Shot by canadiancatgreen. Starting price: $341,500.
Cohort Pic(k) of the Day: Rolls-Royce Cullinan – Just Another White SUV At The Shopping Center
– Posted on September 22, 2022
-
-
Curbside Classics Archives
Shot by canadiancatgreen. Starting price: $341,500.
That’s not an SUV, it’s a minivan. See, it’s got a sliding door…
Suicide doors.
(I know; it was a joke – but on a tall vehicle like this, those side by side door handles do give the impression the rear door is a slider IMO.)
Meh? I think that it speaks volumes that Queen Elizabeth just took her last ride in a Jaguar.
That cool, futuristic hearse was a Jaaaaaaag? Neat!
I saw a lot of Mercedes’ there also. And old school Rolls, but no new ones.
Yeah, but couple days before the funeral she was being transported in a Mercedes E class based hearse. A Brexiter must have protested, so they rustled up the Jaguar based hearse.
Yes, I did see that Benz — a bit odd at first, but then when you consider the “Windsors” are actually rebranded Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, the three-pointed star seems less incongruous.
The Jaguar wasn’t rustled up. It was built for this occasion by Jaguar Land Rover in consultation with the Queen herself and is part of the royal fleet. Since she died at Balmoral and the Jag was in London, a local funeral home provided the Mercedes in order to get the long journey started.
Thanks, my comment was tongue-in-cheek, and a chance to poke the Brexiters. Did read that the Scotland based funeral home has several of the coachbuilt by Binz Mercedes hearses.
Picture taken in Canmore, Alberta (near Banff) just spectacular Canadian Rockies…
I just don’t get the idea of a Rolls-Royce SUV.
Rolls Royces of the classic era were essentially trucks. Post war models were distinctly SUV-proportioned. The 1966 redesign barely made a difference, still tall and roomy when other cars were low.
So a Rolls SUV is the firm returning to their roots, imho.
OK, I get what you’re saying, but in my mind RRs were always sedans, with an occasional convertible.
Get used to it. Porsche opened up the high-end floodgates with the Cayenne in 2003. Now, Ferrari is about to launch one.
The ‘bandwagon’, like EVERY other manufacturer.
The photo accidentally gave this default modern “car” a proper Rolls trunk.
Hummmm. I guess I’ve been letting my knowledge of current model Rolls-Royces slip. Never heard of one of these.
But the website indicates that they come in orange. Just in case white is too subtle.
Please tell me they call that color Omaha Orange!
nope, it’s New Jersey Tan.
It’s a little shiny for that at the moment, but once it dulls down some and gets a little chalky, it’s a pretty good approximation of Omaha. 😉
Same color was also available on the Dodge Journey as parked behind it.
https://di-uploads-pod2.dealerinspire.com/crestviewchrysler/uploads/2017/11/2018-Dodge-Journey-Spitfire-Orange.png
Are you sure that’s real, or did Tom Halter do an AI-generated image for “Rolls-Royce SUV”?
I saw one recently that was very similar it overtook me at speed so didnt get a good look, someone with plenty of money for speeding fines I guess, Not the most impressive vehicle Ive seen on my travels but faster and more comfortable than the Freightliner I drive daily.
Ok, ha ha, Someone put a cheesy knockoff JC Whitney Rolls Royce grille on their Expedition like people used to put on Beetles, I get it.
I stumbled across a black example that was being used as a prop during the shooting of a rap video. I was in the LA area renting a U Haul trailer in Pacoima. The office/warehouse was the shooting location. The producer had his Maybach crammed into a spot in the crowded yard! I guess there is a market for these.
Not enough visual differentiation from the Dodge Journey parked behind it.
I have several observations about the SUV/Crossover market:
– It’s here to stay
– SUV’s are more practical than coupe/convertibles/sedans
– They don’t need to be tall, AWD or have any off-road capabilities – but the perceived need for “safety and security” derived from AWD or off-road capabilities is what sells them
– Once battery tech progresses to the point that range is not an issue, the fuel consumption issue will disappear
It seems like the entire market has shifted from the manufacturers dictating what we want/need, to the market forcing manufacturers (like Rolls-Royce) into giving us what we want, which is crossovers/SUVs.
It seems like the entire market has shifted from the manufacturers dictating what we want/need, to the market forcing manufacturers (like Rolls-Royce) into giving us what we want, which is crossovers/SUVs.
HA!
