(first posted 3/20/2014) It’s been a few months since DonAndreina posted pics of this gorgeous Rolls Royce coupe to the Cohort, but there’s never a bad time to admire a car this pretty. The Camargue is not remembered as one of its makers finer efforts, and has even been called ugly. I am very aware that my opinion of its looks is far from “correct” according to conventional wisdom, but I find it quite attractive, especially when viewed from the side.
A very cursory search reveals that the same man who designed this car also designed the similarly tasteful Fiat 130 coupe, and the Peugeot 104 (which is a bit stubby). It’s rather clear that the Rolls front end was forced on a rather different design, but despite a rather bluff appearance, it all works, giving it a a less upright look versus the other cars it was sold alongside.
As a product of Pininfarina, there’s an obvious Italian influence, but it seems this was not what customers wanted from the most expensive Rolls Royce. Too bad for them, I guess. I can certainly see the goal in making this car: over-the-top prestige in a smaller, leaner package. Perhaps the problem was the rise of Mercedes SL/SLC, which did intimate indulgence for a good deal less. Others blame the ’70s economy, but let’s face it, the über-wealthy usually weather economic recession without much in the way of sacrifice. It’s more likely that the Rolls Royce way of doing things was increasingly dated while fans were simultaneously devoted to their existing designs.
As someone who’s never understood extreme luxury (there’s only so much wealth I can realistically envision), I can’t extensively speculate the reasons for this car’s failure. I’ll let Rolls fans–there’s got to be a couple of you out there–set the record straight on the Camargue.
Related reading: Pininfarina Florida and 1973 Rolls Royce Phantom VI Drophead by Frua
A fine looking machine!
It has a pretty profile, but it looks bad from every other angle, especially the front, they were pretty badly put together with a fair amount of problems, I have a Motor Trend road test for one from the late 70’s, they had umpteen problems with the fit and finish and reliability of their test car.
I well remember that Motor Trend road test, and others that mentioned problems – as I recall, the A/C was barely adequate for British weather and definitely not for SoCal’s.
I also remember seeing these at the LA Auto Show (I’ve virtually not missed this show for over 40 years) and not liking them at all. A Fiat look designed for a small car forced on a bloated one? And comments at the shows were not favorable, especially when they were parked next to the comparatively pretty Corniche convertibles and coupes that were quite popular here. I saw very few Camargues around Beverly HIlls and the west side in their hey day.
A better choice for the money…
Me personally, I would rather have 6 Cadillacs…..
I’m with you, Carmine. Or, ten Imperials. 🙂
Carmine:
How about eight:
http://www.hemmings.com/hmn/stories/2010/06/01/hmn_feature7.html
How about a Fiat 130 coupe ? With a five speed of course.
Beautiful car!
A Shadow is a very expensive car to maintain today.
The Camargue had the first dual level climate system in the world. Additionally, the a/c worked like 40 refrigerators. These cars were heavily destine to Asia and the Middle East. The a/c is excellent. The one in my car can have frost develop on the vents when it is 90 outside. Your information is incorrect.
It reminds me of Bristol, in the ‘we couldn’t afford John Wayne, so we got Ronald Reagan instead’ way.
LOL
I can clearly two things why the car was a flop:
1. The vent windows are fixed – fail.
2. The rear side windows either are fixed, or only roll down a tiny bit due to the awkward-proportioned and over-sized greenhouse – double fail.
I can’t attest to fit & finish, but apparently that was a third reason. No excuse for any of these from a Rolls.
Fit and finish isn’t a term familiar to RR in those days. All Rolls at this time and up to the mid 90’s basically fell to bits around you.
KJ
The side view is very good, especially in white, dark blue or black. That rust red shown above is completely out of character. The front end is just too bluff, and the plain rear styling adds no distinction to the design. My preference would have been for the Silver Shadow saloon. “My preference…” Ha! Like I could afford one. Oh, well. Home, James…
A pretty car from some angles, but something’s not right in the wheelbase… it’s as if the body sits too far forward relative to the wheels. There’s too much tail wagging in the breeze out back. Not sure I got it right here, but I shifted the wheelbase rearward to see what the effect would be.
