On 16 Sep, 19:10, Martin Baxter wrote:
Donal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26:33 -0400, Marty wrote:

wrote:
Most people won't stare at an Aston because they won't recognise
it.
Donal, you're wasting your breath,

Oh I don't know. He has stopped using
the phrase "Well regarded", which normally
appears in every post.

Bob can't understand the mystique of
a DB9 anymore that he could understand why you'd want to drive a '52
Bentley Mk VI.

Pure Beauty and Soul. What a georgeous car.

I was a passenger in one a few times some years ago. Some people brag
about "new car smell", being in this was more like being in a clean tack
room. Hand finished burled walnut....leather.... just beautiful inside
and out. I think top speed was about 95, but that was a bonus, you just
wanted the ride to last forever...


I am jealous. Were you in the hardtop or the opentop version?

Both look nice, but the opentop looks utterly magnificant!

I bet that Bob just thinks that they look old-fashioned.

Would I prefer to be a passenger in a Bently Mark VI or
the driver of an Evo? I know which I would choose.

Bob?


regards


Donal
--

On 16 Sep 2008 14:14:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:45:38 -0400, said:

Bob can't understand the mystique of
a DB9 anymore that he could understand why you'd want to drive a '52
Bentley Mk VI.

Pure Beauty and Soul. What a georgeous car.

I was a passenger in one a few times some years ago. Some people brag
about "new car smell", being in this was more like being in a clean tack
room. Hand finished burled walnut....leather.... just beautiful inside
and out. I think top speed was about 95, but that was a bonus, you just
wanted the ride to last forever...

Cheers
Marty

Top Speed is 190. The car has a 470 bhp V-12

The '52 Bentley had a V-12 and a top speed of 190? I don't think so.

I thought he was still talking about the DB9. I failed to negotiate
the curve. LOL

The brochure for the 1952 Bentley did not state horsepower, or anyting
else so crass and common. It merely described the engine output as
"adequate". Very dry, those Brits!

On 16 Sep 2008 20:40:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:19:20 -0400, said:

I thought he was still talking about the DB9. I failed to negotiate
the curve. LOL

I figured. Just had to pull your chain a little.

The brochure for the 1952 Bentley did not state horsepower, or anyting
else so crass and common. It merely described the engine output as
"adequate". Very dry, those Brits!

Yes. IIRC the Bentley packed a huge in-line 6, didn't it?

I almost bought a 1954 Bentley around 1970. It was a beaut. Two tone
coffee and cream. Had been owned by some Bentley Mucky-Muck in Canada.
It was sitting in a car dealership in Darien. The mechanicals and
exterior were in extremely good shape, but the interior was a bit
rough. The asking was less than $6k. That engine was pretty
spectacular. It idled silently and smoothly at about 500 rpm. Probably
would have cost another 5k 1970 dollars to restore the interior
properly. I passed. Wonder what it would be worth now? Probably quite
a bit. You used to be able to find those kinds of cars pretty cheap
back then. I knew someone in Davenport, CA that bought a nice aluminum
Rolls Royce for $500. Had some body damage, and the cost to fix would
have been astronomical. It ran okay. Had a G.M. auto trans. He just
banged out the bent part to roughly the right shape and drove it
around town the way it was. The crushed velvet lining in the trunk was
a nice touch, as was the flip down velvet lined toolkit in the trunk
lid. The tools in it were all nice quality, highly polished, stuff.
Not the cheap stuff you usually find in a car tool kit.

On Sep 16, 5:56 pm, wrote:
On 16 Sep, 19:10, Martin Baxter wrote:



Donal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26:33 -0400, Marty wrote:

wrote:
Most people won't stare at an Aston because they won't recognise
it.
Donal, you're wasting your breath,

Oh I don't know. He has stopped using
the phrase "Well regarded", which normally
appears in every post.

Bob can't understand the mystique of
a DB9 anymore that he could understand why you'd want to drive a '52
Bentley Mk VI.

Pure Beauty and Soul. What a georgeous car.

I was a passenger in one a few times some years ago. Some people brag
about "new car smell", being in this was more like being in a clean tack
room. Hand finished burled walnut....leather.... just beautiful inside
and out. I think top speed was about 95, but that was a bonus, you just
wanted the ride to last forever...

I am jealous. Were you in the hardtop or the opentop version?

Both look nice, but the opentop looks utterly magnificant!

I bet that Bob just thinks that they look old-fashioned.


Since I have owned MG-TD series cars I actually have some experience
in this area and with real classics. Of course they look "old
fashioned." That's the point.



Would I prefer to be a passenger in a Bently Mark VI or
the driver of an Evo? I know which I would choose.

Bob?



Choose for what? Cruising or hard driving? Hmmmm?