So the market forced manufacturers to limit choice by consolidating bodystyles to a more profitable segment for them? SUV/crossover buyers aren’t being swayed by marketing touting “safety” and “ruggedness” and “practicality” and peer pressure into switching to these whether they fit their actual needs or not, just like every other automotive trend? Nah, it must be “power to the people” (exactly what they want you to think)
I’d agree with the original premise, certainly brands such as Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Porsche and now Ferrari (!) weren’t on the vanguard of moving to the SUV segment, they all responded to the their customers letting them know what they wanted from their next purchase and shifted/expanded their offerings to suit, some much more recent than others.
You could take that downmarket a ways as well, Audi very memorably ran ads for several years in the late 90s making fun of SUVs and their higher step-in heights as well as saying they did not envision themselves ever building something like that. Now that’s the majority of their business. None of those makers started out touting SUVs or CUVs, but they all saw themselves losing sales to those that did offer them and here we are.
Of course there was also clearly marketing back in the 50’s, 60s, and 70s espousing the numerous “benefits” of Personal Luxury Coupes, people choosing lower, longer, wider didn’t all of a sudden wake up and decide that’s what the future should be. Most consumers that did the PLC thing eventually moved on to something else, many consumers that did the CUV thing for now are sticking with it as the downsides go away (i.e. they now handle better, ride better, and get far better fuel economy than they used to. So do sedans and coupes, but the SUV/CUVs seem do it all at least “well enough” for the majority of the market.). As has been pointed out numerous times, the current shapes are more like the old shapes that worked pretty well for people as well as cargo.
Porsche wasn’t at the vanguard with the Cayenne? What was Porsche’s responding to? Lexus RX perhaps? The Mercedes M class? Mercedes and Lexus wasn’t really a Porsche competitor then, all Porsche made were dedicated low slung 2 door sports cars until 2002, they may have been second cars to owners of those but they survived separately. Sports car makers up to that point it was unheard of and taboo to make anything but sports cars. The Cayenne is the only reason there are all these “sports” “car” SUVs from all the other aforementioned makers, credit is due where it’s due, Porsche pioneered the segment…(And Porsche can go to hell for it)
We are way too early into the crossover era being the defacto car bodystyle to make any predictions about people not moving on from it because they’re “good enough” based on the righteous presumption that longer/lower/wider somehow robbed humanity of practical car design and that these are a necessary reset of the automotive ills of the second half of the 20th century. People willfully moved onto lower vehicles, or as they’re now known as sedans, and stayed with them dominantly until 15 or so years ago, styles and sizes morphed through the years but generations of people were content with the height until the “new” must have thing came along in the SUV. There’s no guarantee there won’t be a stale point for the SUV crossover bodystyle, just like when the tall sedan went away the first time when a public craving freshness got a taste of what motorama could offer.
The Minivan seemed like it was here to stay as the dominant family car from the vantage of the mid 1990s, yet it’s about as extinct today as PLCs, yet it’s just as tall and even more practical than the crossover. The minivan boom existed right along side the boom of the family 4 door SUV, so why did the less practical and at the time more wasteful SUV shape win in the end? Could it be… *gasp*…image? All it takes is a generation who doesn’t want to be like like their parents to put an end to a trend.
“Porsche can go to hell for it” – Alright. You take these logical business decision things too personally. They make and sell cars and their objective is to return a profit. It’s been working quite well for them. The vehicles are inanimate objects that do a job, in some cases better and in some cases worse than others in their portfolio or in the market as a whole. Their marketing though (prior to 2002 at least) seems to have done its job on you. I’m not particularly interested in their CUV offerings either but if it allows the rest of it to exist, then great. I’m waiting for the Porsche Pickup (that was a joke).
Porsche developed the Cayenne (in conjunction with VW and their Touareg no matter how much they try to deny it) due to realizing that their market base was purchasing SUVs from other companies (often American ones, some Japanese as the segment became popular among the general population during the 1980s, exploded in the 1990s and went supernova around 2000), most often as second or third (or fourth+) vehicles and sometimes to replace their products as their families grew but garage space didn’t and decided that they might as well keep that business inhouse. It obviously worked as the Cayenne is much of the reason that Porsche still exists and is thriving rather than withering.
In short, the Cayenne was a brand extension to gain additional volume that was going elsewhere. The market already existed, Porsche just rode the wave with a pretty good product, they didn’t set out to increase the market share of the segment itself. It worked extremely well, perhaps far better than expected. Might as well tow the 911 track car with a Cayenne instead of a Yukon…And in some case make tracks of a different sort.
