quite honestly, driving dynamics rate so low on my list of interests on cars of this sort, that I don't care how heavy the car is.

Basically the only things I care about here are a nice luxurious interior, some useful features, QUIET QUIET QUIET, and smooth comfortable ride.

In those terms, the lexus ls600 is one of the best cars I've driven.

 

I don't care about dynamics at this level of car either myself. Luxury and comfort supersedes everything really. From my research on the current BMW chassis, I feel that it was done more with the intent to cut costs than it was to be as advanced as possible. Both M-B and Audi large car chassis' I find to be on par with, or out-comfort the BMW's, and be done with materials advanced enough to not have to pile on such weight. I'm sure the Rolls has enough engineering added onto it to make as good use of that chassis as possible, but as intangible as the effects might be, it would bug me, riding on a 7/5/etc. Series chassis.

 

Oh my....K/A why do you take what is said in other forums and preach it like gospel? You keep saying the 7-Series chassis uses this and uses that, yet there is no proof of it being inferior to the S-Class or A8 platforms. If there is I'd like to see it. To say that it uses less advanced steel is to say what, that the car isn't safe? What is the point? To say it would bother you knowing that it shares a chassis with the 7-Series would bother you? Why? Do you think it drives like a 7-Series. I seems way too many people here are confusing badge engineering with sharing bits and pieces or architecture with other cars, there is a big difference between the two practices. No one here has looked under either car (if you have, I'd love to hear about what you saw and what they share) or seen enough of the Ghost's guts to see what it shares. It now shares it chassis with a 5-Series? OMG. The Ghost is darn near twice the size of a 5-Series.


All this platform talk, give me a break. If no one told anyone here that the Ghost was based on the 7-Series no one here would know or even care. Apparently Rolls-Royce buyers don't care about this nonsense. Heck if you're going to knock the Ghost you may as well knock the Phantom too since it was also designed and engineered by BMW, but doesn't share a chassis with any BMWs, since Rolls split off on its own in 2003 or whenever it was.

I'm shocked at how mis-informed this board and site is. All kinds of misinformation passed off as facts constantly.

A Rolls Royce isn't trying to be a "dynamic" car, its vying for the title of best luxury car on earth. Rolls-Royces "waft" they don't handle like a S-Class or 7-Series, that isn't the point. A 760Li to Ghost isn't the same thing as the Tahoe-Yukon-Escalade where you can clearly see that they're the same product. No one here would know what chassis is underneath the Ghost BMW didn't tell you.

The ML and Jeep GC are designed by Fiat per some on other boards because Fiat now owns Chrysler. My goodness this place is lost.

A

 

Less advanced steels when applied to a chassis has nothing to little to do with the safety of a car, you should know this! It is just that: Less advanced = less lightweight and stiff, forcing BMW to use more of the lesser steels, i.e more weight. BMW clearly didn't have high-strength/lightweight materials in mind when they made the current BMW large car chassis, proof is in the pudding.

And the 5 and 7's chassis are identical, save for dimensions, which is common knowledge. Which means that the Ghost and 5 are riding on the "same chassis", albeit differently sized.

 

The problem with all the K/A is that again, you wouldn't know any of it without someone telling you that, it isn't something you, I or anyone else here is qualified to dissect on our own and then make a determination that the Ghost is inferior because of this. Other that it "bothering you" what is the problem with this platform sharing, especially when the Ghost turned out to be as good as it is?


OMG K/A you're confused my friend. In that ridiculous Maybach vs S-Class "steels" thread you said just that, now you're saying it doesn't make a difference. Which is it? Do you even know? If it truly didn't make a difference outside of weight savings do you think Mercedes and Audi would go through such trouble to use so many advanced metals in their cars construction? You can't believe what you just wrote here.

Ok so if BMW didn't have that in mind (to use whatever steel), what is the point? Is the car inferior because of that? If so in what ways besides weight? These aren't sports cars mind you.


M

 

I see we're going around in circles again.

