Missing the Marque: Rolls-Royce Camargue

The 1975 Camargue proved conclusively that more is not necessarily better.

1975 Rolls-Royce Camargue. Image: mycarquest.com

The rules of automotive design that apply to Rolls-Royce motor cars are quite different to those that apply to other, less rarefied marques. Because of their low production volumes and the longevity of their model cycles, they eschewed the fashionable and ephemeral in favour of timeless elegance, understatement and peerless quality. The 1965 Silver Shadow exemplified these qualities perfectly, and Rolls-Royce was rewarded by it becoming the company’s best-selling model in history.

Despite the success of the Silver Shadow and the closely related Corniche coupé and convertible models, the early 1970s was a tumultuous time for Rolls-Royce Motors. The British government had been forced to rescue its parent company, the eponymous aero engine manufacturer, from bankruptcy(1) in 1971 and had insisted that the motor manufacturer be floated off as a condition of the rescue. The floatation was completed in 1973(2). This left Rolls-Royce Motors dangerously exposed, with very limited resources available for the development of new models.

The company needed a new flagship model, not only as a generator of income, but as a mark of self-confidence in its future. A plan had been formulated to develop a new super-luxury coupé on the platform and mechanical package that underpinned the existing models, but pitched at a much higher price point, 50% above that of the Corniche.

Rolls-Royce commissioned Pininfarina to design the new model. The reputation of the carrozzeria’s stylist, Paolo Martin, was riding high on the back of his Fiat 130 Coupé, which had been unveiled in 1971 to a rapturous reception, so he seemed to have been an ideal choice. According to reports, the design, which Martin completed at the same time as the 130, evolved with remarkable speed, going from first draft to final prototype in under three months.

A Pininfarina design sketch for the Camargue dated 1970. Image: mycarquest.com

Unfortunately, Martin’s design was then allegedly handed over to Rolls-Royce. The automaker was hamstrung by the need to make the new coupé significantly more imposing looking than the Corniche, not least to justify the intended large price differential between the two, while retaining the latter’s platform and mechanical package. The production car was also considerably delayed, first by the parent company’s bankruptcy in 1971, then by the 1973 petrol crisis.

The new coupé was finally launched in March 1975. It shared the Corniche’s wheelbase and overall length of 3,048mm (120”) and 5,169mm (203½”) respectively, but was a substantial 89mm (3½”) wider. Moreover, the sheer unadorned bodysides and lack of any significant instep at waist level below the DLO made the car look unbalanced and top-heavy, a problem exacerbated by the narrow front and rear track widths.

Rolls-Royce Camargue front and rear views. Images: motorspirit.me

Other aspects of the design were also unnecessarily detrimental to its stance, however. The radiator grille was canted forward at an angle of 7°, matching the rearward cant of the tail. This exacerbated the impression that the car was widest at waist level, giving the lower body the look of a (geometric) bathtub. The outboard edges of the tail lights sloped inward, making it appear that the bodysides sloped outward. They seemed to bear no relationship to the shape of the rear of the car, as though they had been repurposed from another vehicle rather than custom-made.

The front end was rather blunt, and the grille looked overly wide for its height and oddly lacking in depth to be authentic. One rather strange detail was an indentation in the bodysides immediately below the DLO. This was highlighted with brightwork on early cars and seemed to be intended as a reflection of the shape of the side DLO. The odd, centrally sited reversing lamp(3) was covered with a strange ribbed grille for no apparent reason.

The single issue that was most destructive to the car’s stance, however, was the wheel treatment. At launch, the car was fitted with bright metal wheel covers over black painted wheels. Even though there were also bright metal rings around the wheel rims, the effect was to make the wheels look even smaller and further inboard than the reality, exacerbating the over-bodied and under-wheeled stance. The new model looked big and heavy and it was, weighing 2,329kg (5,135lbs), a substantial 144kg (317lbs) more than the Corniche coupé.

Perhaps surprisingly, Paolo Martin allegedly expressed satisfaction with the production car in a later interview, although he may simply have been polite and diplomatic in doing so. (He did, however, let slip that HM Queen Elizabeth II was said not to be a fan.)

