? Please.).
Back in 1916, most cars were open, and closed cars were in the vast minority, and were very heavy and very expensive; moreover, the ventilation in them was pretty bad---most did not have roll up winder windows at that time. Some had a slider, some just fixed in the rear. (DId anyone notice, no winders in the doors on that Hudson?)
The "California top" was clever but a devil to assemble. It must have driven people crazy.
With the 1924 Essex came a wave of reasonably priced closed cars that were not incredibly tall or clunky. It was a kind of breakthrough.
That Hudson needed all the HP it could get to push that heavy body around, I'm sure.
By the late 20s, the proportion of closed to open turned around 180 degrees, and most cars were closed by then.
Cars in 1916 were still built for function---very few were built for styling. Ads for most cars said things like "rugged and reliable" and "it'll get you there"----car companies hadn't started to "spin dreams" quite yet.
They are all hideous in their own way. I dislike the ZDX the most out of the three, for pretending to be avant-garde, yet just being a disguised station wagon for boring beige aging yuppies, masquerading under "4 door sports coupe" nonsense. It's a triumph of (questionable) style over substance, a marketing-driven car if there ever was one. Without its trendy interior, it wouldn't have anything at all to stand on. I haven't seen one on the road yet, so I wonder if the target audience will fall for it.
The GT should at least drive nicely - we are all used to ugly BMWs... and the Crosstour...well, I doubt it will have a long life. "Cargo incognito" has to be the most ridiculous catch phrase of late.
" I haven't seen one on the road yet, so I wonder if the target audience will fall for it.
Good point. Unless I just haven't noticed them -- which would be difficult -- the only ones I've seen are in showrooms and the auto show. In addition to the hideous styling, they're real porkers. That weight is a real head wind for meeting the ever tightening federal fuel economy standards. Maybe these, um, things will quietly be replaced in their respective lineups.
Yesterday, looking out the window of my office (which overlooks a major highway), I saw a car break down. It sat on the shoulder for awhile, and then a flatbed tow truck finally came to pick it up. The car? Fiat X1/9, of course.
Well in those days there was no regulation of advertising, and the most outrageous claims were made. I'm sure there were plentiful "disclaimers", as evidenced by the fact that Rainer didn't last very long.
It's amusing that the ad says that foreign cars have "already adapted" the magneto ignition----when in fact the foreign cars invented it and used it a decade before the Rainer.
Magnetos are pretty reliable, but unlike the soon-to-appear ignition point distributor which appeared in the 1912 Cadillac, the magneto required fixed ignition timing, that is, one compromise setting for both high or low speed. On these ponderous old cars, not a great compromise.
Magnetos still are used of course on various machines.
Note the Rainer has no front doors---in 1906, the car was still transitioning from horse carriage to automobile, and front doors were uncommon. Also note that the lack of luggage space required all kind of junk to be carried on the running boards. The rear seats plopped right on the rear axle could easily cause the passengers to be hurled out of the car on a severe bump.
This car appears to have acetylene lighting, an actual differential (instead of chain drive) and a front-mounted engine and hood. So in many ways, quite modern for 1906.
Probably prohibitively expensive as well. The 1908 Model T will kill off most of this type of car.
All large American cars of this era are actually copies of the 1901 Mercedes, an extremely influential automobile.
Back in 1916, most cars were open, and closed cars were in the vast minority, and were very heavy and very expensive; moreover, the ventilation in them was pretty bad---most did not have roll up winder windows at that time. Some had a slider, some just fixed in the rear. (DId anyone notice, no winders in the doors on that Hudson?)
I remember reading somewhere that the Dodge Brothers built the first 4-door hardtop, or at least, a rudimentary version of it. I think 1914 maybe? I think it had a fixed steel roof, and no B-pillar. However, it didn't have roll-down windows. Probably those type that snapped or clipped into place, or whatever?
Comments
I'd imagine that any "german" Bentley would be as reliable as any other German car....which means "glitchy but okay". They are beautifully made, though.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Some new RR and Bentleys are cool, but they have to be careful to avoid the nouveau riche [non-permissible content removed] image, which can be seen now and then especially in the Continental.
The Germans also get a huge ego boost over controlling what has become such a big part of British culture.
I agree, that Grand Marquis is a handsome rig. :P Seriously though, I can see the connection Lemko makes between the cars. I think it's in the way the front-end is upright overall, but slightly wedge-shaped.