In the Maybach thread, that was about safety cage steels, and how it has older/less advanced safety cage steels than the newer Mercs, not to mention a lower percentage of HSS and UHSS. The chassis argument was about how it's riding on practically a W140's chassis from the early 90's (developed in the 80's).

This argument is simply about BMW cost cutting their chassis to the point of having pig-fat, unacceptable amounts of weight. It isn't just a performance issue (and BMW's are popular almost only for their performance oriented driver involvement, mind you, not like M-B who have garnered respect through traditions of Luxury).

The new BMW's suffer extensively due to their anchored chassis'. They've been panned by many BMW enthusiasts, and are a playing factor as to why a car like a 550i weighs an astounding 4,500+ lbs. More-so than M-B or Audi counterparts by a long-shot, which is unbecoming of BMW (the purported Sporty choice).

Even driving a new 7 or 5 Series, you can feel the massive amounts of engineering put into technology to try and offset that weight as much as possible. Imagine if they had put that same effort into a car without a hampered chassis and lack of advanced constructional materials from the get-go. The E39 and E60 used extensive aluminum and cutting edge materials throughout the cars, especially during their time, the new F10 and accompanying BMW's do not to such an extent, especially during their respective times, which shows you that BMW cost cut them out, and had to do what they can to compromise.

The BMW chassis' perform greatly in so many ways, but this argument isn't about that, it's purely about the fallbacks of the current large-car BMW chassis that's being shared across the range.

In essence, the Ghost is hampered by those fallbacks less than the BMW's, because the Ghost can be as heavy as it wants to be, and has to only provide a cushy and luxurious ride.

I personally don't care about how capable the 7's chassis is anyway, when talking about the Ghost. When the Ghost costs as much as 4 or so 7-Series', you'd think they can use a bespoke and superior chassis, if not only to make buyers feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And yes, I understand the costs and problems to corporate and shareholder profit margins by developing a bespoke chassis just for a massively expensive rare Luxury Car, but that isn't my problem or issue coming from the consumer side of such a car (saying that I was one).

 

Ok that is a somewhat better explanation of your view on this. Yes the 5-Series is too heavy, and the 7-Series is heavy too, but it doesn't outweigh the competition as much as the 5-Series does.

This doesn't make any sense now and it didn't then K/A. Either the car is safe or it isn't. You couldn't prove that a Maybach is unsafe then or now.


Really how does such engineering feel K/A?


I take you meant to say that it "isn't" hampered by those fallbacks since the car is about ride over handling.

Still other than the fact that BMW is going soft in general with their latest cars, I think this is all much ado about nothing, especially when it comes to the Ghost.

Again all of this would be moot if BMW never released any chassis-sharing details. The only real car that suffers here it the 5-Series from what I can see, they should have never twinned it up with the 7-Series. Can you imagine if Mercedes did the E and S like that? It would be a galactic failure for both cars, especially when you got wind of it and posts that the S is just a big E....lol.


M

 

The 5 does suffer the most, as the chassis is essentially developed for the 7, making it more capable to a luxury oriented barge, hence the F10's takeaway from sportiness.

Apparently the BMW chassis is super stiff, so that isn't the issue either. It's about how they got it stiff, i.e in a more cost effective, regressive way. Especially when you have Audi and M-B developing chassis' that are incredibly stiff and also lightweight, while each delivering on their respective goals.

Anyway, in regards to the Ghost, it can be justified however you want it to be, but when one is spending that kind of cash, even the "unknown" aspects should be state of the art. There's somewhat of a problem when the Audi A8 is riding on a chassis far more advanced and effective than the one sitting under the 7-Series/Ghost.

About the S/E, that's somewhat true, but it's probably inevitable (wouldn't be surprised if the W222 uses a modified chassis from the W212). I've accepted platform sharing throughout a singular model range (M-B sharing with other M-B's, BMW with other BMW's, etc.), but my beef is with the Ghost using the 7's (first time a Rolls has shared a platform with a BMW), as the Ghost should have one far superior to the 7's, and BMW certainly didn't do their best, "money no object" with the 7's to begin with.