1983 Rolls-Royce Camargue. Image: carbuzz.comp

The new car, named Camargue after a coastal region in southern France, was greeted with incredulity by many commentators who found its appearance underwhelming and its £29,250(4) list price almost unbelievable. This made it by some margin the most expensive production car in the world at that time.

Even the upmarket and normally anglophile British MotorSport magazine found it difficult to cheer the new Rolls-Royce. The magazine’s review opened by listing some of the things one could buy with its list price, including “an attractive detached house standing in its own grounds within the London commuter belt” or “a Corniche Convertible plus a Porsche 911 plus, (for the gardener, of course) the VW Golf 1500L”. With regard to the Camargue’s design, the reviewer was damning, stating that “the elegance and dignity must have fallen off the drawing board” and its stance reminded him of “a very fat man astride a very small motorbike”.

The mechanical package was entirely familiar, although the 6.75 litre V8 engine had its compression ratio lowered from 9.5:1 to 8:1, allowing it to run on four-star rather than five-star(5) petrol, but the (unspecified) power output was claimed to have been increased by 10% to 15% with the adoption of Lucas electronic ignition and a single four-choke Solex carburettor in place of the Corniche’s twin SU units(6). Because of the Camargue’s increased weight and frontal area, however, performance was merely on a par with the Corniche.

1983 Rolls-Royce Camargue interior. Image: coys.co.uk

If the exterior style was disappointing, the Camargue’s spacious interior was as impressive as one would expect in Rolls-Royce’s flagship model, trimmed with 450ft2 (41.8m2) of the finest Connolly Nuela hide. The reviewer noted that occupant safety requirements dictated that the burr walnut veneer was now overlaid onto deformable aluminium rather than solid wood. The most significant technical innovation in the Camargue was a new bespoke split-level air conditioning system that took Rolls-Royce over eight years to develop.

On the move, the self-levelling suspension had to work hard over the bumpy minor roads of the Sicilian test route but settled down well on the long coastal motorway. Apart from that generated by the mirrors, wind and mechanical noise was commendably subdued, but no better than on a Jaguar XJ12 “at less than a fifth the price” of the Camargue. Handling came in for high praise: “For a car which looks so huge and unwieldy, the handling of the Camargue proved remarkable, making driving the car smoothly at speed intensely satisfying.”

Series production of the Camargue started slowly at one per week, increasing to two per week after a year. Despite its steep price, the first year’s production was sold out prior to the Camargue’s launch. Mechanical upgrades during the car’s eleven-year lifespan were modest. Rack-and-pinion power steering from the updated Silver Shadow II was fitted from early 1977, while Bosch fuel injection and independent rear suspension from the Silver Spirit was fitted after that car was launched in 1980.

Better on alloy wheels. Image: ddclassics.com

Aesthetic modifications were even more limited. The brightwork trim below the side DLO was deleted, although the pressing it highlighted remained. The reversing light lost the grille that covered it. By far the most significant visual change, however, was achieved by fitting alloy wheels in place of the steel originals(7). This improved the car’s stance considerably, mitigating its under-wheeled appearance, even if the tracks still seemed rather narrow.

The Camargue’s price, which had risen to £83,122 by the time production ended, certainly ensured exclusivity for its owners. Over its lifetime a total of just 531 were produced. It is a moot point as to whether it would have found more owners if the styling had been better resolved and not compromised by needing to offer more than the Corniche to justify its price.


(1) To avoid assuming responsibility for all of Rolls-Royce’s liabilities, the UK government allowed the company to go into receivership and bought the assets from the receivers. This controversial technique, now known as ‘pre-pack administration’, is widely used and often criticised today.

(2) It was a conspicuously unsuccessful floatation: investors had little appetite for the new company and more than 80% of its shares were left in the hands of the underwriters.

(3) Reversing lamps were virtually a standard fitment by 1975, certainly on upmarket cars, so it is a puzzle as to why these were not incorporated into the rear light clusters.

(4) This represented a premium of £10,200 (54%) over the current list price of the Corniche.

