Wed
Sep 08 2010

When is a Bentley a Bentley?

Steve Sutcliffe
Heard a bizarre rumour about Bentley the other day, from a source that would appear to be 100 per cent watertight.

Apparently, the powers that be within the company have decided behind closed doors recently that a Bentley isn’t a proper Bentley unless it’s powered by a massive pushrod V8 – much like the massive pushrod V8 that’s been used by Bentley (and formerly by Rolls-Royce as well) pretty much since the year dot.



Read the full story on the new Bentley Continental GT and more on the new V8 engine

I’m talking, of course, about the venerable 6.75-litre V8, the one that still does service beneath the long, luscious bonnet of the Brooklands – and which was due to be phased out of service on account of its failure to meet our increasingly stringent emissions targets.

Well according to my source, Bentley has become so concerned that such a large chunk of its audience will no longer be interested in the brand without the stalwart V8 somewhere in its line up, it has basically decided to build a brand new version of the pushrod V8, one that’s capable of meeting whatever emissions targets anyone would care to place in front of it. And this, reckon the bosses at Benters, will keep the brand alive for decades, perhaps centuries to come.

What my source wasn’t so sure about was the cost involved in producing a brand new engine from scratch – although he did agree that it would be considerable, to say the least.

Will it work? Only time, as they say, will tell.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Steve Sutcliffe

Autocar's finest driver and most experienced road tester. Raced TVRs for three years; drove Honda's F1 car and set competitive times at Silverstone. Says he "likes cars, and likes other people who like cars".

Comments

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 12:09 PM

Interesting, although the V8 is only relatively recent in Bentley history.

Up until the S1 ceased production in 1959, all Bentleys were straight-sixes or 'fours'.

REALZEUS September 8, 2010 12:26 PM

You know it's a Bentley when it's got a big B with a pair of wings on its hood... :P

Los Angeles September 8, 2010 12:33 PM

When is a Bugatti not a Bugatti?

When it is a vehicle created long after his death, its weight and heft wholly at odds with his creed of lightness in build.

redline7000 September 8, 2010 1:22 PM

Not when it's a badge engineered VW Phaeton . . . . .. oooooh , who said that!!

bentleyboy September 8, 2010 1:38 PM

Surely a Bentley is a Bentley when it commands presence, has performance to bely its bulk, and is just so amazing to drive you just have to have one in your dream car garage!

I am afraid we can no longer look backwards too much, for an era we will never be able to return to, so any Bentley, Rolls, or whatever, has to be marketable to survive, or the name and brand would die out, like so many others over the past 40 years. This time, their death brought about by increased emmission legisaltion, all in the name of Climate Change. PAH.

coolboy September 8, 2010 2:16 PM

+1 with realzeus.

It`s a Bentley when you slap on it the logo...

no matter if it was previously an Austin Mini, afterall it`s more or less at this extent that all carmakers behave, all all journos refrain to see.

what metters today is bluetooth links, sat-nav, airbags... and carbon emissions!

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 2:18 PM

"This time, their death brought about by increased emmission legisaltion, all in the name of Climate Change. PAH."

==========

Incorrect.  It's not all in the name of "Climate Change".    A great deal of emission legislation is is in the interests of public health, without which you would not be alive to type your post.

kcrally September 8, 2010 2:42 PM

i've decided to order a custom bentley with a 2 litre turbo diesel , and sheep skin rugs.

phillio3 September 8, 2010 6:17 PM

"Interesting, although the V8 is only relatively recent in Bentley history.

Up until the S1 ceased production in 1959, all Bentleys were straight-sixes or 'fours'."

lolz at you trying to be a smart arse.

Roughly 20 years of 4's 20 years 6's compared to 50 years of V8's?

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 6:45 PM

"lolz at you trying to be a smart arse.

Roughly 20 years of 4's 20 years 6's compared to 50 years of V8's?"

=======

No, not a smart arse.   Just smart.   And you're incorrect, which isn't smart.

To be precise:

Bentley powered 4s and 6s:  1921-1931.

RR powered 6s:  1931-1959.

RR powered V8s:  1959-1998.

PS:  you've used the grocer's apostrophe.

Los Angeles September 8, 2010 7:13 PM

Dan

Placing an apostrophe between "V8" and "s" is quite acceptable for visual clarity, especially where a number is concerned.

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 7:36 PM

Grammatically incorrect, LA.  Grammatically incorrect.

Los Angeles September 8, 2010 10:06 PM

Dan

Grammar is a Victorian invention.

And this is a chat site where folk use sentences as if speaking, in the main. If it makes sense, why look for incorrect grammar? It only antagonises. If quoting a blogger be diplomatic; quitely correct the quotation, rather than draw public attention teacher-fashion to honest error.  

Okay: Use an "apostrophe -s" to form the plural of a singular noun, even if that noun ends in an -s. The rule, as you know, also applies to people's names.

There is a narrow class of plurals for which the "apostrophe" is appropriate. While it is standard to write "He coveted V8s,  sometimes it is acceptable to insert the apostrophe to ensure clarity for the uninitiated. And in some cases you can leave it out all together. James Joyce always spelled "don't" and "can't" without the "apostrophe. If it was good enough for him ...

As for inserting the "apostrophe" there are always exceptions. For example:

Be sure to dot you i's and cross your t's.

Here are the do's and don'ts.

Some rules can be treated a preferences, some you can use the way you wish, just be consistent.

Now back to the topic ...

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 10:33 PM

"James Joyce always spelled "don't" and "can't" without the "apostrophe."

======

LA,

Joyce at random - Hades from Ulysses - can't with an apostrophe...plenty more in there too;)  Maybe you have a duff copy?