Their marketing though (prior to 2002 at least) seems to have done its job on you
Oh yeah, those crafty marketers got really me! Here I had thought their uninterrupted line of sports cars since the company’s inception in the 40s made Porsche a sports car company! Egg on my face, I tell ya.
Porsche developed the Cayenne (in conjunction with VW and their Touareg no matter how much they try to deny it) due to realizing that their market base was purchasing SUVs from other companies…
So, why was Porsche able to survive for 50 some years before the Cayenne? I strongly doubt Porsche sports cars were ever primary transportation for most of their customers, there was probably always something more practical in a garage or driveway in your typical Porsche household, and I’m sure the company knew it for as long as they’ve sold cars, because at the end of the day, why is it a problem if your customer buys a surburban AND your 911? do you think Kawasaki is losing business to the 4 wheeled vehicle companies they share garage space with?
Plus given their cars were generally in the domain of the affluent, a growing household tends to lead to a bigger house, with a bigger garage. This scenario is a different story for most of us, where family generally means giving up the Camaro and getting a family hauler.
Porsche built the Cayanne for one purpose: the take advantage of the strong brand. A classic brand extension, and a standard playbook thing for all luxury brands, sooner or later.
Why wouldn’t they? They’re in the business to make as much money as possible, not to be purists.
And of course, it’s worked fabulously. The Porsche IPO is being valued at $75+ billion. That would never have happened without all those non-sports car models.
One more minor historical point: The very first 356s were all built using salvaged parts from VW Kubelwagens that had been abandoned near their estate in Austria. Porsche had no access to VW parts there, in the very early days after the war, and they kept busy repairing Kubelwagen and harvesting all of their chassis and drive train parts. So SUVs are very much in the Porsche DNA. 🙂
Porsche seeing that their customer were buying other cars besides Porsches is the EXACT REASON that they started to build additional, other vehicles. That’s the whole point, they saw no need for their sports car customer to have a Suburban or Explorer or Land Rover or whatever next to it. They didn’t create the market, it was already there, which was my original point that you took umbrage to. They built sports cars. Then they built somewhat sporty things that had more than two doors. A mid-level current Cayenne and especially the Macan will drive circles around most of Porsche’s “sports car” sacred cows of not that long ago btw. I don’t know if you actually remember it at the time, it WAS a big deal but it also made perfect sense. What annoyed most Porsche fans was not that they built the Cayenne but that they were in such dire straits that they stopped racing for a while as a factory. Eventually that came back once finances improved again, precisely due to the brand extensions. Now any owner of a 911 (or Boxster) that needs/wants/whatever a larger vehicle will look FIRST in the Porsche showroom. That’s a bigger win for Porsche than any LeMans result.
If you have a customer and they want to give you money for building things that they will buy and you can make a profit at it, you should build it. That’s just Business 101. Instead you have companies like Ford slowly shrinking back to becoming primarily a Van and Truck company with one lone car, the Mustang, still in the stable, assuming we are lumping SUV/CUVs in with “trucks”. That’s called having all your eggs in one basket and not a great strategy for future stability. Of course I guess they couldn’t make a profit at the other things like sedans or smaller entry level hatchbacks, and I believe are artificially limiting the supply of their loss leader $20k Maverick, so maybe “for them” it made sense. I’m quite sure Porsche makes fat profits on the Cayenne, Panamera, and Macan, likely more than on the 911 and Boxster. In the end the larger cars fund the smaller cars.
Since I brought up Ford, Ford lasted for quite a few years before deciding to build a Mustang. Chevy the same prior to the Corvette. No hue and cry from you about them building stuff that doesn’t fit whatever they built historically before that time. In fact, the Mach-E Mustang is FAR more like what they used to build from a format perspective than the regular ICE Mustang is/was and you severely dislike that thing, or at least the concept of it.