(5) Five-star (101 octane) petrol was phased out in the UK in 1978.

(6) The twin SU carburettors were retained on US and Japanese export market Camargue models.

(7) It is unclear as to whether or not alloy wheels became a standard fitment or were specified by owners.

Author: Daniel O'Callaghan

Shut-line obsessive...Hates rudeness, loves biscuits.

53 thoughts on “Missing the Marque: Rolls-Royce Camargue”

  1. Good morning Daniel,
    Nice to see the unfortunate Camargue being put in the spotlight; to me it was just all a bit too much- too bulky, too unfinished in the styling details, too expensive. One of CAR magazines scribes described it as looking “Like a Fiat 130 Coupé seen through the bottom of a beer glass” which summed it up quite nicely for me.

    1. Good morning Bruno. Yes, the Camargue really lacks finesse. The intention seemed to be to make it look BIG above all else. The extreme width of front and rear screens just makes it look clumsy and top-heavy.

    2. For all its faults (and there were quite a few) I like the Camargue…

      I said that out loud, didn’t I?

  2. A fascinating beast the Camargue. Separated from the context of the time, though Daniel does an admirable job of describing this, it’s difficult to understand what they were thinking, particularly given the existence of a coupé version of the Corniche.

    As a child, I had a brochure for this car; thanks for reminding me!

  3. “The British government had been forced to continue reading”
    These never fail to raise a smile

    1. Good morning Thubbas. Yes that’s a little DTW literary conceit that has been running for far longer than I have been contributing to the site.and I’m very happy to maintain the tradition!

  4. I absolutely love this car. The rarity, the panache and even the styling. Who cares what snotty magazines said at the time? It’s a fun car.

    1. Well, I’m known to have strange tastes, but I don’t have enough strange tastes for a Camargue – and I don’t have enough alcohol in the house to drink this car „beautiful”.

      But it’s a pity I don’t have 50 large notes to put the red one in front of my door – even if the steering wheel is on the wrong side – the fun of seeing the horrified faces of the neighbours would be priceless.

  5. The ‘sketch’ featured in the article is part of a series of highly crude renders Paolo Martin created more than a decade ago.

    Here are a few genuine period illustrations (albeit not necessarily by Paolo Martin himself), also depicting a Bentley variant:

    1. Wow! I hope they’re not what Pininfarina pitched to Rolls-Royce. The Bentley ones are fine, but the first two are, well, naive is the politest word I can think of to describe them. They make the car look even more clumsy than it is in reality. I can’t draw to save my life, but I think I could do better than those. (Don’t ask me to prove it though!)

    2. Daniel,

      I hope this didn’t come as too much of a shock to you. But the (sad?) truth is that a great many of the finest designers in automotive history were hardly brilliant illustrators. There are exceptions, but generally speaking, the drawing skills of most masters of car design were nothing to write home about (if you’re interested, you’ll find some musings, courtesy of a former Pininfarina CCO on the subject, here: https://www.design-fieldtrip.com/read/fabio-filippini-pininfarina-renault-designer-sketching-thoughts-column).

      Despite the danger of bursting a few more bubbles, here are a few sketches courtesy of…

      Leonardo Fioravanti

      Marcello Gandini

      Aldo Brovarone

      … neither of which would’ve been accepted at any car design college at any point past the late ’70s.

    3. Hi Christopher and thanks for posting these sketches. Actually, I think that the Fioravanti one captures the essence of the design very well and the Gandini one has decent perspective for a free hand sketch (Was it for Opel? The C-pillar looks like that of the Manta A.) The Brovarone one is quite detailed too.

      No, it’s the sheer incompetence of the first drawing of the Camargue that’s really shocking. The perspective is all wrong and the rear wheel (but not the hub cap!) displays a huge amount of negative camber. The C-pillar on the left hand side of the car is much more steeply sloping than the one on the right (or the left side of the DLO has much greater tumblehome than the right!) and the roof is lower on the left hand side. Weird!

