(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132249180.jpg) (http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132245339.jpg) (http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132241724.jpg) (http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132247163.jpg) (http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132254020.jpg) (http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132259759.jpg)
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/13557/2008-bentley-continental-gt-speed-speed-heritage-page2.html
The new engine has received 50hp upgrade now the car has broken the 600hp mark and 0-60mph according to factory claims is 4.3 sec. which is always a bit conservative :rockon:.
I like the new wheels and the cars interior fit and finish as well as quality looks great in those pics the interior looks like an expensive jewel. I am really liking this car.? :ohyeah:
It comes with bigger 20" wheel and more aggressive lower profile tires. I guess the moron engineer's of Bentley ruined it by going with lower profile and bigger wheels. Obviously they didnot get the memo that taller profile tires and smaller 16" wheels would have worked wonders for performance :lol:
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on July 31, 2007, 11:37:20 PM
It comes with bigger 20" wheel and more aggressive lower profile tires. I guess the moron engineer's of Bentley ruined it by going with lower profile and bigger wheels. Obviously they didnot get the memo that taller profile tires and smaller 16" wheels would have worked wonders for performance
+1.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on July 31, 2007, 11:37:20 PM
It comes with bigger 20" wheel and more aggressive lower profile tires. I guess the moron engineer's of Bentley ruined it by going with lower profile and bigger wheels. Obviously they didnot get the memo that taller profile tires and smaller 16" wheels would have worked wonders for performance :lol:
This car doesn't help your argument.
That Bentley is the definition of Bling.
It's probably being filmed in the next LudaChris music video as we speak.
I think that bentley would be the definition of how to enhance performance as soon as you would slap some taller profile 195/65 tires on smaller 16" wheels. Why the engineers didnot do that just shows that they dont know what they are doing. It just ruins the appeal of this car for any number of enthusiasts like yourself and the one above you :praise:
Quote from: 565 on July 31, 2007, 11:41:58 PM
This car doesn't help your argument.
That Bentley is the definition of Bling.
It's probably being filmed in the next LudaChris music video as we speak.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132249180.jpg)
(http://outdoors.greatsmokies.net/images/wildcat1.JPG)
:lol:
Quote from: omicron on August 01, 2007, 12:42:55 AM
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/W31/073020071132249180.jpg)
(http://outdoors.greatsmokies.net/images/wildcat1.JPG)
you accelerate and then you BENTLY before you hit something!!!!!! :lol:
*drools* I love it.
Of course I'm aware that the likes of Yoder and Raza are going to come in and call it an overweight pig.
When was the last time Bentley made a car that wasn't an overweight pig?
I really don't understand CarSpin's irrational hatred of the Conti GT. It's recieved nothing but universal praise from the automotive press, looks fantastic, and helps Bentley out a lot. From all acounts it's a superb effort.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 09:09:19 AM
I really don't understand CarSpin's irrational hatred of the Conti GT. It's recieved nothing but universal praise from the automotive press, looks fantastic, and helps Bentley out a lot. From all acounts it's a superb effort.
Some people just don't get the concept of a gentleman's cruiser.
I like it a lot.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 09:09:19 AM
When was the last time Bentley made a car that wasn't an overweight pig?
I really don't understand CarSpin's irrational hatred of the Conti GT. It's recieved nothing but universal praise from the automotive press, looks fantastic, and helps Bentley out a lot. From all acounts it's a superb effort.
Because like the Veyron it's just bought for status and bragging rights. No one buys either because they want a fun involving drive. There are much better alternatives for that. These are bought for their image.
All the power in the world won't make this a good car.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on August 01, 2007, 03:17:53 AM
*drools* I love it.
Of course I'm aware that the likes of Yoder and Raza are going to come in and call it an overweight pig.
Add me to that list.
It's not an overweight pig.
It's an overweight, ugly, trendy, shit eating pig.
Quote from: Raza on August 01, 2007, 09:38:53 AM
It's not an overweight pig.
It's an overweight, ugly, trendy, shit eating pig.
Don't hold back on our account. :lol:
I heartily disagree with your stance, however, and I wouldn't kick one out of the driveway. I'd drive the snot out of it. I absolutely love the Bentley Conti GT and have since it first came out.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 09:14:28 AM
Because like the Veyron every other Bentley it's just bought for status and bragging rights.
Fixed.
QuoteNo one buys either because they want a fun involving drive.
Is that a crime?
And how is that a criticism of the car?
And I guarantee you, the Conti is about a billion times more fun to drive than my ride.
QuoteThere are much better alternatives for that.
Such as? (and why are they better?)
QuoteThese are bought for their image.
Are you psychic or something? Have you spent your freetime polling buyers? Do tell.
But again, even if it's true, how is it an indictment against the car?
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10435.msg526379#msg526379 date=1185982733
It's not an overweight pig.
It's an overweight, ugly, trendy, shit eating pig.?
Hmmm. You're the first person I've heard call it ugly.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 10:12:55 AM
Fixed.
Is that a crime?
And how is that a criticism of the car?
And I guarantee you, the Conti is about a billion times more fun to drive than my ride.
Such as? (and why are they better?)
Are you psychic or something? Have you spent your freetime polling buyers? Do tell.
But again, even if it's true, how is it an indictment against the car?
If someone wants to buy one for the status and image then they can go ahead because they aren't buying it because they want a fun and involving car. There are much better choices for that. The Ford GT, F430, DB9, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. are all better choices. The car is built for people who want the image of owning such a car it's not built for the driver.
Comparing a Conti GT to an Aveo is absurd. Of course its going to be more fun to drive. For 150k it should be, but at that price there are much better choices.
I like it, but I have always liked it since its inception. I like the Arnage and old-style Bentleys more, though.
C/D ripped the Arnage a new one in the latest mag, though. Still, I'd take one over a Phantom or Maybach.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 09:58:11 AM
Don't hold back on our account. :lol:
I heartily disagree with your stance, however, and I wouldn't kick one out of the driveway. I'd drive the snot out of it. I absolutely love the Bentley Conti GT and have since it first came out.
