| Author | Message | ||
     alan white Yet to post message Username: wp51dos Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2009 |
i wish to buy a rolls royce. am looking for that point on the depreciation curve where there is good remaining miles before engine overhaul. want folowing i think 95 or newer ( freon to newer w134 would seem unwise ) long wheelbase ( standard 1997 and newer ? ) no turbo ( too many moving parts } advice please. | ||
| Michel Malik New User Username: michel Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hello Alan, There are many late models (90 and newer) with many hundreds of thousands of kilometres left in them before thinking of engine overhaul. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 2056 Registered: 4-2003 |
Practically every car you see will have R134a. R12 is long gone. If the refrigeration has been serviced in living memory, then it certainly will not have R12. This is a trivial thing. It's just a regular service to change from R12: new compressor oil, new receiver-dryer and a regas. R12 or R134a, the same service is needed from time to time. It's a tradeoff. SWB cars are decidedly sportier, LWB cars are nice for the peasants in the back. I found the SWB an advantage with small children in the back as you can reach them. That seemingly-small increase in the length with LWB makes quite a difference in a spiral carpark entrance I assure you. Really just one more moving part to be precise: the turbine/compressor shaft, but then there's the wastegate and dump valve. Big deal. This is very simple and reliable mechanical stuff. It's a small price to pay. Apart from the car being provided with adequate power compared to the non-Turbos, fuel economy (what's that ?) is improved for a given duty with a Turbo, and the engine runs at lower engine speeds by virtue of the taller gearing. That alone extends engine life. Anyhow, if you don't manage 600,000km from one of these motors between overhauls, it's because it has been damaged, or abused by sitting in a garage or otherwise. | ||
| James Feller Prolific User Username: james_feller Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2008 |
RT I would agree entirely with you re fuel economy Turbo Vs non turbo. My Spirit, an 86 Fuel Injected car, while not flastaffian does indeed use appreciably more fuel on average than my 89 Turbo. Infact I have calcualated on a recent trip the Bentley was returning just above 12litres to the 100klms on a mostly freeway driving mind you but still pretty good really. The best I have got from the Rolls is 14 litres ing per 100klms on the same journey. Interesting isn't it that the Turbo's use less fuel than their normally aspirated counterparts, they are clearly more effiecient. I remeber replying to this thread sometime back as to why would Alan White discount the 'turbo's' too RT. I believe if its 'efficient' RR&B motoring you are after the TURBO is the ONLY way to go!!! You must also remember they are close to 50% more powerful than their normally aspoed cousins, they have a very robust turbo arrangement... what's not to want and LOVE!!!! I have not once regretted buying my Turbo. J | ||
| Clifford Donley Experienced User Username: flatus Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2009 |
Before I bought my Spirit, I measured the garage. This SWB car would fit comfortably; a LWB version wouldn't. The extra four inches disqualified the Silver Spurs as the fit would be too tight. I've never driven a LWB version, but I'll say this, my Spirit is, as Richard says, really sporty. I'm constantly surprised at how nimble it is. I have the same confidence in its handling as I did with my Jaguar and a Ford Police Interceptor. | ||
| Michel Malik Experienced User Username: michel Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2008 |
RT I am not sure about the peasants in the back. I tend to ride often in the back of my Spur and find that connotation quite offensive! LWB Royces are more comfortable than the SWB ones, especially when you are sitting in the back. |