I thought the same thing about the wheelbase. Interestingly, that wheelbase extension gives it a pretty hefty Peugeot-vibe. Not surprisingly, as Pininfarina designed the Peugeots. But it’s interesting what a little difference in measure can make for the vibe.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. When I saw the side profile picture, my first thought was “altered wheelbase dragster?!”
Of course if you look at another exclusive British 2-door, the Bristol Blenheim (Type 603), it also has the wheels pushed forwards as far as possible.
It has a semi-fastback roofline, but with a much longer side window than you would normally see. Plus ‘proper’ headroom for rear passengers (at least that aspect is better resolved than an AMC Marlin).
The front wheels are all the way forward because that is how RR always did it, even in the early 1950s the radiator was still between the front wheels like a car from the 1920s-30s. I think the slight forward lean of the radiator was the source of some major brain explosions amongst the RR purists.
There seems to be a lot of inspiration from the Thunderbirds RR.
John, have a look at the Frua article mentioned at the base of the story..
Apologies John. I just enjoyed the Frua post again and see you’ve already been there.
Hey mFred,
Can you do a 3rd version using the front wheel from “before” and rear wheel from “after”. Super long wheel base bu just want to see the effect. Thanks.
That’s what I was wondering too.
I’ll try to get to it, as I kinda thought the same thing after I posted the pic. I’m thinking my sense of a proper front overhang length has been distorted in the era of FWD.
Another way to go about this would be to take the entire rear section of the car except for the wheel and move it forward, thereby shortening up that overlong roof and rear quarter glass.
I posted another version at the bottom of the comments.
Nope – the shift rearwards gives it a Yank-Tank flavour. Far too uncouth for a Roller!
The blue Camargue is not sitting properly. The standing height in the rear is too high, this might be causing your dislike.
No…thats spot on but jest leave the front wheel where they were. Perfect !!!
Thanks, Perry,
I like the car, but it is ungainly, and/or plain from that rear-quarter view.
Also, please fix the typo in the title – it’s Camargue.
Oy vey…
This is one of those reminders that, yes, in fact Pininfarina’s shit does indeed stink.
Where to begin…
-The headlights are too high
-The headlight buckets look cheap
-The grille looks ridiculous(Lincoln Marks of the same time this existed were better integrated!)
-The turn signal/markers look like they were made from amber reflective tape
-The roofline is too long for the wheelbase (as mFred mentioned above)
-The taillights are too high and also look like they were pulled out of a parts bin like every other British car of the period.
The roofline and general starkness the only OK part of it. But it’s hard to dispute a ruler drawn design as being at least OK.
-It’s a Rolls; the headlights are supposed to be high.
-A lot of British cars had taillights like this, as you said. The Rolls and Bentley siblings didn’t receive criticism for their looks, however (or did they?).
The bat-winged chinese-eye Continental copped a bit of flak, but for the most part Blatchley and his team’s in-house designs were discrete enough to be considered quite acceptable by the purchasing class.
Reference to that car always reminds me of the one Jack Warden’s character drove in the movie Shampoo.
Shampoo. Totally killer movie. Julie Christie and the slow reveal on that backless dress. Hmmm… where’s that cold spoon?
Same as AL Czervik’s red Chinese-eyed Rolls Royce from Caddyshack, except his was a ragtop.
-It’s a Rolls; the headlights are supposed to be high.
A Rolls shouldn’t be me mistaken for a 70s GM either but the Carmargue manages to do it anyway. You’d think relinquishing on trendy ruler drawn styling after three decades of fresh out of WWII styling they could figure out a better way to integrate their signature “high headlights” than this cobbled together mess of a front end did.
As for the taillights, it’s a Rolls Royce and it’s the 1970s already, invest in a injection molding machine and make some lenses of your own already. A Rover sharing taillights with a panel van, fine. But a Rolls isn’t a Rover.