I mean, there's got to be a little bit of personal preference here and there, but I can't stand it. I'd rather have so many things on the market for a similar price.
Hell, give me an old world Bentley, like an Arnage or Azure. The Conti GT just feels so...
Normal.
You have to look for one to see it in traffic, and they're such a cop out answer to "what unjustifiably expensive car should I buy?". No presence on the road, either.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 10:13:52 AM
Hmmm. You're the first person I've heard call it ugly.
Apparently I don't speak loud enough.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 11:23:31 AM
If someone wants to buy one for the status and image then they can go ahead because they aren't buying it because they want a fun and involving car. There are much better choices for that. The Ford GT, F430, DB9, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. are all better choices. The car is built for people who want the image of owning such a car it's not built for the driver.
Comparing a Conti GT to an Aveo is absurd. Of course its going to be more fun to drive. For 150k it should be, but at that price there are much better choices.
Some of you guys can come off sounding like real assholes sometimes.
So according to you, the only reasons anyone would buy a car is because
A: status and image
or
B: fun and involvement
Nice of you to pigeon-hole
When did "fun" become synonymous with "driving like it's trackday" on this place?
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 09:14:26 AM
Some people just don't get the concept of a gentleman's cruiser.
I like it a lot.
You're right. The idea is completely alien to them.
There are better gentleman's cruisers out there. They're just not badged as Bentleys.
Also, and I know Chris disagrees with me, but I think big coupes are just a little bit ridiculous anyway. Not that I think the Flying Spur is any better than the GT, even if Top Gear says it is. I mean, it might be. But I don't know.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10435.msg526496#msg526496 date=1185990347
There are better gentleman's cruisers out there.? They're just not badged as Bentleys.?
Such as? (and why are they better?)
Is there an echo in here?
The only fun one could possibly have in this car is by:
1. Marveling in the ludicrous amount of luxury that surrounds you as wave at all the people
2. Run straight pipes, and listen to the sounds of the twin-turbo V12 accelerating a 3-ton boat from 0-60 in 4 seconds
And choice #1 wouldn't be much fun for me, personally, but there are people who get off on that kind of stuff.
Other than that, where is the fun? It's a freaking land yacht. Yachts are only fun on water, and only if ur t00bin across the wake of one, not if ur driving one.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 11:47:56 AM
Such as? (and why are they better?)
Is there an echo in here?
What I'm thinking is that a car like the CL would be a better cruiser, and if you want to go ridiculously fast, get the 65 and you'll still save money.
Quote from: Raza on August 01, 2007, 11:56:31 AM
What I'm thinking is that a car like the CL would be a better cruiser, and if you want to go ridiculously fast, get the 65 and you'll still save money.
If you're in the market for a car like this, saving money isn't a top priority anyhow.
And yeah, I love big coupes, be they British luxury yachts or '50s American cruisers. I love the style most of them have. the looks speak to me. In the case of the Bentley I love the look, the feel the smell, the detailing, etc. I realize they aren't the most practical thing out there, but few of my favorite things (especially when it comes to cars) are practical.
As far as what's better, that's rather personal, and what YOU think is better might make me angry to live with. Of course any car on yoder's list is a great car and a great choice. But you can't (usually) have all of them, so you have to make a compromise and might give up on one that someone else thinks it "better." Will always be that way. if I wanted a GT40, then a Bentley or DB9 might be "better" because they are more practical and carry more, or are better at being street cars. If you get the DB9 or Bentley, then the GT40 is a better PERFORMANCE car, even if you can't USE that performance 99% of the time. I mean, Tave's Aveo could be considered better than ALL of our favorites given the right criteria (cost and economy). you could put a logical, intelligent argument forward on why a $100 '88 Festiva is better than a Boxter or new 350Z. Would you or Yoder trade your cars in on one?
Quote from: NACar on August 01, 2007, 11:53:20 AM
The only fun one could possibly have in this car is by:
1. Marveling in the ludicrous amount of luxury that surrounds you as wave at all the people
2. Run straight pipes, and listen to the sounds of the twin-turbo V12 accelerating a 3-ton boat from 0-60 in 4 seconds
And choice #1 wouldn't be much fun for me, personally, but there are people who get off on that kind of stuff.
Other than that, where is the fun? It's a freaking land yacht. Yachts are only fun on water, and only if ur t00bin across the wake of one, not if ur driving one.
Then you wouldn't have any "fun" driving my BMW. But *I* do. So don't be argumentative
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/leedeth/funnywipes.jpg)
about it because you cannot understand what the appeal might be for someone ELSE.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 12:17:29 PM
Then you wouldn't have any "fun" driving my BMW. But *I* do. So don't be argumentative
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/leedeth/funnywipes.jpg)
about it because you cannot understand what the appeal might be for someone ELSE.
Are you related to Kayani by any chance? Read it again you incoherent buffoon. I said there are people who get off on that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10435.msg526486#msg526486 date=1185989786
Hell, give me an old world Bentley, like an Arnage or Azure.?
Hmmm, vehicles with few, if any, objective advantages over the one in question. Interesting....
Quote from: Raza on August 01, 2007, 11:56:31 AM
What I'm thinking is that a car like the CL would be a better cruiser, and if you want to go ridiculously fast, get the 65 and you'll still save money.
That still doesn't answer the "why" in my question, as I refuse to take cost into consideration when comparing two cars so expensive to begin with.
And BTW, MSRP on the CL 65 is $179,600
Conti GT is $169,990
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 10:13:52 AM
Hmmm. You're the first person I've heard call it ugly.
Well let
Yaw be the second. I've seen it in person numerous times... it doesn't get better.
And Kayani, it's taking me all the strength in the world not to call you the biggest idiot of all time... I know you can't fathom in your feeble brain that lower unsprung weight and rotational mass could be beneficial to a car's performance so I won't bother explaining... but I WILL say there is a reason F1 cars aren't on 22" rimzzzzzzzzzz... and it's not just the rules governing the sport
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 01, 2007, 12:24:47 PM
Well let Yaw be the second. I've seen it in person numerous times... it doesn't get better.