 

Yet K/A how does the Ghost suffer because of its association with the 7-Series? I maintain that you simply wouldn't know (or say) any of this unless BMW put it out there. It isn't just a simple re-badge job.

The S and E won't share a platform, Mercedes wouldn't do that. The S is going to be a mega variant car this time around, all of them upscale. S, S-Coupe and then the new Maybachs if they decide to keep Maybach alive, so it won't share a chassis with the E.


What does this matter in the real world though? Is the Ghost not a really fine luxury car? What is the problem besides in your mind about it being an inferior car? What is the real issue? There is no other way to bring a sub-Phantom to market other than to twin its development with something else, otherwise you wind up with a car that costs as much as the Phantom does.


M

 

Whoa whoa whoa! The $80K S's platform is too upscale to share with the $50K E's, but the $300K Ghosts is a-ok to use with the $50K 5-Series? Whaaaa?

Lol. Anyway, I'm too poor to have enough passion in the subject of the Rolls sharing whatever with a BMW to really care, however if there is something that's relatively important to me, re: the Ghost, it's how I've found that in person it doesn't really look all that great (I still love it, but it's a little bland for a Rolls IMO).

 

Its too bad that you don't see that it isn't as simple as sitting a Rolls-Royce body on a 5-Series chassis. No one in the industry would agree with that K/A. You just don't get the difference between sharing a whole platform and just putting a new body on top of it, or having 2 cars developed side by side on the same architecture, there is a difference. You can't just swap out parts of the Ghost's chassis with a 5-Series. They took the 5/6/7 bones and built/engineered a Rolls around it, not a re-badge or slapping on more leather and wood as in a Chevy-to-Cadillac transformation.


M

 

I think the point that K/A is making is that the Ghost is not a bespoke Rolls Royce, end of story. And the point of this thread is to debate whether any car "beats" an S class. While I'm sure the overall quality, engineering and luxury of a Ghost is superior to an S class, it lacks the innovation of a true from-scratch design. I believe, when speaking about luxury cars, that the satisfaction one gets from the vehicle is purely dependent on the person's perception and not the way the car was built or who built it.

 

oh god, now the ghost is not innovative because it has a modified 7 series chassis? Doesn't the 221 have a modified 220 chassis?

The platform is fine. The car is exquisite and wholly more special than an S-class. yes, this is my opinion, but no one has been able to refute it with impressions to the contrary. I don't care if it weighs an extra 400lbs, nor do I see how that extra weight poorly affects what is already a huge boat.

 

It isn't innovative... they are just starting with a framework developed by another company. The Phantom is innovative, So is the W16 prototype used in a recent motion picture. The W220 was an S class... which obviously doesn't count. It's an improvement on a platform that Mercedes created.

If I'm going to spend a 1/4 of a $million on a Rolls then I want it to be a pure Rolls Royce with no other influence. Do you think Boeing, Bombardier, or Airbus want to use Rolls Royce engines based on a GE platform? If so then they should just buy the GE engines since they would cost less. There is a reason people buy Rolls Royce vehicles, and for the most part it is because of the heritage

Your opinion is yours alone. If you like the Ghost then great. Like I said in my previous message "I believe, when speaking about luxury cars, that the satisfaction one gets from the vehicle is purely dependent on the person's perception and not the way the car was built or who built it."

EDIT: I would also like to add that there is a HUGE difference between successful and innovative/original. The Ghost, I'm sure, will be very successful since it is less expensive than the Phantom; thus more attainable to a greater amount of people.

 

thats all well and good, but if you have $250,000 and want a pure Rolls Royce your only choice is a used phantom. But then again, the phantom has a bunch of BMW parts as well. Lest we forget that rolls royce cars in the past have used GM hydromatic transmissions and other parts.

 

I'm ok with parts... I don't really agree that a platform (chassis, sub frame, etc) is a "part" but who am I to say... I'm just a car enthusiast.

A Lamborghini has "parts" from Audi.... but it definitely doesn't share any platforms. In fact... it is the other way around... the R8 shares the Gallardo platform.