Up to this point in time most Rolls-Royces were meant to be driven by a driver, with the owner in the back seat This was one of the first attempts to let the owner drive. Even the Shadow’s of this era are still chauffeur driven designed. Underneath all that metal is still a Shadow, except for the a/c and a few other items, the slanted grille and the Pinin Farina design.
Call it a Talbot Tagora Coupe and it’s perfectly OK.
Well, that is a rare beast. Guess that not even the French remember them. At least I don’t. Looks like an eighties’ upperclass Hyundai. Long wheelbase though.
We here at CC remember the Tagora Carolus! – https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/car-show-classic-talbot-tagora-never-a-chrysler-nearly-a-peugoet/
I have to disagree with your opinion on this one. This car is not very good looking from any angle.
The beltline trim looks like it was inspired by a mid-1950s Nash.
The grille looks like it was tacked on at the last moment – as though Pininfarina suddenly remembered he was designing a Rolls Royce after he had finished the rest of the car.
If you wanted a well-integrated, Rolls Royce-style grille on your mid-1970s luxury coupe, a Lincoln Continental Mark IV was a better choice. That was a much more reliable car, too, even if it didn’t feature hand-rubbed paint and genuine wood trim.
That greenhouse would’ve made a huge improvement to the ’77-84 Coupe de Ville, but everything else was better on the Caddy.
I think it’s quite bold having the grille leaning forwards at a ten degree angle. Before someone pointed it out, I didn’t even see it. But I think that’s what’s making the bluff front end.
I’ve always thought it looked quite unfinished. Especially from the rear. It has that unfinished prototype feel, with placeholder rear lights. I’ve always wondered when they were going to fix it for real.
I’m probably the only one who prefers it to the 4 door models .I’ve never been a Rolls Royce fan though,give me a Bristol any day
I usually don’t like coupes. But when I do I like this one! All kidding aside, it is a good looking car! Or maybe I have bad taste in cars? 😉
Well, the only ugly thing is the rear side. It looks like a Chevrolet Vega. Come on Rolls, you could have done better there.
can you believe that the trim in the first picture mimics the ’55 Mercury?
My thought exactly.
It is a serious design FAIL…vaguely prescient of the M-B W126; specifically the venerable 560SEC
That rear window SCREAMS late ’70s Chevy Nova.
I think for the traditional Rolls Royce customer, cars like this and the Corniche were considered too flashy. In the BBC comedy “To The Manor Born,” one of Audrey’s beefs with Richard was that he drove a gaudy Corniche (or maybe it was Camargue, I don’t remember precisely).
That quip about the Corniche is exactly everything I remember about the entire series. But the English are so good at insults…
From what I remember of the car at the time, and thinking about it subsequently, I think the concerns are
1 – the floorpan is from the 1966 Silver Shadow, hence, the wheelbase, the length and the position of windscreen with respect to the wheels
2 – the need to build a coupe, and not a 2 door saloon, on that floorpan led to the long tail
3 – the need to incorporate the RR grille (beautifully crafted to a standard a Town Car couldn’t even dream of) led to the buff front end. RR had front end trouble for the Silver Spirit and Silver Seraph for exactly the same reason – the grille did not work with contemporary headlight designs.
4 – Britain in 1975 was not exactly the right place and time to launch a car with price of £30k (say £200K) now higher than the hand built Phantom
5 – it was designed using metric measurements. I bet that went down well in the factory;-)
Car price of 30k – right.
Car price 30k higher than…..- Yikes!!!
3 – the need to incorporate the RR grille (beautifully crafted to a standard a Town Car couldn’t even dream of) led to the buff front end. RR had front end trouble for the Silver Spirit and Silver Seraph for exactly the same reason – the grille did not work with contemporary headlight designs.
I know some would disagree, but I think Rolls-Royce still has this problem. There’s plenty to like about these cars, but the front end (especially) looks so friggen awkward:
I like the current RR 4 door vehicles, but the headlights are a major misstep. Major.
I can find something to like about all of them, and think that they’re very cool overall… but those headlights are just, blughhhhharheahhgeiahighe (vomiting) behaehhgeaehghagh
I like the headlights!