I've probably seen it in person more than I've seen it in print. It was a very popular car in Scottsdale.
I'm with Chris and Tave on this one. I've always loved Conti GTs and I'd love to own one. Sure, there are probably other cars I'd buy first, but if I already had a die-hard sports car, maybe I could take the Conti to the office.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 11:23:31 AM
If someone wants to buy one for the status and image then they can go ahead because they aren't buying it because they want a fun and involving car. There are much better choices for that. The Ford GT, F430, DB9, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. are all better choices. The car is built for people who want the image of owning such a car it's not built for the driver.
Why do you think that people buy Ferraris, Aston Martins, and particularly Lamborghinis? For the vast majority of buyers, they're just as much of a status symbol as any other car. IMO, Lamborghinis are the flashiest cars made today. Why do you think that everyone on MTV Cribs has one?
And for the few buyers who don't buy them as status symbols, I don't see why people who like sports cars should deserve to spend 150k on a car any more than someone who likes a Camry. A Ferrari F430 is better than a Miata just like a Bentley GT is better than a Camry. They're just made for different buyers.
Quote from: NACar on August 01, 2007, 12:23:25 PM
Are you related to Kayani by any chance? Read it again you incoherent buffoon. I said there are people who get off on that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them.
Yes, but yore the one being fucking INSULTING about it, fucker.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 12:24:33 PM
Hmmm, vehicles with few, if any, objective advantages over the one in question. Interesting....
That still doesn't answer the "why" in my question, as I refuse to take cost into consideration when comparing two cars so expensive to begin with.
And BTW, MSRP on the CL 65 is $179,600
Conti GT is $169,990
Wowza! I didn't know it was so expensive.
I still don't like the Conti GT.
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 12:26:58 PM
I've probably seen it in person more than I've seen it in print. It was a very popular car in Scottsdale.
It looks like a bar of soap with chrome accents... a '96 Taurus coupe, if you will.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 12:29:59 PM
Yes, but yore the one being fucking INSULTING about it, fucker.
scuse me, who's being insulting? :confused:
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 12:17:29 PM
Then you wouldn't have any "fun" driving my BMW. But *I* do. So don't be argumentative
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/leedeth/funnywipes.jpg)
about it because you cannot understand what the appeal might be for someone ELSE.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on August 01, 2007, 12:27:24 PM
Why do you think that people buy Ferraris, Aston Martins, and particularly Lamborghinis? For the vast majority of buyers, they're just as much of a status symbol as any other car. IMO, Lamborghinis are the flashiest cars made today. Why do you think that everyone on MTV Cribs has one?
And for the few buyers who don't buy them as status symbols, I don't see why people who like sports cars should deserve to spend 150k on a car any more than someone who likes a Camry. A Ferrari F430 is better than a Miata just like a Bentley GT is better than a Camry. They're just made for different buyers.
The differences are the Ford GTs, F430s, Gallardos, etc are built for the driver. They're built to be driven. A Continental GT is for the image. I know people will buy the other cars just beacause they are exotic. Some would buy the Elise for the same reason but the Elise isn't built for those people. IMO the Continental GT is.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 03:53:21 PM
The differences are the Ford GTs, F430s, Gallardos, etc are built for the driver. They're built to be driven. A Continental GT is for the image. I know people will buy the other cars just beacause they are exotic. Some would buy the Elise for the same reason but the Elise isn't built for those people. IMO the Continental GT is.
There's plenty of people who like to "drive" in manners different from what you're talking about.
Hence the demand for cars like the Conti GT, CL 65, DB9, etc...
Your logic is always as bogus as your outright claims :confused:.
Show us one of the cars that you mentioned below that is a true GT coupe with back seats as roomy as Bentley GT coupe. The Ford GT, F430, Gallardo you mentioned are two seater sports cars that have no back seats genius they are not true coupes so comparing them to Bentley GT is sort of moronic. The ditto goes for DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo the back seats are almost non existant. Atleast compare oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges. :nono:
Have you driven a Bentley GT I doubt you have to make such comments that it is not an involving car. It offers very decent performance in its class and most of the cars you mentioned below are also bought for outright prestige and maybe only 1%-2% owners of F430's, GT40, Gallardo, 911 turbo or DB9 buy them to track them. Most of them are driven arround town or back and forth to country clubs. I have always found your logic to be flawed much like your statement that lower profile tires are not good :rolleyes:
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 11:23:31 AM
If someone wants to buy one for the status and image then they can go ahead because they aren't buying it because they want a fun and involving car. There are much better choices for that. The Ford GT, F430, DB9, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. are all better choices. The car is built for people who want the image of owning such a car it's not built for the driver.
Comparing a Conti GT to an Aveo is absurd. Of course its going to be more fun to drive. For 150k it should be, but at that price there are much better choices.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:21:37 PM
Your logic is always as bogus as your outright claims :confused:.
Show us one of the cars that you mentioned below that is a true GT coupe with back seats as roomy as Bentley GT coupe. The Ford GT, F430, Gallardo you mentioned are two seater sports cars that have no back seats genius they are not true coupes so comparing them to Bentley GT is sort of moronic. The ditto goes for DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo the back seats are almost non existant. Atleast compare oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges. :nono:
Have you driven a Bentley GT I doubt you have to make such comments that it is not an involving car. It offers very decent performance in its class and most of the cars you mentioned below are also bought for outright prestige and maybe only 1%-2% owners of F430's, GT40, Gallardo, 911 turbo or DB9 buy them to track them. Most of them are driven arround town or back and forth to country clubs. I have always found your logic to be flawed much like your statement that lower profile tires are not good :rolleyes:
fixed
ChrisV, dont bother with him because his and few of his buddies attitude doesnot surprise me as they love throwing insults and want to be rude on every chance they get all the while shoving their opinions down others throat. Then when you disagree with them they start going arround disrespecting you. It just goes to show what kind of class these people have.
How rude/moronic/childish they can get is evident from his chidish acts above. I think he must be smoking too much of that good stuff.
