Currently reading: Rolls-Royce Ghost v Phantom
Autocar editor Chas Hallett samples two of the finer things in life

Autocar editor Chas Hallett has back-to-back tested the Rolls-Royce Ghost and Phantom, ahead of a feature that will appear in next week's magazine.

You can see some of the exclusive pictures from the test by following the link below:

See the Rolls-Royce Ghost v Phantom pictures

Blogging following the test, Hallett wrote: "What staggered me was just how different the Ghost feels to the Phantom. And those differences are apparent from the second you slide into the driver’s seat.

"You sit far lower in the Ghost, and far snugger too. Yes, you're still sitting higher than in most saloons, but it feels far more conventional than the Phantom’s imperious driving position - which still feels totally unique. As does its control layout. The Ghost’s cabin looks and feels exceptional but there are still myriad more buttons on display than in the bigger car.

Read Steve Cropley's Rolls-Royce Ghost video

Rolls-Royce Ghost on video

"Away from the kerb there are huge differences too. The lighter, more powerful Ghost has an accelerative urge that the Phantom can’t even hope to match. It also feels a good deal more nimble on tight, twisty roads."

"On plenty of road surfaces it rides just as well too. But the Phantom is simply about being the best riding car on the planet, and on really broken surfaces and over expansion joints it can still show the Ghost a thing or two about bump absorbtion and noise suppression."

Rolls-Royce Ghost links

Read the full Chas Hallett blog - Rolls-Royce Ghost v PhantomRead Steve Cropley's Rolls-Royce Ghost videoRolls-Royce Ghost on videoRolls-Royce plans Ghost concepts

Twitter - follow all the latest Rolls-Royce Ghost reviews, news and video

Join the debate

Add a comment…
KartKidChun 26 February 2010

Re: Rolls-Royce Ghost v Phantom

Either one would do me just fine! But if I had to chose (not that it matters to me) I'd take a Phantom. Bigger and the name, Phantom. Sound better than Ghost in my opinion.

It's not like you can really chose between them in terms of quality or brand value.

Dan McNeil v2 26 February 2010

Re: Rolls-Royce Ghost v Phantom

Rover P6 3500S wrote:

OK, so I get that the BMW engine wasn't nicked, I was putting it extremely simply. But, as that straight-six was a BMW engine (and, therefore, German), why couldn't they use another BMW engine? Anyway, even if that wasn't possible, they could use the Jag V8 instead. Didn't the Carlton look exactly like a Senator, only with a different nose? And by 1980 I was just guessing approximately. I wasn't trying to say exactly when it entered production, just illustrating the era from which its 'style' is derived.

Dan McNeil v2 wrote:
It's made better in ways that matter

But looks DO matter. And, no matter what you say, most people will be put off by Mk2 Astra doorhandles and Senator rear lights. I'm sure that Bristol could produce an extremely fine car if they put their minds to it, but this isn't it. Not quite. It's almost very good, but its extremely dated looks (and, from the one I've been in, incredibly shoddy build quality) spoil it totally.

For an Autocar poster, you're an absolute winner in the drivel department. Your above post is a classic of the genre, stuffed as it is with a mixture of ignorance, fiction and inaccuracy.

To expound on this, your superficially knowledgeable posts fall apart under closer inspection: a classic was your reference to David Bache in the Citroen DS thread, in which you referred to the Chief Stylist of the SD1 and Metro (amongst others) as an engineer (he was a designer – surely you, as an apparent Rover expert, should have known that). Calling Bache an engineer is like claiming that Giugiaro was an ice-cream salesman – it demonstrates an astonishing lack of knowledge, wrapped in your increasingly transparent disguise of gravitas.

And, when someone pulls you up on your howlers, your response is always a variation on an increasingly familiar theme: you were being “rhetorical”; you were “just guessing”; you were “putting it extremely simply”; you “weren’t actually saying that”. What you never say is: “yeah, you’re right – you called me straight on that one.”

Such lack of insight and self-awareness demonstrates that you’ve yet to drive a car of any significance. Certainly, none of your posts suggest you have any experience of anything more interesting to relate than your fascinating account of not being terribly uncomfortable when you were spread-eagled over the transmission tunnel of your parent’s terminally dull 2001 BMW 5 series estate on a moderately long motorway journey.

And, to compound your mock-gravitas, you always have that old standby, the “friend” who owns or has driven a car you’ve no experience of, thus enabling you to inject some bogus authority into a discussion.

Instead, you initiate threads that require people to post their counter-experiences (e.g. your Bargain of the Century thread), and, when they post their guileless and honest response, you attempt to trash them and their experiences (in a clumsy, asinine, Clarkson-aping and teenager-pretending-to-be-worldly manner).

I’d put you at 22, and living with the parents. Nothing wrong with that, but get over it.

Phil McCavitie 25 February 2010

Re: Rolls-Royce Ghost v Phantom

Mr Rover P6 3500S only travels in his parents Y reg BMW.

His black and white world is awfully entertaining though. I particularly like the way his posts get picked apart and he has to admit how he got most things wrong.