I knew some would disagree! 😉
May be just that I like big azz, the tail of current RR is not agreeable with me.
Part of the problem is the high cowl. It looks as though the body slopes down from there, and as though Pininfarina has tried to disguise it. Check the photo of the red car – it seems especially obvious in that photo.
Oh, and the car looks much better without the mid-fifties Merc side trim under the windows!
Unfortunately these cars are as ugly in person as they are on paper or computer monitor. I have always disliked the design of the dash (aviator influence) equally as much as the exterior. I am afraid their lack of success had little to do with the economy and more to do with their unattractive design. An alternative choice for one of these buyers would only have been another Rolls. The following for this car was small from day one. Now that some of those people have died the numbers are even smaller:) It is one of the few Rolls that wears white well.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this thing looks like 4 different stylists worked on it. The worst is probably the rear end, which just looks cheap and reminds me of a Maverick with some JCWhitney parts slapped on.
Here it is (somewhat) per above request, the Camargue Shortie. I brought the rear of the car forward, thereby shortening the overall length, the roof, and the rear overhang but keeping the front overhang the same.
I’d say it’s borderline handsome.
Following your thought process, I have gone a step further. Shorted the car, lengthen the wheelbase and made the roof line somewhat sloppy.
Yes, I think that is getting there.
How about a 4 door version?
I must admit, I really like the Camargue. No it’s not conventionally handsome, nor is it a typically RResque design. But what it is is distinctive and different. The interior design is similarly distinctive. And that huge glass area is positively magnificent compared with today’s mobile bunkers.
I have the really rather splendid bburago 1:22 scale model Camargue which I bought aged 10 in 1984, the interior is incredibly well detailed for a model. I don’t think there are any Camargues in NZ, so I’ll continue to enjoy the scale model! (pics below from interwebbery sources)
I guess they don’t actually look that similar, but my first thought was “elongated Chevy Malibu”. I actually do think there are some similarities between this and some of the GM prototypes from the 70s that we’ve seen, though. I also don’t think the Camargue is a bad looking car, but it’s definitely a bad looking Rolls-Royce. As others have said, the details look really half-assed. The way the taillights are integrated would only be acceptable on a kit-car.
The relationship between C-pillar and rear wheelwell is also terrible. In this one aspect, the Malibu is actually very similar – but look how much better the Chevy pulls it off by having the wheels only a few inches further back, and on a smaller car no less:
Those similarities are more than co-incidence. I have mentioned in another post that the 130 coupe was a direct influence on the GM 77 full-size range. I had a 77 New Cars Guide by one of the publishers (black cover, yellow type can anyone help on this?) where Jordan (or Mitchell) quoted the Fiat. I am furious I lost this issue, I’m hoping someone can enlighten me as to who published it so I can find another one.
My bad, Don – I tap out early on some of those B-body articles. I like the cars quite a bit and I’m interested in them, but there’s only so much I can take… must’ve missed that comment, because I would have remembered it!
No, I put it in late in one of the many B-body discussions. There is an interesting thread about the exact date the downsize was initiated in Robert’s GM ad article from yesterday. The Fiat was designed in 1971 but I don’t think it influenced the sizing, only the styling.
The Malibu was an A-body, not a B-body, guys. Part of the new for ’78 downsized-midsize group. The B-body coupe would be the Impala/Caprice, with its wide formal C-pillar and bent-glass wraparound rear window, which looks nothing like the Camargue.
However, that correction having been made, there are remarkable similarities in the profile when viewed side by side! Interesting to see how that influence worked out.
As per many, many US offerings, the full-size was the primary styling determinant on the smaller variants. With regards the rear window treatment, not every element of the 130 Coupe styling was used by GM, or else it would have been the Chevrolet 130 Coupe and Agnelli would have sent in the goons. It was an influence, not a full crib. I can’t source pics at the moment, but a look at the profiles of the GM 77 B-body two door, the Fiat 130 Coupe and the Camargue should be enough to convince. I wouldn’t put this out there amongst such strong US car knowledge unless I was 100% on it.