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 12:29:59 PM
Yes, but yore the one being fucking INSULTING about it, fucker.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:36:04 PM
ChrisV, dont bother with him because his and few of his buddies attitude doesnot surprise me as they love throwing insults and want to be rude on every chance they get all the while shoving their opinions down others throat. Then when you disagree with them they start going arround disrespecting you. It just goes to show what kind of class these people have.
How rude/moronic/childish they can get is evident from his chidish acts above. I think he must be smoking too much of that good stuff.
fixed again
Seriously how old are you cause you act like a 2 year old.
Quote from: NACar on August 01, 2007, 05:33:01 PMYour logic is always as bogus as your outright claims .
Show us one of the cars that you mentioned below that is a true GT coupe with back seats as roomy as Bentley GT coupe. The Ford GT, F430, Gallardo you mentioned are two seater sports cars that have no back seats genius they are not true coupes so comparing them to Bentley GT is sort of moronic. The ditto goes for DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo the back seats are almost non existant. Atleast compare oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges.
Have you driven a Bentley GT I doubt you have to make such comments that it is not an involving car. It offers very decent performance in its class and most of the cars you mentioned below are also bought for outright prestige and maybe only 1%-2% owners of F430's, GT40, Gallardo, 911 turbo or DB9 buy them to track them. Most of them are driven arround town or back and forth to country clubs. I have always found your logic to be flawed much like your statement that lower profile tires are not good?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixed
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:41:24 PM
Seriously how old are you cause you act like a 2 year old.
Such a waste of time, I'm tired of fixing ur shit, man. You can stop acting like an ignorant bigot anytime now.
:growup:
Quote from: NACar on August 01, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Such a waste of time, I'm tired of fixing ur shit, man. You can stop acting like an ignorant bigot anytime now.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:45:02 PM
:growup:
Keep it coming, Kayani. I want to hear what you have to say. Please explain it to me.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:21:37 PM
Your logic is always as bogus as your outright claims :confused:.
Show us one of the cars that you mentioned below that is a true GT coupe with back seats as roomy as Bentley GT coupe. The Ford GT, F430, Gallardo you mentioned are two seater sports cars that have no back seats genius they are not true coupes so comparing them to Bentley GT is sort of moronic. The ditto goes for DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo the back seats are almost non existant. Atleast compare oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges. :nono:
Have you driven a Bentley GT I doubt you have to make such comments that it is not an involving car. It offers very decent performance in its class and most of the cars you mentioned below are also bought for outright prestige and maybe only 1%-2% owners of F430's, GT40, Gallardo, 911 turbo or DB9 buy them to track them. Most of them are driven arround town or back and forth to country clubs. I have always found your logic to be flawed much like your statement that lower profile tires are not good :rolleyes:
Honestly, there's a lot of pigheadedness going on in both camps here.
However, a sports car is traditionally defined as a two-seat
open car that can in an pinch, be raced. A car with a fixed hard roof is definitely not an open car, but a GT. None of the cars you've mentioned are "true" sports cars, they are GTs, and are clearly coupes. The DB9 is most definitely in the same class as the Conti, and should be compared as such.
That being said, I think the Bentley is one sexy beast.
Wow I didn't see this development coming :huh:
Nick and Kayani breaking up?! :confused:
Kayani needs to keep to himself his ignorant hatred of all things less blingy. It is quite obvious that in his mind, the worth of anything is defined entirely in dollars. Not to mention all the claims he makes that are counter to even the most basic Newtonian physics. Kayani, please tell me, why do you even bother?
Quote from: NACar on August 01, 2007, 06:14:30 PM
Kayani needs to keep to himself his ignorant hatred of all things less blingy. It is quite obvious that in his mind, the worth of anything is defined entirely in dollars. Not to mention all the claims he makes that are counter to even the most basic Newtonian physics. Kayani, please tell me, why do you even bother?
+1
Jesus guys. Calm the fuck down.
I don't particularly like the Continental GT but just because some people buy the Continental GT for the image like some rappers, athletes and Super Sweet 16 girls for examples doesn't mean that ALL of them are bought for the image. Using that logic you could say the same about many cars from Lexi, Benzes to Mustangs to Porsches, just so they can be seen in one. There are owners who actually enjoy the car and use it for how Bentley intended. I know I would enjoy a Bentley.
I personally would take an Arnage T and Flying Spur over the GT but thats me. I like the "old money" Bentleys more.
Quote from: the_koof on August 01, 2007, 07:06:10 PM
Jesus guys. Calm the fuck down.
I don't particularly like the Continental GT but just because some people buy the Continental GT for the image like some rappers, athletes and Super Sweet 16 girls for examples doesn't mean that ALL of them are bought for the image. Using that logic you could say the same about many cars from Lexi, Benzes to Mustangs to Porsches, just so they can be seen in one. There are owners who actually enjoy the car and use it for how Bentley intended. I know I would enjoy a Bentley.
I personally would take an Arnage T and Flying Spur over the GT but thats me. I like the "old money" Bentleys more.
I bought my Corolla for the image :huh: (it has a sunr00f!)
The Conti GT may be a nice car but I'd never get one. I have this weird thing against cars that I think look....
big.
Very true that pure sports cars by strict definitions are two-seat open cars that can be raced. But as far as Bentley vs F430, Gallardo, GT40 goes they are in totaly different class of cars. One is a coupe that can easily seat four while others are 2 seaters. It is like comparing S2000 to G35 coupe two different class of cars.
As for DB9 it has rear seats but the Bentley is better and less cramped in rear seats the roof is only issue as it slopes down. But good luck trying to get in the back seats of DB9. Dont get me wrong I love DB9 but its rear seats are useless.
Infact here is quote from C/D regarding DB9 "
The DB9 has nicely shaped rear seats, but no adult would want to go there." Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 01, 2007, 05:53:32 PM
However, a sports car is traditionally defined as a two-seat open car that can in an pinch, be raced. A car with a fixed hard roof is definitely not an open car, but a GT. None of the cars you've mentioned are "true" sports cars, they are GTs, and are clearly coupes. The DB9 is most definitely in the same class as the Conti, and should be compared as such.