  6. I’ve just looked this beast up in “Pininfarina Cinquantanni” (English translation ‘Pininfarina, aren’t we brilliant!’) and it says the Camargue was the first RR with curved side windows and so the roof looks rather bell shaped. What an odd comment, perhaps a discrete admission that Pininfarina weren’t really happy with the finished product?

    It’s looks aren’t really the story though, are they? The big mystery is how they sold so many. For a car that exacted a big cost premium for doing nothing better than an existing model it must have been a runaway success. Selling out the first year’s run against the backdrop of the end of the Barber boom, double digit inflation and the aftereffects of the fuel crisis, is achievement enough but selling around 50 a year for a decade even more so.

    Sales “Success” maybe hard to judge when few people can afford one in the first place but I recall the Demaso Deauville’s lifetime sales been quoted by someone on here as been 200(?) over a longer term. The Camargue’s sales sit part way between the Maserati Indy and the 1st gen Quattroporte. None of these examples are directly comparable to a Carmargue but what is? So how did they do it? Did they offer discounts, or was the a cohort if super-rich even in those days who considered vast expense to be as important as power steering? Wikipedia gives no indication of famous first owners. My partner used to live in LA and occasionally ended up in the same room as film industry and TV network bigwigs, yet can’t recall ever seeing anyone in a Camargue.

    I’m not even sure what contempory figures could have conceivably been tempted by one. It seems too much even for Liz Taylor, maybe the Shah, or Idi Amin perhaps? Or Tiny Rowland??

    1. That is xactly my point, I was coming here to ask exactly that, how on Earth could they sell over 500 of those things? That is indeed equal to the different varieties of bespoke Silver Cloud III coupes and convertibles done by several different coachbuilders in the sixties. I would say the Camargue was an outstanding success, considering it was the most expensive car in the world during its lifetime.

  7. Good afternoon, Daniel. An excellent article and I agree with you 100%. I tried to find photos that show this car from an attractive angle. I came up wiht nothing. I did find a few interesting modifications. I’ll share one here.

    1. Well. It does at least address the stance issue! Those bars are presumably as much to stop it sagging in the middle as to keep passengers from falling out…

    2. Imagine the size of the wheel brace you would need…

  8. I’ve always liked the Camargue. While the faults pointed out in this piece make sense (more or less), they don’t bother me very much. The only thing I think could’ve been improved are the front lights – I think rectangular items like the one on the Fiat 130 Coupe or the Silver Spirit that came after would look better. But still, a good looking car in my opinion – imposing, but not overly so, and modern and fresh at the same time.

  9. My father has occasionally told a story of how he was driving up the M6, I would guess around 1974, following a mysterious large coupe with no identifying features being driven spiritedly. He said it took a lot of effort to keep up in his Sunbeam Vogue estate and was none the wiser by the time it got away. All was revealed a week or so later when Car magazine arrived revealing it to be the Camargue.

  10. I always considered that the crease below the DLO, reflecting the greenhouse, was an admission that the proportions were wrong, and adding brightwork just emphasised the failure. Obviously, Royces had to be very tall, so that their occupants could look down on common folk in ordinary cars in the days before SUVs.

  11. Christopher raises an interesting point. I should come clean and say I am not a great sketcher either so perhaps my argument is self-serving: you don´t have to draw very well to be a good designer. I saw a sketch by Patrick Le Quement and it wasn´t that good but there´s no question he´s a brilliant judge. I think there are some very, very able sketchers who aren´t good designers; the ability to do one is mistaken for the other. A drawing need only convey the basic idea; the rest is finished at the modelling stage. I suspect Martin´s basic idea was ruined in the Rolls Royce studio just as his basic 130 was realised to perfection at Fiat/Pininafarina.
    The Camargue is now a likeable oddity though if we are prepared to consider one, then you have also to consider a Bristol which handles and rides better and is not quite so odd looking.

    1. Good evening Richard. Interesting you should mention Bristol. The Bristol 603 and its successors shared one unfortunate characteristic with the Camargue, an excessively wide DLO:

    1. Dave: I’m not entirely sure how this could be considered an ‘answer’ to the Camargue seeing as it predates it. Believed to have been designed (allegedly by Paolo Martin, no less) during 1967/8, it was first shown that year before being delivered to its commissioning owner, Lord Hanson. What it may have done was to lead RR to Pininfarina’s door, since the commission for the car that became the Camargue followed shortly after.

