Spirit of the Ghost: Taking a Rolls-Royce Wraith around France There used to be a tradition on Personal Computer World magazine of writing reviews on the computer you were reviewing. This is being written from the passenger seat of a Rolls-Royce Wraith travelling between Dijon and Reims. The two-door, four seat Wraith has just become the Rolls-Royce of interest because the company …
Quoting one of the classic British Sitcoms from the scene where the lady was trying to sell her ancient Rolls Royce: "You are asking about miles per gallon? You are not fit to drive a car like this. Get out of my sight".
Though I agree. 21 MPG in this day and age is indeed a bit atrocious. My Isuzu D-MAX (loving referred to by my colleagues as "the combined harvester") which happens to have exactly the same dimensions (5.30m long, 2m wide) does 33 on the Autobahn at 100mph and 38.5 at UK motorway speeds despite being nearly twice taller and having the aerodynamics of a brick privy. I have no clue what they did to achieve such atrocious mileage, but they clearly f*** something up.
"I have no clue what they did to achieve such atrocious mileage, but they clearly f*** something up."
Given it's got a 6+ litre twin turbocharged V12, I'd say they did quite the opposite. It was only thirty years ago that a 1.8 litre carb fed engine would barely better 30mpg on a cruise, remember.
Also, I'm fairly sure your Isuzu doesn't have the thick end of 600bhp, although I believe it does weigh about the same...
I'm constantly impressed that my 15 year old 1.7 litre, 140,000 mile shed can tip 40+mpg on a long fast run (A1M at 80mph), to be honest, and 30mpg in mixed (mostly hard) driving.
Things have come a long way - not that long ago, if your Rolls was doing better than 15mpg you'd wonder if it was firing on all cylinders.
Steven "Not Wraith, Raith" R
"This 33mpg at 100mph - is this computer or actual usage"
We had someone claiming 70mpg from an X-type the other day. I'm afraid some people have lives and so, unlike me, don't check the mileage brim to brim and compare to the fuel calculator.
(Which, on my Toyotas, I have found pretty accurate. But 33mph at 100mph for a big van is only going to happen with a force 12 following gale.)
This 33mpg at 100mph - is this computer or actual usage?
Long term average since last counter reset reported by computer and verified to be correct multiple times (but not every time) at pump. Verification was not done every time as pumps on different forecourts (especially out in the wild east) will cut out at different times so you can verify it properly only on circular journeys where you refill at the same pump. Secondary verification from fuel bill which I also do as a recap of the expenses after each 1500 miles journey to ensure that this still makes sense compared to giving 1500 quid to ScumBag Air for 5 round-trip tickets in holiday high season.
33MPG in a brick privy shaped vehicle at 95-100mph Autobahn speeds is achievable - if it is a _VERY_ long and relatively narrow brick. The 5m 30cm length and the hard top help here :)
I do it every year during the summer clocking 3000 miles every time so I know the spend fairly well. That is why I am wondering WTF did the engineers from Royce do to get 21MPG in a similar size vehicle (also fairly brick shaped - its aerodynamics are not anything to shout about).
I can believe 33mpg at 100mph TBH - bear in mind once you're up to speed, you're not having to use a huge amount more power to maintain that than you are at 80mph - more, sure, but not twice as much.
Puma can pull 35mpg at 90-100 on the autobahn, provided you get a clear run and aren't accelerating back up to speed too often, but constantly going from, say, 40-70 in traffic hits it badly, because I use wide open throttle to get back up there ;-)
(my figures are also tank to tank - my car doesn't have an instant MPG readout, it was available on some ECUs and is accessible via OBDII, but not mine)
As for the Rolls, I again repeat, around 600hp/600lb/ft shifting two tonnes with an autobox; 22mpg with the option of doing 50-100 in a manner that would make you wonder if you're being pulled to the horizon by a big elastic band is really not that bad at all. If I'm right, your d-max has a three litre fourpot diesel; this car has twice the capacity, double the turbos, and three times the cylinders, and thus the reciprocating mass; it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Steven R
The village being St Jean Cap Ferrat, home to Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber, and a place which Chris Evans described as being unaffordable even when he'd just sold Virgin Radio isn't too shabby for a Rolls Royce. Cars we've seen there include Aventadors, Spykers, a Towns Lagonda, an early Countach and a Bugatti TYpe 35. Even if it was a Pur Sang that's a million pound car.