Plenty of people have Porsches as their primary vehicle. It’s really no different than having a Mustang or Camaro as your primary, that is the nice thing about a Porsche vs a Ferrari or whatever, they are everyday usable. I drove my 911 over 10,000 miles the first year I had it with a child seat in the back seat and coast to coast. It was great, no hiccups. I think we had other cars in the garage at the time, what they were escapes me currently, I’d have to refer to my COAL series. 🙂
Here’s a real world current example: My friend Bill bought a used 911 Cabriolet, drove it every day, that’s the one I published the Bandimere drag strip video of some time back when we “raced” each other. His wife drove an X5. He traded the 911C for a 911 turbo after realizing his newer Cabrio was slower than my older Coupe (well, that’s how I tell the story anyway). His wife got rid of the X5 and they added a Panamera. Now they also have a Macan GTS. One family, two kids, three Porsches, two of them vehicles which would not have added anything to the company bottom line if they didn’t offer them. He switches off between the 911 Turbo and the Macan depending on the day he has to pick up both kids that are now too big for the back seat in the 911T.
It’s like McDonald’s, the hamburger place. They also sell french fries but the sign says Hamburgers. I’ll bet you had a temper tantrum when your mom took you there when you were 7 years old and you saw that they also had a Filet O’Fish on the menu. 🙂 Heresy! But both are logical extensions of the brand to appeal to both their existing base as well as add to it. And they make money, but the key thing is they still make the hamburgers, you can buy as many as you can stand, just like the 911 over at the Porsche store.
PS: Suzuki and Honda added cars to their motorcycle businesses, it seems to be working out for them. I’m not sure what Kawasaki’s and Yamaha’s problem there is…
Firstly I object to the Mustang SUV squarely because Ford has already demonstrated that they’d rather make trucks and SUVs over sedans, therefore what’s to say they don’t continue to put their eggs in one basket as you said and dump the coupe making the Mach E the defacto Mustang? You strongly favor the market shift to the SUV format, I get it, so it suits you, but not every single model in the marketplace should suit every customer, and that’s why the Corvette Thunderbird and by extension Mustang were brought out in the first place, because the market was saturated with what the youth market considered dull full sized sedans – hey what’s the median age of car buyers today? Oh…
I agree with you that the regular Mustang has probably veered too far from what it was in format in recent generations, it’s become a little too hardcore performance oriented and I think the Challenger had largely taken the buyers that wanted a sporty/muscular coupe without giving up all practicality for Corvette like high performance. However a crossover is a mainstream vehicle today in the way a Galaxie or Fairlane was then – a family car. The original Mustang wasn’t a family car, people could made due if they were willing but in the same way as you talked about with the 911, old Mustangs were marginally practical cars, they were style first.
Finally the Corvette and Mustang were niche products that came into established mainstream manufacturers, they were the equivalent of spiking the punch bowl = party time. Porsche was an established niche car manufacturer from the start, bringing on the Cayenne, Panamerra, and Macan watered down the drinks at the party = lame.
The umbrage I took was your claim that the Cayenne was such a given with the SUV boom happening that Porsche was behind the curve of the SUV market. There was literally no precedent set for a sports car maker to make such a thing, sports car makers rarely delved into sedans other than Jaguar and occasionally Aston Martin, let alone vehicles with inherently high centers of gravity and severe limitations on stylistic expression, why would Porsche make such a thing? the fact that they did was huge when it happened! Porsche may not have been the vanguard of SUVs but as far as brand extensions they were, do you think you’d see Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Lotus, the Mustang Mach E, et al today without the Cayenne? I sure don’t think so. When I joked that Porsche could go to hell for it it had a lot more to do with what the Cayenne did to the overall market than it did to Porsche itself. While there are people like your friend who have one among a fleet of Porsches, there many where that’s their only Porsche, that just buy it for the fashionable badge.
“You strongly favor the market shift to the SUV format” – No, I truly do not care, not sure what gave you that impression. I own one truck, one CUV (the electric one my wife primarily drives/prefers), two station wagons, and a Jeep Wrangler. All are AWD/4WD as I live in a sometimes snowy climate and can’t always stay home while covering 30,000 miles last year, but I was convinced by AWD as a perfomance aid even in dry conditions when I tried my first quattro-equipped Audi decades ago. You know I’ve had sedans as recently as a few years ago. I’m not particularly concerned with what maker makes what car, when I’m ready to buy I look at what’s out there and make a decision. I don’t cross anyone off my list due to what they build that might appeal to others. But I can’t buy what someone doesn’t offer if you want to look at it the other way around. I do realize that it’s generally easier for my aging knees and back to sit more upright these days and easier ingress and egress is not a bad thing. The market was never *all* sedans or *all* two door coupes, so there was always the choice. Porsche is currently giving everyone far MORE choices in the market and from their own brand than some other makes (such as Ford since we are picking on them, perhaps unfairly so). I know there are plenty of VW and Audi pieces inside the Cayenne, guess what, even the 911 had a bunch of them, mostly unseen. But it isn’t “all” image either, a fair number of owners can discern or prefer one marque over another not due to the badge on the hood, but how the vehicle does what it does. Some don’t and that’s fine too, whatever, not my problem. Or yours really.