Anyway, back to Bentley.  Bentley 1921 - 1998 RIP?

Los Angeles September 8, 2010 10:37 PM

No duff copy. You're quoting from a modern edition. Read his letters. If grammar pedants stood over every creative writer barely a novel would ever be written.                                        

phillio3 September 8, 2010 10:41 PM

I think your efforts to correct my grammar, failure to observe the use of the word roughly  and insistence that the engine stopped being used in 1998 even though most people, including the author of this blog, accept it as a current production engine render my initial observation correct.

Dan McNeil v2 September 8, 2010 11:46 PM

phillo3:

"failure to observe the use of the word roughly"

If you're going to be critical of another person's opinion (as you were of mine), you need to be critical in a measured, non-judgmental and precise way.  'Roughly' just doesn't cut it.  'Roughly' just sounds like carping.

========

"and insistence that the engine stopped being used in 1998"

Re-read my post.   I didn't insist the engine stopped being used in 1998.   I made the very clear point that Bentley engines can be divided into Bentley engines and RR engines.   The cut-off date of 1998 is because that is when VW took over the company, not because the engine stopped being built.   It continued production, but under the ownership of VW.

=======

"render my initial observation correct."

Your initial conclusion (which wasn't a conclusion, but an insult) resulted in the tone of my response to you.

My post was the first one after the author of the blog.  My post was constructive.   Your response to my post (with your "smart-arse" remark) was not constructive.   Your post was insulting and provocative.   Do you actually have anything relevant to say?  

Suggest you learn how to speak to people properly (calling someone you've never met a "smart arse" isn't going to help you get along), and then you won't get embroiled in this kind of pointless debate.

=======

"I think your efforts to correct my grammar,"

No effort.  It was a PS, not the primary part of my post.  You're protesting too much.

Los Angeles September 9, 2010 4:46 AM

It seems to me the author of this piece, Steve Sutcliffe, wonders if a completely new engine in a completely new car constitutes a Bentley. (I trust I don't misinterpret.)

The yardstick I use is, whether production of a marque has been continuous since its inception.

If it has, and even if the founder of the company and his chief engineers have long since past away, one can still argue there is a direct, unbroken line of production and development heritage though the latest model may bear little resemblence to the original - for example, a Porsche 365 to a 911.

With Bugatti the answer is a resounding "no." Th current VW moel is a sad joke played on the tasteless wealthy. And the same test holds true for MG which suffered 22 years of non-production. The fact that aficionados of MG kept the marque alive to my mind doesn't count; it's continuous production and, where approprite, racing history that matters. What "MG" then produced a car that bore no resemblance to any original in any way with the exception of badge design, almost.

For the same reason I don't read modern versions of a James Bond novel. If it isn't written by Ian Fleming it's a pastiche at best. Now and again some music conservationist or other pops up with a "new" work of a dead composer, a work he has written himself. But again, why would I want to listen to a symphony written in "the style" of so-and-so famous by certainly dead composer?

In terms of the latest Bentley, I personally, could identify it without its badge, it's heft, interior styling, (dashboard more and more Corvette-ish each model) and fastback lineage are the clues, whether or not it has an "alien" engine under the hood/bonnet. Threfore, I see it and accept it as a Bentley even though the parent company has had a checkered past in the hands of Rolls-Royce.

Peter Cavellini September 9, 2010 2:36 PM

Starter car for lottery winner!, no seriously,why not?, other would be Bentley type car makers have two or three variants on the same theme, Mercedes with the CL for instance, umpteen engine choices, everything from a small diesel to a nuclear bomb(611bhp,CL65!!?), what ytour implying is snobbery, plain and simple.

Ektor September 9, 2010 6:26 PM

I believe Bentley has actually come of its own again under VW ownership. While owned by RR, especially once the unit-body models arrived, Bentley was mostly badge-engineering. Sure, the turbo models were special, but they were merely the sporting versions of the RR model.

The fact that it uses common hardware with some of the word's best-engineered luxury saloons is no shame, quite the contrary. Besides, RR-Bentley used a GM-derived engine and GM slushbox for fourty years.

The key is whether the product meets the brand essence, which I believe it thoroughly does these days: Auvoirdupois? Check. Speed? Check. Craftsmanship? Check. Class? We'll leave that to the judges, but if popular opinion is to be believed they still have it.

Dan McNeil v2 September 9, 2010 7:17 PM

Ektor September 9, 2010 6:26 PM

I believe Bentley has actually come of its own again under VW ownership. While owned by RR, especially once the unit-body models arrived, Bentley was mostly badge-engineering.

----------

Good point.    Especially in the age of the Silver Shadow/Bentley T2.   The same car, really.

tomisdadude September 9, 2010 10:00 PM

I do think they are right about true bentleys are V8s in a way I do not think its actually the engine that decides it I simply think the Brooklands etc are real bentleys when the GTs are not Bentleys they are just expensive VWs.

In my opinion they should do what Aston Martin have done keep the styles of the originals models but keep the essense of the brand still alive with bentley I think its the simply powerful engines, huge cars and avoid at all costs trying to make it handle like they did with the Super Sports that was not a bentley that was a bentley trying to be an aston martin.

Akytdi September 12, 2010 1:24 AM

I wouldn't call the Bug a sad joke played on the wealthy, it is a engineering masterpiece a benchmark,

with Bentley lets be glad its still around specially with all this bull and crap about euro5 emissions, as long a brand stays true to its core values it works

(perfect example is the mini scooter concepts they work because they follow mini ethos of cheap mobile transport for the cities)

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - cover 15.2.12

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>