Vote For One

[Fleet 500]

Quick research indicates it's a 1955-1966 Rolls Royce Silver Cloud. Possibly a Mk III ( a later version of the same car, with a facelift)

Or, if you'd actually read nota's post, what he said. it's a rebodied version of a 10 year old car (at the time).

1955-'66? That narrows it down quite a bit.

[Ferrer]

1955-'66? That narrows it down quite a bit.

The Series III Silve Cloud's were made from 1962-1965 so that narrows it down even further. And still that year thing is a rubbish invention by americans...

[nota]

1955-'66? That narrows it down quite a bit.

Amusing to see you struggle to identify anywhere remotely near the model year of this Rolls, especially in light of this previous derogatory comment

In some neighborhoods, it was an embarassment to be seen with a 4-year-old car.

If a car expert like you has no idea what model year that Rolls Cloud is, how could those neighbourhood snobs have stood a chance?

This is one if the central attractions of Rolls ownership - no built-in obscelesence - unlike your 'yesterday's hero' Cadillacs for example, including the 1969s of course, because 'current shape' status of these GM air wrench cars could only be measured in DAYS .. not years .. a mere 365 days, at absolute max

Any amateur snob could identify the year model of Cadillacs and, as you emphasise, be able to criticise them as being 'last season's model'

So Fleet here's a little test to illustrate, just for you .. what year Silver Shadow is this?

[Fleet 500]

The Series III Silve Cloud's were made from 1962-1965 so that narrows it down even further. And still that year thing is a rubbish invention by americans...

Really? So there's no such thing as a 1968 Mercedes? Instead, it's a 196- Mercedes?

[Fleet 500]

Amusing to see you struggle to identify anywhere remotely near the model year of this Rolls, especially in light of this previous derogatory comment.

Yeah, that was a pretty "harsh" comment.

If a car expert like you has no idea what model year that Rolls Cloud is, how could those neighbourhood snobs have stood a chance?

It's safe to say that many members on this board don't know each year of Rolls.

This is one if the central attractions of Rolls ownership - no built-in obscelesence - unlike your 'yesterday's hero' Cadillacs for example, including the 1969s of course, because 'current shape' status of these GM air wrench cars could only be measured in DAYS .. not years .. a mere 365 days, at absolute max

I, for one, am glad that Cadillac kept updating their styling instead of being stuck with '40s/'50s styling that Rolls had. I do like mid-'50s Cadillac styling, but I also like '60s and '70s Cadillac styling. If Cad styling went from '50s to '80s, look at all the nicely-styled '60s and '70s Cadillacs that would not have existed.

So Fleet here's a little test to illustrate, just for you .. what year Silver Shadow is this?

Again, I and most likely many other members of this board, wouldn't know the year of that Rolls.

[nota]

Cadillac's fine suspension system afforded a better overall ride compared to the Rolls, as well as better handling. As Car & Driver said about the RR, "a suspension system the betrays every secret of the road..."
Perhaps they were right when they said that the Rolls was probably the most overrated car in the world and that's why I'm not surprised at the the poll results.

Is this the same Car & Driver magazine from 1965 (as previously discussed re Pontiac) which didn't just exaggurate the acceleration results for its test cars IN 1965 - but instead it completely made them up!

If 1960s era C&D isn't to be trusted and holds no credibility in their objective results (as was agreed) then why do you present their subjective view as holding truth or fact either? So your quoted Rolls source obviously lacks credibility doesn't it?

[nota]

It's safe to say that many members on this board don't know each year of Rolls.

Again, I and most likely many other members of this board, wouldn't know the year of that Rolls.

The point is you doofus that RR were not defined and cannot be visually identified by model-years, but instead only by model series

Eg: you've already stated how important it was for luxury car buyers to be seen to own a current shape motor car. In 1970 it would be easy for any luxury car owner who read the National Geographic to identify a '69 Caddy like yours as being already outdated, as modern as yesterday's news

But there's no risk of that with a 'current shape' Roller!

[Fleet 500]

Is this the same Car & Driver magazine from 1965 (as previously discussed re Pontiac) which didn't just exaggurate the acceleration results for its test cars IN 1965 - but instead it completely made them up!

If 1960s era C&D isn't to be trusted and holds no credibility in their objective results (as was agreed) then why do you present their subjective view as holding truth or fact either? So your quoted Rolls source obviously lacks credibility doesn't it?

I'm glad you feel that way... because that is the same Car & Driver test which picked the Mercedes 600 over all the other cars. Since it's Car & Driver, though, they must be wrong and I agree... I would have picked the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham over all the other cars.

BTW, it was ONE test car (the '65 Pontiac) which exaggerated figures; other cars were tested that year with accurate figures.