The Mustang exists (in the US market) as a sort of halo car. And Bill Ford seemed to like the old one he used to drive I guess. Once he’s gone and once people stop buying it for whatever reason it may be gone too, maybe the Raptor will take over there as the Mustang GT. There’s an F150 for every purse and purpose or whatever. Or at least a Ford truck I guess. Nobody buys an F150 or an Escape because of the Mustang.
Then again, the Porsche 911 is the halo car for Porsche. The volumes it sells are not really significant enough to keep it on purely rational and financial terms but everything else it does and how it’s used keeps the rest of the ship upright, so it’ll never (and should never) go anywhere. The Cayman (if fitted with a 911 engine) is a better, faster, and quicker sportscar, I think even Porsche subtly acknowledges that but Porsche IS the 911, the other stuff sells due to it, not despite it, as opposed to Ford I think. But yes, leverage that for the company’s upside! It’d be stupid not to.
I don’t think “youths” bought Thunderbirds, Corvettes, or Mustangs in the volumes you seem to think they did. More like older people wanting to feel younger again or they were developed even more likely as competition to some of Europe’s more sporting offerings that were taking some share away. Same as with SUVs and Porsche in reverse.
I strongly get the impression that to you, there is pretty much zero difference between a Honda CR-V and a Porsche Cayenne just because you dislike the form factor itself or between a Ford Fusion and a Panamera for whatever reason and that a modern CUV is no different dynamically than a 1982 Ford Bronco. You really should drive a few of these cars if you haven’t. Go drive an Alfa Stelvio Quadrifoglio, it’ll blow your mind. The SUV boom (in suburbia I mean) started before you were born if I’m not mistaken, I’ll credit it to the Jeep Cherokee (XJ), S-10 Blazer, and Bronco II, with assists from Isuzu and Mitsubishi and Toyota’s 4Runner. Interestingly it was AT THE SAME TIME as the minivan boom. Then it exploded with Explorer, Grand Cherokee, and eventually the softer Japanese ones compared to what came before, i.e. CRV, RAV, etc, as well as the larger, mostly Tahoe/Suburban etc, you’ve seen that happen in real time. Then it went upscale, Mercedes ML was 1997, Lexus RX 1998, BMW X5 was 1999, Touareg/Cayenne was 2002 (about time, no?) Audi Q7 2005. They all figured out that buyers were shopping the other makers and wanted some of that sweet, sweet pie but they far from the front of the line. And now the domestic makes with what was fairly humble fare are offering their own upscale stuff, i.e. Denali, Escalade, the entire Lincoln lineup etc.
But if you are truly concerned about the future viability of the Ford Mustang the single best thing you can do is go and order one. And convince your peer group to do the same. Your one vote could be the deciding one. If they keep it great, if not, it won’t make a difference to me. Same with the 911 for that matter. I liked mine a lot, but now it’s gone and that’s fine too. Life goes on and my identity is not wrapped up in cars all that much, although probably still more than normal. I’d be far more upset if suddenly Everything Bagels were no longer available or if Hoodies were outlawed, both things that I like to use virtually every day and enjoy immensely 🙂
This whole “niche” stuff is just BS. You’re only “niche” because you either don’t have the capacity or the product diversity to break out of that. Honda and Toyota were “niche” manufacturers at one time in the not so distant past. They expanded. Should Honda never have ventured into cars since they were obviously only a motorcycle maker? Hyundai expanded from zero in the US within your own lifetime I think. From one shitty economy car to look at them now. Porsche can do (they did) the same, from one car to multiple ranges, most with multiple engine choices etc. The only thing stopping them from being a true “volume” brand, whatever that means, is their price level, but they already ARE the volume brand of higher end sports car makers and have been for decades. If they really wanted to chase volume (they don’t, or at least not at any cost) they could easily leverage more of the V.A.G. factory empire, the majority of their vehicles aren’t manufactured anywhere near Stuttgart already, even when it was just 911 and Boxster they bought some of it out in Finland at Valmet. Ask any small automaker if they want to remain that way or if they want to expand. Nobody who has never expanded doesn’t want to expand. Some who have expanded may end up regretting that decision but that’s different.