Chris M – Don said that “the 130 coupe was a direct influence on the GM 77 full-size range.” and that’s what I was replying to with regards to B-body cars.
The similarities aren’t specific or immediately apparent, but I think you can definitely see where one rubbed off on the other – and how that eventually trickled down to the Malibu and other cars as well. The Chevy below is from the comment in yesterday’s B-body article that Don mentioned. It’s an early prototype for the ’77 cars, and while one doesn’t exactly look like the other here either, I notice some common themes: beltline that looks straight but has a slight arc, squared off tail, similar greenhouse shape (even though one is a coupe and one is a sedan). There’s a Chevy coupe prototype that probably has even more similarities, but no pictures showing an angle similar to the Camargue.
Sorry about the horrible quality on this. Wish I knew how to use Photoshop and didn’t have to do these in MS-PAINT, haha… I messed the proportions up a little bit resizing it, but just refer to the picture above for clarification!
Was it a magazine-related guide (eg Car and Driver) Don, or a stand-alone annual magazine (eg Daily Express) or hardcover book (eg the Italian Automobile Club guide)? I have an enormous collection of annual new car guides of many titles, may be able to help out.
US magazine format. Stand alone 77 New Cars Guide, don’t remember whether it was R&T or C&D or maybe even someone else. Tried oogling it, but found nothing. It also has fantastic concept renders of some of the range.
Cool, I’ve got a lot of the C&D ones, as well as from a few other US titles, will have a look through them this weekend for you.
Cheers, Scott
This is an old R/T guide I have from 1985. Similar?
cjiguy, IIRC it was big yellow sans-serif (sorry bout the wankeur) ’77’ with an AMC (again IIRC) on the cover. Maybe the car was yellow and the type was white. Definitely a black cover though. Sorry about the confusion but that article sticks in my head. Thanks, though.
I just had a quick look (and a quick count and discovered I have over 2,500 car magazines on my study’s bookshelves!) and can confirm it isn’t likely to be the ’77 C/D new cars guide, as the cover of that is yellow and there isn’t anything quoting anyone from GM. I’ll keep searching though.
Could it be this Motor Trend ‘New Car Buyer’s Guide’ that you’re after Don? While doing a Google search for it, I discovered that the best image of the cover was conveniently right here at CC! https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicautomotive-history-1977-amc-hornet-amx-the-long-slow-decline-of-the-amx/
That’s it! Scott, if you were any closer I would kiss you on both cheeks (face only). Now to find a copy.
Paging Ed Stembridge; Mr Stembridge, there’s a call for you on the interwebs.
I aim to please! I noted all the different new car guide titles on my shelves and just googled the ’77 edition of each. Motor Trend was the fourth title I tried, and when the image popped up I was very amused to see it attributed to CC lol! I’ve already trawled eBay and a couple auto-literature sites looking for a copy, but no success so far. It’ll be out there though, so may the force be with you!
And also with you. Btw, got some interesting news for you and Glen.h. Next story of mine, I’ll put it in the comments.
Thanks Perry. The Camargue is an odd entry in the RR journals. In the US it retailed for $100k in 1979 when a Silver Shadow was $55k and a 308GTB was $38k. I’m not sure whether PF delivered a full size prototype or drawings for this, but apparently there was much hair pulling at the thought of canting the grille forward 4 degrees. I must admit I prefer the languorous Frua in Paul’s article. The designer, Paolo Martin, has a place in my heart for the 130 coupe and family but I reserve my judgment on this. An in-depth article on RR designer John Blatchley will be ready in the next few months. Concept sketches below.
And if anyone’s wondering why, PF produced this one-off Bentley in the late sixties which apparently caught Crewe’s eye.
If the Camargue looks like a bloated Fiat then surely this Bentley looks like a bloated MkII Cortina.