That being said, I think the Bentley is one sexy beast.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 08:15:12 PM
Very true that pure sports cars by strict definitions are two-seat open cars that can be raced. But as far as Bentley vs F430, Gallardo, GT40 goes they are in totaly different class of cars. One is a coupe that can easily seat four while others are 2 seaters. It is like comparing S2000 to G35 coupe two different class of cars.
As for DB9 it has rear seats but the Bentley is better and less cramped in rear seats the roof is only issue as it slopes down. But good luck trying to get in the back seats of DB9. Dont get me wrong I love DB9 but its rear seats are useless.
Infact here is quote from C/D regarding DB9 "The DB9 has nicely shaped rear seats, but no adult would want to go there."
Honestly now, this is a pure pimp ego wagon. How many people are buying one for the back seat?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 01, 2007, 12:24:47 PM
Well let Yaw be the second. I've seen it in person numerous times... it doesn't get better.
And Kayani, it's taking me all the strength in the world not to call you the biggest idiot of all time... I know you can't fathom in your feeble brain that lower unsprung weight and rotational mass could be beneficial to a car's performance so I won't bother explaining... but I WILL say there is a reason F1 cars aren't on 22" rimzzzzzzzzzz... and it's not just the rules governing the sport
I think it looks like a balloon on wheels.
I think those people are buying it for much the same reason why someone would pick a G35 coupe over S2000. I mean if they can afford a Bentley I am pretty sure they can afford a Ferrari or Lambo. But they wanted a large luxury coupe with useable rear seats in a crunch that is stylish and seriously fast.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 01, 2007, 08:29:22 PM
Honestly now, this is a pure pimp ego wagon. How many people are buying one for the back seat?
I like the Bentley line up as of now, the Arnage, Azure, and the C GT are all great looking, and yeah they are land yachts, thats mainly because thats probably bentleys aim with all their cars, super luxurious and still respectively fast if need be. Sure this may not apply to everyone, but then for a car at that price, it already rules out the poor, and whoever's left must be rich enough to not care about wonderful driveability.
Rich people who are huge car enthusiasts who care about fun to throw around cars and everything seriously would have already bought that Mitsu Evo, or the BMW and what not. The bentley is for luxury, and grand touring (hence the GT). and like 1 bad said, they would have definately bought the Ferrari or lambo already.
As for this new GT, I really don't like the front...the grill + everything REALLY looks like a pig...
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 04:26:50 PM
There's plenty of people who like to "drive" in manners different from what you're talking about.
Hence the demand for cars like the Conti GT, CL 65, DB9, etc...
Yes, and I think that cars like the CL65, DB9, and 612 Scag. are better choices.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 05:21:37 PM
Your logic is always as bogus as your outright claims :confused:.
Show us one of the cars that you mentioned below that is a true GT coupe with back seats as roomy as Bentley GT coupe. The Ford GT, F430, Gallardo you mentioned are two seater sports cars that have no back seats genius they are not true coupes so comparing them to Bentley GT is sort of moronic. The ditto goes for DB9 or Porsche 911 Turbo the back seats are almost non existant. Atleast compare oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges. :nono:
Have you driven a Bentley GT I doubt you have to make such comments that it is not an involving car. It offers very decent performance in its class and most of the cars you mentioned below are also bought for outright prestige and maybe only 1%-2% owners of F430's, GT40, Gallardo, 911 turbo or DB9 buy them to track them. Most of them are driven arround town or back and forth to country clubs. I have always found your logic to be flawed much like your statement that lower profile tires are not good :rolleyes:
Yes, it's the rear seat room that keeps them from being non-competitive. Show me where I said the Continental GT was not an involving car? I said it's not as good as its competition. I never said low profile tires were bad either, they have their pros and cons. I said that bigger wheels are worse for performance.
Care to make anything else up?
Quote from: Tave on August 01, 2007, 10:13:52 AM
Hmmm. You're the first person I've heard call it ugly.
WTF! I am the
original Continental GT hata'. Yet, Raza gets all the credit. WTF! WTF!? :rage:
You's all hatas, mang. I likes me dem Bentleys wit dem dub-deuces. You gets to roll round like it's yo' birfday. It's da blang thang!
It be da hunchback of motor blang, fo sho.
A lot of people want to claim to be enthusiasts today, but all I see is a bunch of close minded posts....
I like this car a lot and can appreciate it for what it is, not what some people want to try and make it. There is no other 2+2 GT car that I would want to take cross country. The CL65 has no where near the emotional appeal to me, the Ferrari is ugly as sin to me and is currently the worst Ferrari design on the market (IMO), and the DB9 might be a little to stiff for me long distance.
Not a car I would realistically buy, unless I had a collection of say....5 cars. I would probably have something like the GT for times when I wanted to relax.
+1
What is its range on the highway, though?
See, if I'm going on a long highway cruise, or wafting from one country club to the other, I'm taking this:
(http://www.classicdreamcars.com/63blacktbirdrear.JPG)
:wub:
Quote from: ChrisV on August 01, 2007, 09:58:11 AM
Don't hold back on our account. :lol:
I heartily disagree with your stance, however, and I wouldn't kick one out of the driveway. I'd drive the snot out of it. I absolutely love the Bentley Conti GT and have since it first came out.
+++++++
It's a beauty, and Chris put it right in saying it's just a gentleman's cruiser. Same with the MB CL.
Quote from: LonghornTX on August 01, 2007, 11:43:04 PM
A lot of people want to claim to be enthusiasts today, but all I see is a bunch of close minded posts....
I like this car a lot and can appreciate it for what it is, not what some people want to try and make it. There is no other 2+2 GT car that I would want to take cross country. The CL65 has no where near the emotional appeal to me, the Ferrari is ugly as sin to me and is currently the worst Ferrari design on the market (IMO), and the DB9 might be a little to stiff for me long distance.
Not a car I would realistically buy, unless I had a collection of say....5 cars. I would probably have something like the GT for times when I wanted to relax.