LOL.. that one was actually mine!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Thanks, it was my first car! At the time of that picture (96?) I had Michelin XW4s on it, they had a very thin white wall. It was the same tire the newer Town Cars had at the time. My car had the grey velour and had every option except the Tripminder computer. Did yours have the "Instaclear Windshield?" I loved it, was like a rear defroster for the windshield.
My 89 TC was the same colors as your 89 GM.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Good 'ol R12 freon. Mine was great too. My 89 TC was converted to R134A and was good, but not like the GM. I would have to assume they were the same system.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
That long wheelbase might help the car look more streamlined, too. That car's about the same length as a Grand Marquis, but wb is over 8" longer, so that cuts down on the overhang. Also, I don't think it's the flat wheels themselves that make the car look sleeker, but the fact that it has a wider track, so the body doesn't seem to overhang so much on the sides.
The downside of long wheelbase is of course maneuverability and the fact that you have to strengthen the frame more.
Rolls are locomotives on rubber tires, that's true.
Are they worth the money you pay in 2010? Probably not. Are they impressive to drive? Oh, yeah. It's amazing how fast they are for their weight and size.
I think a bit more rear overhang can make a car look better, but only to a certain degree. I guess it's kinda like Goldilocks and the 3 bears...there can be not enough, too much, and just right. And it all depends on the overall style of the car.
As for that Silver Seraph, for awhile I didn't like that style of Rolls, as it just seems a bit generic compared to the older ones. But I think it looks a lot better than some of the new ones...
These things make me think of a cross between (among?) this, this, this, and this!
Abrupt deck lid designs remind me of shave tail mules. (something missing)
I don't care for the current Phantom.
Looks like this:
You know how it is, the pendulum in car design swings this way and that, just like fashion. Someday we'll have bell bottoms and tail fins again. :P
Hopefully not at the same time! It'll look like the bizzarrely anachronistic world of the later episodes of "Happy Days!" We'll have '70s hairstyles and fashions in a 1950s world!
Stylistically, I think it makes the car look awkward, but I imagine if they shortened the roof to give it better proportions, it would make the back seat uninhabitable.
The Lincoln MKS has sort of the same affliction:
I don't think adding any more rear overhang to the car would help. However, at 112.9", the wheelbase is awfully stubby for a car of this size class. Heck, a Chevy Malibu is something like 112.3"! I think if they kept the C-pillar on the MKS as is, but moved the rear axle and everything behind it back a few inches, it would balance the car out. As is, the car just looks like it would "see-saw" too much going down the road, although I'm sure its suspension is sophisticated enough to prevent that.
I wonder if the GS was designed for increased rear headroom, and they didn't think of how awkward it would look. As it is now, it wouldn't take much to give it a rear hatch like a BMW 5er GT.
Personally, I like the look of the body being stretched over four wheels, with the wheels pushed out to the corners....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Although I think the 3-series does a better job with that reverse-slant on the rear door and the elongated C-pillar than most. BMW also does a pretty good job with proportioning the wheelbase and the overall length. The 3-series is only about 178-179" long, yet rides a 108.7" wb. So that's kinda like a compact car with a midsized wheelbase.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I am a somewhat tall fellow and I have plenty of room up front. The back seat and trunk beat the 5-series hands down. I am comparing the prior generations of both cars, but the interior of the Lexus uses nicer materials than the BMW. I love BMWs. I've already had a couple of them and I am currently shopping for another. However, just about everything on the Lexus just seems better quality than the BMW.
Also, I can change the oil myself for less than $20 and in less than 20 minutes. It has't required anything else in the past year. It has bulletproof reliability particularly when compared to a BMW.
I think BMWs have nicer looking exteriors in general, though. Plus, you can get a manual transmission in one.
I think one thing that might be causing that look in C-pillars these days is that BMW-esque jig in the rear door. Back in the old days, that jig used to be down toward the base of the C-pillar, so only a small part of the rear door kicked back and the bulk of the C-pillar had a forward thrust to it, like this:
However, somewhere along the line, the old Rambler-esque "Reverse Slant" C-pillar got dusted off and introduced to a new audience...
Back in the old days, the rooflines were more upright, and they had wraparound rear windows, so the overall C-pillar didn't take up too much room. Plus, they had those longer decklids and weren't as concerned about space efficiency, so they put the C-pillar where they thought it would look good, not where it would help out with back seat interior room. These days though, with more focus on interior comfort, plus aerodynamics, and the fact those old wraparound windows weren't cheap to make, probably forces the roofline into a more serious rake, and when you add in the stubby rear-ends of today's cars, it just makes the whole thing look a bit awkward.