Scott! First your approval of the current RR face and now this. We need to have a talk…
Yeah, you’re right. Being Friday evening after a loooong week at work, I’ve now consumed a couple glasses of fine New Zealand Pinot Noir in front of American Idol (Go Caleb!) and reconsidered my assertion that the Bentley looks like a bloated MkII Cortina. I was completely wrong and I humbly apologise. It doesn’t look like a bloated MkII Cortina after all. It actually looks like a Sunbeam Rapier crossed with a bloated MkII Cortina. With MkIII Cortina 1600L wheels and hubcaps and MkI Escort stainless steel sill covers. And XA Falcon door handles. Is that a MkI Capri windscreen? Oh, my wine’s empty…
Looks like an attempt at Ferrari 365 GT coupe styling mix w/Bently
I find Rolls-Royces offensive because they are vulgar in appearance; because their manufacture and operation consume a sinful amount of the world’s resources; and because I cannot afford one.
Wait for the Blatchley article. I’m hoping you may change your tune. As Roger has noted, something was lost in translation when RR received the dimensions, but the Camargue is obviously not beguiling enough for you to change your moniker from ‘Imperialist’ to ‘Metricist’.
> Wait for the Blatchley article. I’m hoping you may change your tune.
Only if you can do something about his last point (can’t afford one). 🙂
Don, I look forward to the upcoming article. I don’t dislike all Rollses; I love the Silver Seraph and the Ghost, which I know must be more than the nicest 7-series on the planet. Actually, I’m more a Bentley guy–I looked over the new Mulsanne recently, and haven’t the words to describe its beauty.
I know this is very off topic, but here’s a much better looking (IMO) large, expensive and British coupe. Are these considered to be in good taste or just circa-1997 rap video fodder? I don’t remember what kind of reception they got, but I saw one parked on the street a few months back and fell in love:
I likes. A lot. Hiphopistes aside.
Love that ass. Is that a Turbo R?
It’s either a Continental T or Continental R, no idea how to tell the difference. I’m not 100% certain, but AFAIK the Turbo R (love that name for a Bentley) only came with four doors.
Wasn’t one of them (presumably the T) a targa roof? I could be mis-remembering that.
One of my favorite Bentley designs of the modern era, though. Powerful and elegant.
What I don’t understand is how this car’s styling can be criticized while other Rolls and Bentley got off the hook. If anything, they looked frumpier.
Maybe because they weren’t trying to be anything else?
Looks like I’m going to have to bring the Blatchley article forward. In the meantime, look up the original Continental R.
Coming a bit late here (internet down for three days). The Camargue was a shocking mess when it arrived; I couldn’t believe my youthful eyes. This is PF’s biggest black eye ever. And the car was rightfully criticized roundly upon its arrival. Compared to a Fiat 130, it looks like bad trip.
You all have already pointed out many of its failings, except one, and in my eyes, one of the worst offenses: the rear track is way too narrow for the body. From certain angles, it looks really bad, that rear wheel in too far in relation to the bodywork. Frankly, the front track could have used an inch or so too, but the back is atrocious.
This car was so mutilated and half-baked, and a major embarrassment to to both RR and PF, especially given the price. Given that the very classy if a bit archaic Corniche was much cheaper, it’s not surprising that the Camargue was such a sales dud.
I used to see these fairly often in LA, and seeing them in the flesh, driving down the street, makes them look that much worse: perhaps that’s why I dislike them so much.
I almost wonder if the Camargue was a bad joke to see who would be stupid enough to buy one, just because they were so expensive. The automotive bad wig.
And while I appreciate the efforts hereto alter its wheelbase, its problems are much bigger than that. Although that was a very real issue; the basic proportions in relation to its wheelbase are very much off.
I agree completely with what you say in regards to the Fiat 130. The other problem was the 1977 Lancia Gamma Coupe, the purest evolution of the 130’s original form. The RR really looked antiquated at this point. Then again, what was RR thinking with mixing Edge Lined design with that two toning and chrome?
I bet things would be seen differently if the RR came first for 1972, followed by the Italian twins.
Let’s not forget the Peugeot 604. BTW Paul, I’ve seen one driving around recently and as much as I don’t want to add to your workload, I know it’s on your wants list so I’ll be sending it in when captured.
I knew one would appear eventually….it’s been so long. I seriously wanted one back in my 404 days, which is understandable as its design has much more in common with the 404 than the 504, which is a bit of an oddball, stylistically.