+1, and while I personally am a fan of the 612 Scag, it's nearly 100k more expensive. It's not like just because people are buying these cars doesn't mean they wouldn't rather spend less. Many rich people got that way by investing well.
Conclusion: Conti GT FTW.
Quote from: the Teuton on August 01, 2007, 11:51:57 PM
+1
What is its range on the highway, though?
According to Edmunds, 452.2 miles from a 23.8 gallon tank.
Are you serious with your lame sarcasim about rear seats :rolleyes:.
Why dont you tell us that out of the cars you mentioned F430, Lambo, 911 turbo, GT40, and DB9 which car comes even close enough to providing the pure luxury that Bentley offers compared to them. One has to be quiet ignorant to compare those cars to begin with as they are in different class and are not Bentley direct competition. The Bentley is far more luxurious then any of the above you had mentioned. So the day the above mentioned cars by you offer as much luxury as the Bentley that day you can compare them directly and see how much more involving they will be compared to it. Any one can tell that the luxury and sports dont go hand in hand. I think for the amount of luxury Bentley offers it is seriuosly fast and pretty capable and to compare far more sporty machines with half the luxury is not fair by any stretch of imagination.
As for your comment that lower profile are not bad and have positives and negatives...... good that you finally admitted that you were wrong. :rockon:
But you are still being stubborn about the fact that not all bigger wheels are bad as you can have many smaller wheels that can weigh a lot more then some of the bigger wheels. So there are positives and negatives there too just like I have been trying to explain to you for last few months. Atleast you are half way there since you accepted that lower profiles have positives and negatives.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 10:25:50 PM
Yes, it's the rear seat room that keeps them from being non-competitive. Show me where I said the Continental GT was not an involving car? I said it's not as good as its competition. I never said low profile tires were bad either, they have their pros and cons. I said that bigger wheels are worse for performance.
Care to make anything else up?
Shut the fuck up. All other things being equal, smaller wheels will always have lower rotational inertia than your ridiculous, unnecessarily giant bling bling badonkadonk rimz. Shut the fuck up you idiot.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 01, 2007, 10:22:28 PM
Yes, and I think that cars like the CL65, DB9, and 612 Scag. are better choices.
Speaking of which, check out this Edmunds comparo.?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=121870
Conti GT vs CL600
Cl600 wins.
CL600 performance numbers.
0 - 30 (sec): 1.7
0 - 45 (sec): 2.7
0 - 60 (sec): 4.2
0 - 75 (sec): 5.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.4 @ 113.4
30 - 0 (ft): 28
60 - 0 (ft): 114
Braking Rating: (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor) Excellent
Slalom (mph): 67.8
Skid Pad (g-force): 0.85
Handling Rating: (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor) Excellent
Db @ Idle: 43
Db @ Full Throttle: 70.5
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 64
Bentley Conti GT numbers
0 - 30 (sec): 1.5
0 - 45 (sec): 2.9
0 - 60 (sec): 4.4
0 - 75 (sec): 6.7
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.8 @ 108.3
30 - 0 (ft): 29
60 - 0 (ft): 120
Braking Rating: (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor) Good
Slalom (mph): 64.3
Skid Pad (g-force): 0.81
Handling Rating: (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor) Very good
Db @ Idle: 50.4
Db @ Full Throttle: 72.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.5
So the CL600 manages to be faster, handle better, and also is more quiet.
And it seems more pleasurable to drive as well
"Driving the Point
When it comes to actually driving these cars, this becomes a battle fought in degrees of wonderfulness. The 12-cylinder engines in both cars deliver huge amounts of power in seamless ribbons; both cars have brakes that could stop a stock market crash and their suspensions absolutely smother broken pavement.
Although the Mercedes' oversize steering wheel takes some adjustment, the steering itself has a preferably lighter feel and
offers better feedback than the Bentley's. The Mercedes Active Body Control suspension system is an incredibly complex hydraulic system with sensors that lower ride height at speed and continually adjusts for pitch, squat, dive and probably for the driver's bunions ? but it all happens without the driver feeling as if the car is doing the driving. And the Mercedes always seems to corner flat, where the Bentley has at least some body roll.
There's nothing wrong with the Bentley,
but it's not as right as the Mercedes. Besides being quicker, the CL600 stops and handles better than the Bentley.
Despite the Continental's massive 20-inch Pirelli tires and ceramic brakes (also part of that Diamond Series package), the CL600 takes 6 feet less (114-120 feet) to stop from 60 mph and it orbits the skid pad at 0.85g vs. 0.81g for the Bentley. With its huge 12-cylinder engine mounted essentially ahead of its front tires, the Bentley understeers more than the Mercedes, and that better balance got the big Benz through the slalom course at a quick 67.8 mph, more than 3 mph faster than the heavier Bentley could manage.
Even the CL600's crummy 15.3 mpg Inside Line-observed fuel economy is better than the Continental GT's truly awful 13.1 mpg."
20" rims on the tester and 6 ft. longer to stop? Any correlation?
Quote from: the Teuton on August 02, 2007, 07:03:36 PM
20" rims on the tester and 6 ft. longer to stop?? Any correlation?
Not enough to draw any real comclusions from.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 02, 2007, 07:05:55 PM
Not enough to draw any real comclusions from.
Probably because the Bentley was heavy even compared to the already heavy CL600.? Not even huge ceramic brakes could save it.
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2007/bentley.continental.gt/07.bentley.continental.gt.whl.500.jpg)
Those 20 inch wheels and ceramic brakes are part of a diamond package that costs 20K!
These ceramic mofos are 16.53 inches front, 14 inches rear, with 8 pistons all around.? The standard brakes of the Conti GT were already supposedly the largest brakes on a production car.? These new ceramic brakes are even bigger.
"The Continental GT and GT Speed are both equipped with the largest brakes of any
production passenger car on sale today. The ventilated front discs have a 405mm
diameter and are 36mm thick. Ventilated discs are also used at the back, with a diameter
of 335mm and a thickness of 22mm.
For both models, the performance boundaries are further extended by Bentley?s
optional carbon/silicon carbide brake system.