Also, a March, 1966 Car & Driver issue tested 6 muscle cars. Two were obviously modifed (by the factory or dealer). They said, "We might as well say it right now and get it over with: it was extremely difficult to get a clear picture of the true worth of the Fairlane and Comet because of their sharply-tuned condition. Both the engine and suspensions bore little or no relationship to what the customer will find on his dealer's floor."

[Fleet 500]

The point is you doofus that RR were not defined and cannot be visually identified by model-years, but instead only by model series

Eg: you've already stated how important it was for luxury car buyers to be seen to own a current shape motor car. In 1970 it would be easy for any luxury car owner who read the National Geographic to identify a '69 Caddy like yours as being already outdated, as modern as yesterday's news

But there's no risk of that with a 'current shape' Roller!

This may shock you, but many people liked when car were refreshed every few years.
As I said, some people wouldn't want to drive a '60s Rolls with '40s or '50s styling.

And a '69 Cadillac wasn't outdated by the '70... they were very similar just some grille and taillight changes. Same overall shape.

[nota]

Really? So there's no such thing as a 1968 Mercedes? Instead, it's a 196- Mercedes?

Unlike overtly obvious 'temporary hero' GM Cadillacs and their ilk .. how can you tell the difference between a 1968 Merc (or Citroen or Roller etc) to a '69?

Not unless you open the bonnet and check the build date

Caddys like your '69 were a one-year deal as far as 'newness' goes. By contrast the Benz W126 (like mine eg) was relatively timeless and sufficiently advanced in design to remain a current, competitive and successful model - without any bodyshell changes whatsoever - for eleven years!

Could you imagine ANY Flabillac being of sufficiently contemporary design to be able to stay competitive for that length of time? Or even for half that? No, I can't either

This may shock you, but many people liked when car were refreshed every few years.

Owners were obliged to 'refresh' with 'here today gone tomorrow' GMs because they had obscelesence built right in!

As I said, some people wouldn't want to drive a '60s Rolls with '40s or '50s styling.

Why do you keep harping on in reference to RR Cloud, not Shadow, the former of which I have already exposed as a botched mismatch in this your flawed comparison poll

[Fleet 500]

Any amateur snob could identify the year model of Cadillacs and, as you emphasise, be able to criticise them as being 'last season's model'

Then identify the year of this Eldorado. Although I guess it would be fairly easy to search for its year using the Internet.

[Kitdy]

Fleet, you'd be proud, I voted Cadilac as I think that that particular generation of Rolls is ugly as sin. You are lucky...

[nota]

Then identify the year of this Eldorado. Although I guess it would be fairly easy to search for its year using the Internet.

That's the point isn't it? Admit it Fleet - I've blown your initial argument completely out of the water

It took me all of 90 seconds to precisely date your floating gin palace via the net ... yet YOU are completely and utterly UNABLE to date that RR Shadow I posted, no matter how hard and long you search !!


So in 'maximum damage control' you resort to copying my challenge to you. Have you even attempted to find out what year that Rolls is .. or by this weak facsimile are you admitting defeat?

[Fleet 500]

Unlike overtly obvious 'temporary hero' GM Cadillacs and their ilk .. how can you tell the difference between a 1968 Merc (or Citroen or Roller etc) to a '69?

Not unless you open the bonnet and check the build date

For some, that would be a good thing; for some it wouldn't

Caddys like your '69 were a one-year deal as far as 'newness' goes. By contrast the Benz W126 (like mine eg) was relatively timeless and sufficiently advanced in design to remain a current, competitive and successful model - without any bodyshell changes whatsoever - for eleven years!

Actually, it was an average of two years for styling changes for '60s and '70s Cadillacs. And, again, that is a good thing for many people. Some like the '65-'66 Cads, some like the '67-'68s, some like the '69-'70, etc.
Yeah, some "advanced" design by Mercedes. As Car & Driver said in its 1965 test (regarding the Mercedes), "From the outside, it makes no bones about what it is. It is a rectangular box, its flat sides and square corners compromised only where it was necessary to incorporate wheels and engine and luggage space.

Could you imagine ANY Flabillac being of sufficiently contemporary design to be able to stay competitive for that length of time? Or even for half that? No, I can't either

The '65 Mercedes tested weighed 5,380 lbs, more than the tested Cadillac. Does that make it a "Merflabies?" The Cadillac was bigger, but not that much (only 3.5" wider, a 7" longer wheelbase and 11.5" longer).

Owners were obliged to 'refresh' with 'here today gone tomorrow' GMs because they had obscelesence built right in!

What "obscelesence?"

Why do you keep harping on in reference to RR Cloud, not Shadow, the former of which I have already exposed as a botched mismatch in this your flawed comparison poll

Because I am pointing out a Rolls which had outdated styling.

[nota]

Fleet, you'd be proud, I voted Cadilac

befittingly vulgar