That is the point I'm trying to make... how can a ultra-premium model beat the s class when it is based on a vehicle that doesn't. I think the only real competition for an S class is the Maybach. That certainly doesn't imply that there are no other vehicles that are better... it just means as far as the S class is concerned, the Maybach gives it a run for it's money; so to speak.

 

R u kidding? The S-class smokes the Maybach, in my opinion. Maybach only wins points for rarity. I have seen a couple on the road, and the 221 has no less presence.

Also, regarding the Rolls v S debacle, do not mistake the higher price tag for higher investment in the model line. No matter how much a (baby) Rolls costs, the investment it went into its development is but a small fraction of that that went into the S-Class or the 7-Series. If a car sells fewer than a couple of thousand models a year, good luck getting a proprietary platform.

Also, to the bloke that said that the 221 is a modified 220 chasis, I believe that to be incorrect. Each S has its own chasis. Of course, they all start at the same place. (The Maybach still rocks the 140 chasis from the late '80s.)

 

I'd disagree. To me, the maybach has way more presence and is at a higher level. I don't like the interior very much, but thats me.

Whether the rolls has more development or not isn't really all that important to me. The S might be a technically better car, but I don't really. Its more about what I enjoy more...and that would be the rolls. I actually prefer the flying spur too, but as you'll note its probably the same story.

 

O/T but relatively related.

When I was very young, my Dad had a W126 300SD in Gold, and a White/Tan Rolls Royce Silver Spirit (Benz for Mom, Rolls for Dad).

Being in such a spoiled situation, my earliest years had me feeling that "Mercedes" was the equivalent to an embarrassing car in which I would be depressed about riding in (that's how much better the Rolls was to a kid who didn't even know what the status-quo was). It was all about the Leather, the softness, the refinement, the SMELL (the 300SD smelled like sh** and the Rolls smelled like bliss).

Funnily enough, nowadays I love the W126, and sometimes I'll look for Used examples of each car, to convince myself to buy for nostalgia purposes, and there is NO QUESTION as to how much more solid, advanced, reliable, safe, and just quality the Benz is, compared to the shoddy quality of the Rolls (GM Transmission and all).... But the Rolls is just soo fussily wonderful, like a pointless car only for the rich bombastic luxury fiend in you.

Thought I'd share that.

And yes, as wonderful as they can be, Rolls's/Bentley's are massive wastes of money. Even more so now that they have so many parts shared with their German owners. Not to mention, a car like an S-Class and a company like Benz, has equal or more cache than a Rolls Royce, but you also get the functionality and "realism-factor" with it. You've gotta respect the forefathers of the Mercedes brand, for creating a sense of cache equal to or further than cars that cost even much more than it, whilst being still mass manufactured.

 

Read the car mag reviews. The S class build quality is tops - regardless of price. If you can afford it, get an S-Class. If you can't, just settle for an E-Class!

 

yeah, no chance. RR and Bentley will always have more cache.

 

Because of the price and the amount of cows that died right?

 

The price is the only thing that keeps RR/Bentley at higher cache levels than M-B. And even then, M-B's cache is hard to top, especially all things considered (how cheaply it is to buy into the brand, how many cars there are out there, etc.).

That's based off of consumers, however. If we were to base it on industry standards, M-B's cache (or I should say "respect", in this context) is probably above and beyond any maker out now, even with the Schremmp era disasters being dragged along. Times are changing and things are getting more complex/competitive, but if you base if off of the entire backlog, both historical and modern, contributions and achievements, etc., M-B is it.

 

 

So what, you can't tell its based on a BMW by looking at it or driving it, so again what does it matter? You can count the cars that are truly "bespoke" on one hand. Every car on the market shares something with another car in that makers lineup, maybe not a whole platform or architecture, but something is shared. Can't get around it, unless you wanna pay 400K for a Phantom. Even then you get BMW technology and re-faced controls.

Perceptions don't always match the reality of the situation, especially in the luxury car game.


M