The reasons the other makers are doing so now is that their customers are telling them (showing them) that they want this product or they will find something similar elsewhere. The Aston Martin SUV is over half of their production already. I must have missed the commercials for it that apparently hypnotized all the buyers for it somehow. No, those buyers WANTED it and told Aston that. Same with Ferrari and the rest. Same as McDonalds having the meatless burger. Their customers told them they wanted a meatless burger. So they provided it to keep the business. The alternative is to lose business, perhaps to an unsustainable degree.
But no, it’s all not that big of a deal. It’s simply business. As an auto enthusiast I believe it’s important to keep an open mind and actually take every opportunity (or create them) to experience what’s out there, otherwise you’re just a very niche enthusiast. A particular vehicle or a segment of vehicles may not be for you and that’s fine, but you might be able to see what the appeal is for some others (in any segment, not just Euro-CUVs), otherwise you’ll just end up recommending a Mustang with an automatic to anyone who wants a new car and asks you what they should get…(because you want to increase demand for it 🙂 )
And lastly, Porsche also has their name on tractors. So they have mud in the wheelwells going waaaay back…
When or where have I ever recommended a automatic Mustang to people, or projected that I think A CRV is comparable to an Alfa Romeo SUV? Really I don’t comment much on new car reviews because that’s simply not my interest, I like old stuff more, that’s why I’m here, that doesn’t mean I don’t pay attention out of my own personal obligation though, it’s just a slog like trying to learn a boring part of history to understand the big picture. So of course I know they’re different, but why would I be any more impressed by the Alfa Stelvio Quadrifoglio over the Giulia Quadrifoglio? Do you presume I would be extra wowed by a similar performing vehicle in the supposedly more practical format I don’t really need?
That’s the thing with crossovers for me, do I get the attraction and needs they fulfill for some? Yes! But whenever I hear the poetic waxing about the woes of the sedan format “omg trunks, eew!” it’s like listening to people laugh at their fashion and hairdos from old high school yearbook photos – so you think it’s comical now, but you didn’t seem to find fault then, eh? All the people ever wanted in cars was answered by the Crossover, and that’s the reason they’re popular, that they need 100% of their practicality at all times, and not even the slightest bit swayed by trendiness? Come on. I don’t have any problem with more choice on the market, in fact I think it’s great, and any company like Porsche or Toyota as we speak for keeping a real full lineup with both forms I commend, but it’s consolidation like Ford GM and who knows who else sooner or later that grinds my gears, especially when they have an excessively broad lineup of SUV/crossovers where not all are doing so hot (Ecosport) yet somehow can’t keep a better selling sedan(Focus, Fusion et al) in the lineup. Me buying a Mustang to “cast my vote” may save the Mustang, but it won’t save anything else, and it’s upsetting seeing an entire format of vehicle going extinct and people dancing on the grave of them, which is what started this comment chain.
My perception (which may be wrong) and which I think many people on this site hold is that you have historically lumped anything that is slightly raised up from the ground and with a hatch (ie. CUV or SUV) as not worthy of consideration for anyone’s needs, wants, or desires and a format whose end can’t come soon enough and as such it doesn’t matter if someone prefers a CRV or a Stelvio or an Escalade or a 4Runner, all are useless trend-mobiles, end of story. You have not given the impression that you would ever deign to consider that there may in fact be some (or or any or many) merits to them for some people, if obviously not for yourself, ever, nor consider that the longer, lower, wider sedan was itself a “trend”, and primarily so in the U.S..
Your comment on the Chrysler’s TC by Maserati post the other day that said, and I quote it directly and in its entirety as “Still better than a Levante” is where these opinions of your views are formed. That may be the shortest comment you’ve ever left… You could have expounded on the comment with some clear reasons as to why it’s still better but I don’t believe you know anything about the Maserati Levante and as such the comment is worthless, comes across as a knee-jerk reaction (I don’t know much about the Levante either, it’s not really on my radar, I don’t have a knowledgeable opinion about it) and nobody knows if you were serious or kidding but given your history of CUV animosity is taken as your actual opinion. But it’s exactly like the EV-haters we have on here with their comments that have either no basis in fact and are there just to project more hate or division and frankly say more about them than the cars they are sharing their “wisdom” about, the difference I’ll absolutely grant is that you actually have lots of automotive knowledge versus those people.