RB

wrote:
On 16 Sep, 19:10, Martin Baxter wrote:
Donal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26:33 -0400, Marty wrote:
wrote:
Most people won't stare at an Aston because they won't recognise
it.
Donal, you're wasting your breath,
Oh I don't know. He has stopped using
the phrase "Well regarded", which normally
appears in every post.
Bob can't understand the mystique of
a DB9 anymore that he could understand why you'd want to drive a '52
Bentley Mk VI.
Pure Beauty and Soul. What a georgeous car.
I was a passenger in one a few times some years ago. Some people brag
about "new car smell", being in this was more like being in a clean tack
room. Hand finished burled walnut....leather.... just beautiful inside
and out. I think top speed was about 95, but that was a bonus, you just
wanted the ride to last forever...


I am jealous. Were you in the hardtop or the opentop version?

Both look nice, but the opentop looks utterly magnificant!

I bet that Bob just thinks that they look old-fashioned.

Would I prefer to be a passenger in a Bently Mark VI or
the driver of an Evo? I know which I would choose.


Was the hard top, two tone, white and black Donal.. I'd be the
passenger too.


Cheers
Marty

Capt. Rob wrote:


Please show me any test showing the DB9 pulling 1.04 G on a skidpad.

Wonderful, at what 35, 40mph? What's it do at 140?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:19:20 -0400, said:

I thought he was still talking about the DB9. I failed to negotiate
the curve. LOL

I figured. Just had to pull your chain a little.

The brochure for the 1952 Bentley did not state horsepower, or anyting
else so crass and common. It merely described the engine output as
"adequate". Very dry, those Brits!

Yes. IIRC the Bentley packed a huge in-line 6, didn't it?


Dave, it was an inline 6, but not all that big, 4.6l, about 280cu
inches. Zero to sixty in something like 15 seconds, a real rubber
burner! IIRC the coachwork was done by Rolls.

Cheers
Marty

Capt. Rob wrote:
Get what? You seem to be concentrating
on performance alone,


Not at all. The Evo has better seats, a better stereo, a better Nav
system with a server. It has better handling and a real race history
that equals pedigree missing from the DB9 above and beyond it's

Real race history? Who won the 2007 Le Mans, GT1 class? I remind you,
Le Mans is truly a road circuit, and race that separates the lesser from
the greater.

I thought you would have done a little research.

Cheers
Marty

On Sep 17, 12:59 am, Marty wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
Get what? You seem to be concentrating
on performance alone,

Not at all. The Evo has better seats, a better stereo, a better Nav
system with a server. It has better handling and a real race history
that equals pedigree missing from the DB9 above and beyond it's

Real race history? Who won the 2007 Le Mans, GT1 class? I remind you,
Le Mans is truly a road circuit, and race that separates the lesser from
the greater.

I thought you would have done a little research.

Cheers
Marty



BWAHAHAHAHA! Okay Marty, YOU need to do some research! Who campaigned
the DB9? Show us the DB9's race history vs. the Evo. Evo's are pro
raced daily and you might notice that an Evo just took a coveted prize
in one of the top rally races in the world. The DB9 is a luxury
cruising machine, Marty. It's not a hardcore sports car. It's funny
because the longer you and Donal fail to understand that, the dopier
you all sound.

Bottom line: Never buy anything Ford is involved with! The DB9 at 165K
doesn't have a single performance spec that is ahead of the pack. NOT
ONE. The Nissan GT-R I have a deposit on outdoes it in every single
respect that is key to high performance driving and at half the price.
The GT-R is also built better. The DB9 is a pretty, but expensive joke
on those who are more interested in how they appear to others. It's a
unique mix of high quality with little substance. The fact that an Evo
X bests in so many ways important to driving is humiliating enough.
Add a GT-R into the mix at just 75K and the DB9 seems like a Mini
Cooper by comparison.



RB

Capt. Rob wrote:
On Sep 17, 12:59 am, Marty wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
Get what? You seem to be concentrating
on performance alone,
Not at all. The Evo has better seats, a better stereo, a better Nav
system with a server. It has better handling and a real race history
that equals pedigree missing from the DB9 above and beyond it's
Real race history? Who won the 2007 Le Mans, GT1 class? I remind you,
Le Mans is truly a road circuit, and race that separates the lesser from
the greater.

I thought you would have done a little research.

Cheers
Marty



BWAHAHAHAHA! Okay Marty, YOU need to do some research! Who campaigned
the DB9? Show us the DB9's race history vs. the Evo. Evo's are pro
raced daily and you might notice that an Evo just took a coveted prize
in one of the top rally races in the world.



I do? If you bothered to look it up you'd be aware that there were more
than one team running DBR9, the AM factory took 1st and 4th in their
class, Larbre took 3rd and 11th in their DBR9s, BMS 6th, Modena 10th.

In all six AMs in the race, how many EVOs?

Last time a factory EVO was entered in the WRC was 2005, it didn't do
all that well. Which rally was the win in Bob, or was it a win?

Cheers
Marty