Boasting 420 x 40mm carbon-silicon
carbide, cross-drilled front discs and 356 x 28mm rears, with eight-piston callipers, the
new brakes are even larger than the standard system. The system provides a
20kg
reduction in rotating and unsprung mass, benefiting steering response and handling.
The lightweight, fade-resistant braking system minimises disc distortion under high
thermal conditions. Under normal driving conditions the brake discs will last the lifetime
of the car. Furthermore, brake pad life is doubled compared with the standard braking
system."
For $20k, there better be some real diamonds somewhere in there.
Quote from: 565 on August 02, 2007, 06:56:36 PM
Speaking of which, check out this Edmunds comparo.?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=121870
Conti GT vs CL600
Cl600 wins.
I hate do this magazine thing but here's another:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/8303/2005-aston-martin-db9-v-2005-bentley-continental-gt-v-2005-ferrari-612-scaglietti-f1-v-2005-mercedes-benz-cl600.html
1st: Ferrari 612
2nd: MB CL
3rd: DB9
4th: Continental GT
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 02, 2007, 09:31:02 PM
I hate do this magazine thing but here's another:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/8303/2005-aston-martin-db9-v-2005-bentley-continental-gt-v-2005-ferrari-612-scaglietti-f1-v-2005-mercedes-benz-cl600.html
1st: Ferrari 612
2nd: MB CL
3rd: DB9
4th: Continental GT
2005 Bentley Continental GT
Highs: Stylish inside and out, skilled-craftsman build quality, roomy trunk.
Lows: Ponderous and overweight, cramped rear headroom, pillbox visibility fore-and-aft.
The Verdict: A whale of a car, just not a whale of fun.HA!!!! HA!!!!! HA!!!!? :praise:
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 02, 2007, 05:52:25 PM
Are you serious with your lame sarcasim about rear seats :rolleyes:.
Why dont you tell us that out of the cars you mentioned F430, Lambo, 911 turbo, GT40, and DB9 which car comes even close enough to providing the pure luxury that Bentley offers compared to them. One has to be quiet ignorant to compare those cars to begin with as they are in different class and are not Bentley direct competition. The Bentley is far more luxurious then any of the above you had mentioned. So the day the above mentioned cars by you offer as much luxury as the Bentley that day you can compare them directly and see how much more involving they will be compared to it. Any one can tell that the luxury and sports dont go hand in hand. I think for the amount of luxury Bentley offers it is seriuosly fast and pretty capable and to compare far more sporty machines with half the luxury is not fair by any stretch of imagination.
As for your comment that lower profile are not bad and have positives and negatives...... good that you finally admitted that you were wrong. :rockon:
But you are still being stubborn about the fact that not all bigger wheels are bad as you can have many smaller wheels that can weigh a lot more then some of the bigger wheels. So there are positives and negatives there too just like I have been trying to explain to you for last few months. Atleast you are half way there since you accepted that lower profiles have positives and negatives.
Your posts aren't even worth resonding to anymore.
Quote from: NACar on August 02, 2007, 09:33:29 PM
2005 Bentley Continental GT
Highs: Stylish inside and out, skilled-craftsman build quality, roomy trunk.
Lows: Ponderous and overweight, cramped rear headroom, pillbox visibility fore-and-aft.
The Verdict: A whale of a car, just not a whale of fun.
HA!!!! HA!!!!! HA!!!!? :praise:
But it's better because it's more luxurious!
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 02, 2007, 09:51:01 PM
But it's better because it's more luxurious!
If all I cared about was luxury, I wouldn't drive myself. I'd take one of these:
(http://www.limousine-denver.com/Hummer2.jpg)
Whatever one thinks of the Bentley Continental GT, it remains a fantastic business decision by Bentley management.
Quote from: omicron on August 03, 2007, 07:10:18 AM
Whatever one thinks of the Bentley Continental GT, it remains a fantastic business decision by Bentley Volkswagen management.
I agree.
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 02, 2007, 09:51:01 PM
But it's better because it's more luxurious!
*sigh* I'd like to draw your attention to a comment in the Edmunds review:
Quote from: 565 on August 02, 2007, 06:56:36 PM
When it comes to actually driving these cars, this becomes a battle fought in degrees of wonderfulness. The 12-cylinder engines in both cars deliver huge amounts of power in seamless ribbons; both cars have brakes that could stop a stock market crash and their suspensions absolutely smother broken pavement.
Sounds to me like they enjoyed both. I think the cars have different focuses, is all. The Bentley may be automotive perfection for the more reserved driver, while the Scag or Merc may do the same for someone who expects a little more sport in their GT. What's wrong with that?
I constantly favor Astons in comparison tests, even if they don't offer the statistical performance of the competition.
And really, some of that data is too close not to matter. 6 ft. further braking from 60? That's within 5%. :huh:
Quote from: Tave on August 03, 2007, 08:53:03 AM
*sigh* I'd like to draw your attention to a comment in the Edmunds review:
Sounds to me like they enjoyed both. I think the cars have different focuses, is all. The Bentley may be automotive perfection for the more reserved driver, while the Scag or Merc may do the same for someone who expects a little more sport in their GT. What's wrong with that?
I constantly favor Astons in comparison tests, even if they don't offer the statistical performance of the competition.
And really, some of that data is too close not to matter. 6 ft. further braking from 60? That's within 5%. :huh:
I guess the LS460 is better than the competition too. Afterall it offers just as much luxury if not more than the competition for less money. It must be automotive perfection for the reserved driver :huh:
All I ever said is that there are better cars for the money. Sorry if you disagree with that.
Quote from: omicron on August 03, 2007, 07:14:30 AM
Churchill is turning in his grave.
As long as he's not turning in mine.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 01, 2007, 08:15:12 PM
Very true that pure sports cars by strict definitions are two-seat open cars that can be raced. But as far as Bentley vs F430, Gallardo, GT40 goes they are in totaly different class of cars. One is a coupe that can easily seat four while others are 2 seaters. It is like comparing S2000 to G35 coupe two different class of cars.