"Feh. There's a bloke in Saffron Walden with *two* Bugattis in the garage:"
Saffron Walden is a somewhat upmarket part of the world despite being in Essex. I don't move in your elevated circules, but I remember meeting someone near there who had two Vincents in his. And a Velo Thruxton.
there is (well probably was, im talking 20 years ago since I last saw him) a bloke in Hesketh Bank (Lancashire farming village) that has not one but two right hand drive E-Types. He also had a Ferrari dino and the crowning glory (IMHO) was a jaguar 220j (which he SOLD to get an aston martin DB5).
Made his money with a sunbed company in the 80s. I used to do some IT work for him in the early 90s when IT was still a bit voodoo, was always great to see what car he was driving that day (and to drool/dream)
Can't say I was ever a big a fan of the old Rolls Royces or the people who drove them, but you could at least say they had a clearly-defined image and association of establishment upper-class privilege and gravitas.
Even when they were bought by nouveau riche celeb plebs flaunting their newfound wealth and intention to kiss Margaret Thatcher's backside, they were still buying into- or appropriating- *that* image.
The new Rolls Royces look like they're aimed at bling-obsessed rappers and under-35 Saudi princes with more money than taste. (#) They don't look like they have much in common with the older Rolls beyond being obviously expensive cars... but aside from the grille they could be *any* tackily-expensive cars.
(#) In most cases, this would still be technically true if they had a single dollar in their bank account, but you know what I mean.
BMW have never had a clue about other brands.
Rover - forced own the pastiche route with the 75, which was then killed at the launch presentation.
Mini - bloated parody of the original, no innovation, just bigger and uglier each generation.
The only think they managed to improve on was the previous gen Range Rover...
Improve the Range Rover?
God how bad was it before?
Bottom 10 cars for reliability
191. Citroen C5 Mk2 86.88%
192. Land Rover Range Rover Sport Mk1 86.00%
193. Peugeot 407 85.91%
194. Alfa Romeo MiTo 85.35%
195. Volvo V50 85.21%
196. BMW 3 Series Coupe/Convertible Mk5 84.78%
197. Ford Galaxy Mk3 83.56%
198. BMW 5 Series Mk5 83.48%
199. Land Rover Range Rover Mk3 79.57%
200. Land Rover Discovery Mk3 78.36%
The original was not bad, the P38 had air suspension issues, but is not bad, but the BMW era L322 well, where do you start?
A well designed car with some pretty expensive issues.
The GM box is weak compared to the ZFs, they used a too low torque version. The engine is OK but LR could have done better if allowed to build their own engine, imagine a TD6.
The V8 does not seem to last either, a lot are on second engines.
Bushes, fail like mad. Electrics, not very reliable.
Ford ownership produced the Discovery 3 (partly designed in BMW era) with all of its issues. and introduced the bl00dy Transit engine to the Defender.
Luckily I saw the light and got a Discovery 2 instead
"Rover - forced own the pastiche route with the 75"
I dunno; if you're going to go down that heritage-pandering route, I thought the original Rover 75 actually did it very well. The main problem was the later "modernisation" attempts done- AFAICT- after that questionable business consortium bought Rover from BMW, which were neither fish nor fowl and whose changes looked tacky, half-baked and plastered-on to the original design.
As for the Mini being a "bloated parody", it has nothing on the Fiat 500L. I have to admit that I like the standard "new" Fiat 500 despite it being larger- and not *that* similar to (#)- the 50s original it's nominally a rebirth of.