Expensive claims
Long hood
Little red survivor
Nice upholstery pattern
Long story
Early pillarless of sorts, good bids
For the Francophile
You'll never run into yourself
Iffy car, iffy boat
Good use of resources
8 feet tall? Really? Sounds a bit hyperbolic, but you know, I don't know.
Back in 1916, most cars on the road were Model T Fords, and of the remainder, most of them were short-lived both in manufacturing and in reliability. But the Hudson was a good ol' car. I'd love to have this car, absolutely.
The car also looks very modern for 1916 with its lack of brightwork and its streamlined cowl. It must have been very modern at the time.
the '73 CDV: why bother restoring? And incorrectly at that: awful velour-ish interior, digital (are you SERIOUS?) gauges, ick. Nice outside, horrible inside, and nobody cares. 1973 ANYTHING American sucks.
the Longest Story In The World doesn't make an '81, non-loaded Olds 88 coupe worth a whole lot, really, even with the low miles (and seller is comparing it to bubble-top Bel Airs and Impalas? Please.).
Talk about an ugly car! Well, okay, the Honda Crosstour and Acura ZDX are no better, to my eyes.
Back in 1916, most cars were open, and closed cars were in the vast minority, and were very heavy and very expensive; moreover, the ventilation in them was pretty bad---most did not have roll up winder windows at that time. Some had a slider, some just fixed in the rear. (DId anyone notice, no winders in the doors on that Hudson?)
The "California top" was clever but a devil to assemble. It must have driven people crazy.
With the 1924 Essex came a wave of reasonably priced closed cars that were not incredibly tall or clunky. It was a kind of breakthrough.
That Hudson needed all the HP it could get to push that heavy body around, I'm sure.
By the late 20s, the proportion of closed to open turned around 180 degrees, and most cars were closed by then.
Cars in 1916 were still built for function---very few were built for styling. Ads for most cars said things like "rugged and reliable" and "it'll get you there"----car companies hadn't started to "spin dreams" quite yet.
The GT should at least drive nicely - we are all used to ugly BMWs... and the Crosstour...well, I doubt it will have a long life. "Cargo incognito" has to be the most ridiculous catch phrase of late.
Good point. Unless I just haven't noticed them -- which would be difficult -- the only ones I've seen are in showrooms and the auto show. In addition to the hideous styling, they're real porkers. That weight is a real head wind for meeting the ever tightening federal fuel economy standards. Maybe these, um, things will quietly be replaced in their respective lineups.
Nice 1962ish Vette convertible.
A 1969 Camaro. Looked like a copo, with dog dish hubcaps on steelies, and a high rise hood.
A hot rodded 1965 mustang. Giant tires and a DIY sheet metal hood scoop. otherwise looked clean.
1970 Caddy convert with the land yacht plates (that guy I know).
and most shhocking, moving under it's own power, an early Jag XJS
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Saw the only two Rainiers in existence, yesterday.. 1906 and 1908 models..
They were really high-end cars, at the time.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yesterday, looking out the window of my office (which overlooks a major highway), I saw a car break down. It sat on the shoulder for awhile, and then a flatbed tow truck finally came to pick it up. The car? Fiat X1/9, of course.
It's amusing that the ad says that foreign cars have "already adapted" the magneto ignition----when in fact the foreign cars invented it and used it a decade before the Rainer.
Magnetos are pretty reliable, but unlike the soon-to-appear ignition point distributor which appeared in the 1912 Cadillac, the magneto required fixed ignition timing, that is, one compromise setting for both high or low speed. On these ponderous old cars, not a great compromise.
Magnetos still are used of course on various machines.
Note the Rainer has no front doors---in 1906, the car was still transitioning from horse carriage to automobile, and front doors were uncommon. Also note that the lack of luggage space required all kind of junk to be carried on the running boards. The rear seats plopped right on the rear axle could easily cause the passengers to be hurled out of the car on a severe bump.
This car appears to have acetylene lighting, an actual differential (instead of chain drive) and a front-mounted engine and hood. So in many ways, quite modern for 1906.
Probably prohibitively expensive as well. The 1908 Model T will kill off most of this type of car.
All large American cars of this era are actually copies of the 1901 Mercedes, an extremely influential automobile.
I remember reading somewhere that the Dodge Brothers built the first 4-door hardtop, or at least, a rudimentary version of it. I think 1914 maybe? I think it had a fixed steel roof, and no B-pillar. However, it didn't have roll-down windows. Probably those type that snapped or clipped into place, or whatever?