You’d be surprised at how many 604s there were in West LA/Beverly Hills back int he day. V6s in its first few years, then mostly turbo-diesels. Man,Peugeot diesels were noisy; noisier than the MBZ diesels. I could always tell which one was coming by their sound.
And I’d love one now, but with a gas four, which was never sold here.
I don’t remember seeing very many in LA but I do remember how bad they looked on the street. According to Wikipedia the Camargue was a very limited production car:
1975–1986 Total: 531 produced
Well, I didn’t mean to imply many. We lived just south of Beverly Hills, and Rodeo drive was part of may daily commute, so lets just say I saw more than I cared to see 🙂
I forgot they made them all the way to 1986? For years I never even knew how to pronounce the name, Ka-mar-gue? Ka-mar-goo?
It was Ka-mar-ghe.
May be RR was smart that they knew the only way to market the Camargue was to over price it, as the car itself or the design wasn’t enough to set it apart from other RRs. However, by setting its cost a few time of other RRs, the allure of buying a Camargue was the bragging right.
hehehe. Bad wig, I’m cribbing that.
I must have been so lost in the awfulness of the rest of it I didn’t even notice the tracks, that’s just awful! I never cared about front/rear overhangs being too big, but side overhangs YUCK!
I see a fair amount of ’65 through ’68 AMC Ambassador in the side profile. The c pillar is ’65, the rear side marker off the ’68, the wheel openings are sort of a blend, and the wheel covers could be from several AMC products.
The Ambassador pulled it off better.
Bedevere: Do you think he meant the Camarrrrgue?
Galahad: Where’s that?
Bedevere: France, I think.
“It’s only a flesh wound…”
The Camargue was to RR what the Lagonda was to AM. Two cars that did follow the makers traditional lines. Damm I want them both but the chances of that happening is less than nil. OK I’ll settle for an 80s Bentley Turbo R just like the one Bill Murray drove in the movie Rushmore.
That thing is so awkwardly styled I don’t have a clue where to begin fixing it… yikes.
I’ve seen a few of these, they’re imposing but odd and unsatisfying. I never quite understood what RR was trying to do with the Camargue. What exactly was it supposed to be? To make the Cadillac comparison, if the Silver Shadow coupes (AKA Corniche) and sedans were RR’s Coupe de Villes and Sedan de Villes, then the Camargue should occupy a position something like that of the Eldorado: a exclusive personal-luxury car. But the Eldorado, with its FWD and other unique traits, was a significantly differentiated vehicle from its de Ville brethren. The Camargue does not seem sufficiently different from the Corniche — and in the ways it is different it is mostly inferior.
Or if the Camargue were meant as a high-tech “halo car” for the company like the Lagonda was for Aston Martin, where, exactly, is all the high tech? I remember reading a US car mag way back when on the Camargue that reported RR boasting that they had ensured a smooth ride by having painstakingly produced what they claimed were the world’s roundest rims. Which, as technological victories go, sounds like a potential nominee for the Dubious Achievement Awards.
And despite all this, the Camargue carried a MSRP so stratospheric it was capable of inducing sticker-shock in an Arab oil sheik. Unsurprising so few ever found homes.
G.N. Georgano’s book touches on this. He say the Camargue was ‘intended to be less sporting than the Corniche’ (!!!!) ‘but simply to be the ultimate in owner-driver cars.’
Another interesting point, it was never intended to be a Bentley, only a Rolls. But if you look at the concept sketches above that is a distinctively Bentley-like grille with a Spirit of Ecstacy on top. There is one Bentley out there apparently, but given the ‘sporty’ skew of the Bentley brand, maybe this is why it’s really only an RR.
Bit of a fail though; place this next to a Corniche and the styling of the Camargue makes it look like the athlete. Sort of.
The three-quarter view is the best. Here is a restored Camargue in a “modern” color. This one also had the vinyl top removed, which was a popular option back then.
Design was by Pininfarina. Pininfarina was constrained because he had to use the standard chassis/platform from the Silver Shadow. He made the car look lower and longer with a wide black rocker panel along both sides.