The Alfa SQV may be a touch less dynamic than the GQV, which I don’t know if most people could actually perceive, and that wasn’t the point, the point was that it’s astounding that a CUV like that can be as good or exciting as it is, same with the Cayenne (when properly equipped), etc. They might not exceed their sedan equivalents from the same company with the same componentry, but they still trounce a lot of other cars from other places that are supposedly a superior format and offer things that their sedan contemporaries may not be able to.
But now you’ve explained yourself more succinctly than ever before and I suppose we can move on from this thread.
I agree to move on but just to be clear, I was brief with the line I made about the Levante in the TC topic because it was a joke! Same thing with the “Porsche can go to hell for the Cayenne” line for that matter. I’m not so daft to say a K car with porthole windows is literally a better vehicle than the Levante, neither one appeals to me(I find the whole Maserati brand kind of offputting, including the Quattroporte and sports cars) but I’m not so daft to actually favor the TC only because it’s in the lower format I generally prefer. I made other much longer posts in the comments about the TC and they weren’t really flattering to it, in fact we’re pretty much on the same page with it.
Alright, point taken (and good), it’s not always obvious and I didn’t want to engage there on that one, was already busy enough… 🙂
Some of what you say makes sense, but being in an area of primarily 2wd crossovers, no, AWD is not needed to sell them to people who don’t need AWD. They’re just as popular here as they are when I visit the PNW. The only thing missing is the “AWD” logo.
I hate 2wd SUVs. But a Nissan Rogue? Who cares. It’s terrible and I’d never want one no matter if it were AWD or not. I felt the same about those goofy looking Stanza wagons (and van things) in the 80s. At least those could be had with a manual and had fair long-term quality.
Enough anonymity to blend in, and provide stealth. But then, there’s the grille, and hard-to-miss wheel centre caps.
That would probably have similar interior space and proportioning to the old Silver Cloud. Just checked their (very impressive) website, and I see the Cullinan doesn’t have an interior, it has a “palatial Suite” (with a capital S, thank you very much!).
But a Rolls in white just doesn’t look right.
I’m not going to comment on the rise of the SUV. But where I live in Atlanta recent Rolls-Royces (the SUV, of course, and the 2 door coupe) are a relatively common thing, very often in a totally blacked trim, or, even more extreme, in a combination of black and orange, or pink. And to me, the Cullinan looks like a Kia Telluride, just not as nice. Basically, the Telluride of the guy who wants to show off. See for yourself.
The Telluride is a cheap knockoff. Everything that looks like metal, wood, leather in the Rolls is metal, wood or leather.
The Telluride is for the guy who wants to show off and hope nobody knows the difference.
The vast majority of people that bought Kia Tellurides have never seen a Rolls Royce Cullinan. Almost the same (X minus a dozen or so?) vast majority of people have never heard of or know that it even exists. Someone above thought it looked like a Dodge Journey, another a minivan, and those are people on an automotive website. 🙂
There is very little if any genuine wood, metal interior trim, or leather in ANY vehicle today. And you know what? Some people actively don’t want leather (why kill the animals) or wood (why kill the trees) and likely don’t give a crap about the metal. Some automakers actually use those facts in their advertising and don’t pretend it’s what it isn’t.
The Telluride seems like a pretty good value for a fairly large CUV that seats seven or so with a great warranty and so far excellent resale. What’s not to like? (No I do not own one, I’m just not seeing what the issue is or what makes a Telluride objectively worse than a Highlander or an Explorer if that’s more your thing). To some others here, all three of those somehow look identical to each other in all respects. Actually, all four if you include the RR as well.
Not a fan of the genera, but that’s irrelevant. The story.
A couple of months ago I returned from a visit to a local upmarket grocery store. Which has much, often very good, prepared foods, which is what I was there for. I returned to my car and next to me was, a RR passenger truck as I refer to them. Took me a while to place it as it was actually dirty and covered with dust, surely from some time on a dirt road. I’ve got to guess it was from a farmer who lived on dirt roads. Whether that farm was wine or a leafy green substance recently legalized in some states I can’t say.
Whist white never helps on a car like this, it still seems one of the less successful SUV designs for an image based brand. The DBX does it so much better, the still ugly Bentayga maybe as well. None of them get anywhere close to the Range Rover for me.
And this still reminds me of the MCW Metrocab
There’s a pale pink one locally. My kids and I can’t decide whether that or the ‘German taxi beige’ Bentley Bentayga we often see is worse. At least neither has black wheels.