As for DB9 it has rear seats but the Bentley is better and less cramped in rear seats the roof is only issue as it slopes down. But good luck trying to get in the back seats of DB9. Dont get me wrong I love DB9 but its rear seats are useless.
Infact here is quote from C/D regarding DB9 "The DB9 has nicely shaped rear seats, but no adult would want to go there."
I've sat in the back of one. It wouldn't be my first choice, but I could live with it.
Quote from: NACar on August 02, 2007, 09:54:52 PM
If all I cared about was luxury, I wouldn't drive myself. I'd take one of these:
(http://www.limousine-denver.com/Hummer2.jpg)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: AltinD on August 03, 2007, 02:55:18 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I hate this blingy car. The epitome of bad taste IMHO.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 03, 2007, 03:57:29 PM
I hate this blingy car. The epitome of bad taste IMHO.
+1 :lol:
Escalades are for hating on.
the bentley is nothing....youth culture views these cars in this order *since most youths like shiny blingy rims, and a huge ass grill*
escalade> any Rolls>Bentley Conti GT
Quote from: deesea on August 03, 2007, 08:21:10 PM
Escalades are for hating on.
the bentley is nothing....youth culture views these cars in this order *since most youths like shiny blingy rims, and a huge ass grill*
escalade> any Rolls>Bentley Conti GT
wtf? Since when did most youth see Cadillac > Bentley/Rolls? I assume you're refering to cars shown in modern music videos and owned by so called musicians. Even though I don't watch much of these videos, I'm pretty sure I see more bentleys/rolls than escalades
Quote from: M_power on August 03, 2007, 09:00:13 PM
wtf? Since when did most youth see Cadillac > Bentley/Rolls? I assume you're refering to cars shown in modern music videos and owned by so called musicians. Even though I don't watch much of these videos, I'm pretty sure I see more bentleys/rolls than escalades
(http://news.windingroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/img_0099.jpg)
fo'shizzle 2 deh mizzle
Quote from: M_power on August 03, 2007, 09:00:13 PM
wtf? Since when did most youth see Cadillac > Bentley/Rolls? I assume you're refering to cars shown in modern music videos and owned by so called musicians. Even though I don't watch much of these videos, I'm pretty sure I see more bentleys/rolls than escalades
and not many youths are actual car nuts...common ed, think of our school, there are probaby 30 people out of 1200 who actually know something about cars. Most people can't even name what car they have at home. And since all teens love MTV, or muchmusic, or VH1 or w/e the hell it is they watch now adays, and escalades and rolls are featured the most, they really would see the cadillac > all others.
Cuz its the most pimpable..fo sho!
Conti GT doesnot have the added muscle of Conti GT speed. So acceleration results might be quiet different for GT Speed as it is listed from factory to be quiet a bit faster then regular Conti.
Quote from: 565 on August 02, 2007, 06:56:36 PM
Speaking of which, check out this Edmunds comparo.?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=121870
Conti GT vs CL600
Cl600 wins.
Like yours are :rolleyes:
Quote from: JYODER240 on August 02, 2007, 09:40:21 PM
Your posts aren't even worth resonding to anymore.
Evidently.
I am not saying it is a limo in rear seat. But it is a lot more comfy and spacious then the DB9. Try to sit in rear of both side by side and you would come to the same conclusion.
Quote from: Submariner on August 03, 2007, 11:23:10 AM
I've sat in the back of one.? It wouldn't be my first choice, but I could live with it.
The reason I wouldn't drive a Continental GT is that is ten a penny. If I'm spending that much I want something with a least a little bit of exclusivity.
I understand what you are saying that it is not as exclusive as the Ferrari or Lambo or DB9 or GT40. But on the other hand I think you will see far more expensive high end Benzes, Porsches and Bimmers then you would see Bentleys.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on August 04, 2007, 05:03:54 PM
The reason I wouldn't drive a Continental GT is that is ten a penny.? If I'm spending that much I want something with a least a little bit of exclusivity.
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 04, 2007, 03:24:47 PM
I am not saying it is a limo in rear seat. But it is a lot more comfy and spacious then the DB9. Try to sit in rear of both side by side and you would come to the same conclusion.
I have, and the DB9 isn't too far behind.
The Bentley's worst point is its rear head room because of the way roof slopes down sharply. But it not as tight as the DB9 is rear seat arrangements.
Quote from: Submariner on August 04, 2007, 09:27:30 PM
I have, and the DB9 isn't too far behind.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10435.msg526379#msg526379 date=1185982733
It's not an overweight pig.
It's an overweight, ugly, trendy, shit eating pig.?
and aside from the Veyron, it's still the best car VW has ever come out with :devil:
Quote from: 1 BAD 7 on August 04, 2007, 08:41:27 PM
I understand what you are saying that it is not as exclusive as the Ferrari or Lambo or DB9 or GT40. But on the other hand I think you will see far more expensive high end Benzes, Porsches and Bimmers then you would see Bentleys.
True. Bentley's do have an air of rarity. But it really depends where you are. If you came to London, you would see an absolute shitload of CGTs!
For the price, the Continental GT seems relatively common. I see far more of them than DB9s, that's for sure. Sure, there are more XKs and CLs and 911s running around, but they are all still at least $20,000 cheaper or more, which is still a considerable amount of money, even at this level. It's still a rare car compared to most, but as far as ultra-premium nameplate cars go, if you drive a dark silver continental GT, you could be any other wealthy developer in Miami or successful businessman in London.
That said, I still love the way this car looks. I don't care for the wheels on this speed version at all, though.
I don't know. If I was going to be spending $200,000 for a vehicle I'd get more than one: A Chevrolet Corvette Z06 for $70,000, a Porsche 911 GT3 for $110,000 as built and a lightly used Honda Civic Si for $20,000 as a daily driver.
One car for $200,000 would have to be a Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG.
I'd rather have a Porsche 928 and an Eagle Vision TSi. :partyon:
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 03, 2007, 03:57:29 PM
I hate this blingy car. The epitome of bad taste IMHO.
I disagree.
Buying a car like this is more often indicative of a lack of taste, not bad taste.