Fit and finish was a problem, even compared to other Rolls Royces at the time, because of very limited production volumes (450 units or so total). The factory built perhaps 40 of these each year which made each one close to a one-off. Also the bodywork had edges that were “built up” with lead or thick paint.
Performance was limited because the car had the same engine/drivetrain as the Shadow but weighed 1700 lbs more, due to beefed up chassis elements needed for a coupe versus four-door with central pillar. This extra weight was although the doors, decklid and hood were all aluminum to save weight. The extra heft paid off in the sense that, unlike any other coupe or other heavy car of the period, the doors never sagged. Try closing the doors on any 1970s Lincoln or Cadillac: you may have to “lift” the door to close it because it sags when open. The Camargue also passes the ultimate stiffness test: with the front wheels up on a curb, the doors still open and shut smoothly. Any other coupe of the type would suffer “chassis bend” and the doors won’t close properly. In those days chassis stiffness came from more steel not better design.
A/C insufficient for UK summers let alone California because of the mechanical “bi-level” A/C. Very advanced for the time but complicated and troublesome today.
Last time I saw one was at Symbolic Motorcar Company in La Jolla, and I really didn’t think the Camarge lived up to its ugly reputation. Perhaps it was because its position in the showroom precluded viewing the back. Those tail-lights in that suggestion of a Kamm-back just scream that the car was repaired at home when original parts were unavailable or too expensive. I still like the car as it reminds me of “The Wall,” back before money and power turned some members of Pink Floyd into the sort of forces for evil that they once rejected.
Oof. I don’t like it; I’d much rather look at an IKA Torino.
Also, I know (gratia Google) that Camargue is a region south of Arles, France, between the Mediterranean Sea and the two arms of the Rhône delta. It sounds fine when one is in the middle of speaking French. But in English it reminds me too much of a morgue.
Cant say I’m a fan of it but I’m not the target market, however someone who owns a herd of RRs both very old and more recent and gets repairs done where I have my WOF inspections done has a Carmargue as his daily and I got a good look at it recently the owner had it there unloading a large stash of elderly wire wheels for a 23 model in for a six month brake job and other work to get it complied. Still not a fan even after the close up.
I never saw the point of this car. Okay, I’m waaaaay outside the target market, but still…
With the lovely Corniche in the range already, why go to an outside designer for a coupe that was arguably more modern, more seventies but less integrated-looking, less pleasing to the eye? If we can all see so many obvious flaws in the design, why couldn’t Rolls-Royce management?
I have to wonder how John Blatchley felt about an outside designer being commissioned for this. I’m sure he would have done a better job. But in the best upper-class British tradition I’m sure he would never say. 🙂
The worst part is the long roof, the C pillars stretch too far back, horrible proportions.
The Corniche hardtop is really nice though.
A Camargue was on display at the Auto Italia car show in Canberra last year (on that logic, any car designed by Pininfarina should have been admitted, but wasn’t). The kindest thing I can think of to say is that it looks like an attempt by British Leyland to design a Rolls-Royce.
I always liked these sporty coupes by Rolls Royce (built from 1975-1986). Here is another front end shot.
To me, the rear, looking at it straight ahead, reminded me of the 1977 Chevy Impala 2-door hardtop.
Would have probably been an improvement if the front-end was resciment to the later Rolls Royce Silver Spirit 2-door conversion by Hooper.
I was always disappointed when I saw these as a kid. I was raised in L.A. in the 70s and 80s in a fancy shmancy part of town where I’d see multiple Camargues often. My dad would say it took a brave person to spend that much money on a car that ugly.
Contrary to urban folklore, the Camargue’s design was already firmly established by 1969, and it was not influenced by the Fiat 130 coupé. In fact, it was the other way around.
Equally importantly, the Camargue was always intended by Rolls-Royce to be a limited production car, and it was anything but a “flop”. All examples were sold, and it managed to garner sales for the Silver Shadow and Corniche so much so that there was a back order for those models of a few years.
Facts matter.