However, the 500L takes this beyond the level of mockery, a ludicrous mockery of the original small car concept- two steps detached- for something larger than an Austin Maxi. (Why *that* comparison, you might ask? I'd been noting the size of the new "Minis" a week or two back and wondering whether BMW wouldn't be better selling them off as the reincarnation of the Mini's much larger 70s sibling instead. ;-) The new Minis themselves at least only hit that size- or near enough- in their estate form).
It says more about the Americans than it does about the 500L (which has been getting attention over there due to the Pope driving around in one) that it's still perceived by them as a "small" car. I'm pretty sure anything narrower than a tank is considered "small" over there...
(#) It's one of those cars you first see and it looks convincingly retro-influenced, but then you look at the original and it's not actually that similar at all. The most obvious example of this was the "original" (late 90s) New Beetle that is actually far less similar to the classic Beetle than it first appeared; if you compare the side-on silhouettes, the "new" Beetle was almost symmetrical, whereas the classic models clearly weren't. The "new" New Beetles(!) are somewhat better in this respect, but still evoke Ferdinand Porsche's higher-end take on the concept- the Porsche 911- as much as they do the original Beetle.
"You don't buy a Roller and drive yourself."
According to a former director of the car company, that was one of their problems. Your average oil sheikh expects to sit in the front with inferiors in the back. The design of the classic RR meant that the front passenger seat could not be as luxurious as the back seats, so this was a reason not to buy.
Incidentally,
Rolls = Hon C S Rolls, salesman
Royce = Sir Frederick Henry Royce, engineer.
So - salespeople and rock musicians call them Rolls or Rollers because they are basically on the sales side, but engineers and people with old money call them Royces because one doesn't name something after a salesman, does one?
...from the horse's mouth in this case.
Sorry to disappoint you there, @werdsmith, but the B772 incident was a GE90. I am disappointed you didn't do your research properly.
Also, *anyone* working in aerospace knows that the core of a modern turbofan is not designed to be 'contained'. The fan, which is the real driver of power, *is*. The core is designed to never fail (provided maintenance is performed correctly and to spec, and of course the manufacturer not messing things up).
The Trent is still one of the best three-spool turbofans out there.
To solve this problem the doors are electric, buttons behind the A-pillar control the doors and boot.
I think I would pass (even if I wanted one). A car where the driver needs to scamper into the rear passenger compartment across the seats after a prang to open the door? No thank you. Whoever designed that was smoking something extremely cool (which may be or may not be a crime) and not sharing (which is definitely criminal).
By the way, I do not believe in the mechanism functioning after someone fishbones you or you flip a couple of times.
...that lots of people are employed around Chichester and surroundings making something that those-with-more-money-than-they-know-what-to-do-with will buy despite the obscene price tag.
This is brilliant! (And up the road a bit in Woking, the same trick is being worked at McLaren).
Frankly, the more such things we can build and throw at the hyper-rich to help them cope with their empty and meaningless existence*, the better.
(*joke, in case we have a billionaire in our midst!)
"Indeed, we took it into the “high” vehicles section of the Eurotunnel because that doesn’t have toilets in the train and so is wider. We didn’t need the height"
...or, apparently, the toilets. Reminds me of the Rowan Atkinson line, "If you'd read your Bible, you might have seen that it was 'damnation without relief'".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut116mBuPpg
RR's problem is that it doesn't know any more who it is selling to. Compare a Phantom VI to this puppy and it's clear that Rolls are chasing rappers and not royalty. Let's face it, recent Rollers have been painfully ugly. With all the superb British coachworks shops out there it's a tragedy that RR built a box on wheels with wacko headlights, spinners on the wheels (to keep the logo upright...yeah right) and party bus ceiling lights. And don't get me started on the dash.
Bottom line: the last decade of Rolls-Royce cars have been painfully ugly brute cars.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