      So instead, this T1 Speciale could perhaps be considered the question the Camargue answered…

  12. Here’s a film made by Rolls-Royce and British Steel on the Camargue’s Sicilian launch.

    I think the design could have been better, but it has its charm. One oddity I noticed, having watched a few films – when a Camargue’s indicator is switched on, the sidelight next to it also gets illuminated. It’s a bit eccentric, like the reversing light grille. The Camargue always strikes me as something that was developed, left a while and then put in to production. I know that’s not the case, but it has a sort of a ‘disjointed’ air about it.

    Seeing it again reminded me that these really were strange times, what with the Allegro, the XJ-S, the Jensen Healey, the TR7… everything seemed to be a bit off.

    1. Hi Charles. That film is a nice period piece. Yes, things were indeed a bit ‘off’ in the 1970s. There was, I’m sure there was plenty of design and engineering talent around, but it seemed to get subverted by management incompetence, with the result that the cars were always compromised.

      Thanks for sharing.

    2. Yeah, the part where the bald, bespectacled guy picked up a kid and placed him in the trunk made me cringe. Even in context, it’s still problematic and, honestly, makes you wonder who Rolls-Royce was trying to lure into buying this car – Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, perhaps?

      That said, in my early teens I had a rather cruddy 1/22 Bburago die-cast model of the Camargue, and I’ll go on record for saying I’ve always found it strangely appealing (especially on the inside), yet tremendously flawed aesthetically.

  13. @Daniel I too thought the Gandini sketch might have been of an Opel. Something about the C pillar reminded me of a car I’ve always admired, the sadly forgotten Opel Commodore “B” from the early Seventies. I always thought it was a graceful and restrained design. Perhaps as a car it was too unremarkable to be remembered, but as a design I feel it stands up very well. The one in these photos has non-standard wheels and exhaust, but is otherwise a fine example.

    1. Goodness. I´ve seen Opel Commodore “B” coupés before yet I am still impressed by their tidy and non-obvious styling. It´s not easy to find words for the design other than ones I have used before, contemporary vernacular. The glass house is really nicely proportioned and the surfacing very subtle. It has lovely proportions which probably hide the fact the car is not that big (meaning it´s handy to drive). People wet themselves over cars from BMW, Saab and Audi whilst Opel´s tidy designs get unjustly neglected. I´d agree this car isn´t breaking the mould. It´s excellence is in its execution and implementation of design norms. That´s not as easy as you´d think.

    2. Designed under (if not by) Chuck Jordan. I think I know why it has not accrued more acolytes:

      The rubbing strip does not flatter the design, while the vinyl roof affixed to the top GS/E model verily ruins it, which is quite amazing. I’d sooner countenance a mustache on the Mona Lisa. The auxiliary lights don’t help either.

    3. Eoin: thanks for reminding me of this nice bit of writing about a rather fabulous example of the Commodore. And well done to Christopher for an economical and lucid account too. A pleasure to re-read!

    4. Good morning all. I think that the Opel Rekord D, in both saloon and coupé forms, is an extraordinarily fine design that is best appreciated in its purest form, with no vinyl roof, side rubbing strips, auxiliary lights (or those rather tacky grilles over the tail lights on the Commodore version):

      It is one of my ‘perfect’ designs in that I cannot think of a single change that would improve it. It looks like a concept car, without any compromises made for production. I wonder if it was expensive to produce, with almost no visible seams or panel gaps?

      Christopher’s piece is an excellent read and beautifully illustrated with detail photos of this delightful car.

    5. Interesting to see a design that is so sensitive to being messed around with. It’s very good in its unadulterated state and it sold very well. I love the way the saloon’s design ‘sits back’, as it were. It anticipates a few of the Ascona’s styling elements and also reminds me of several other GM cars. I think that’s its problem – it’s very handsome, and subtle, but not distinctive.

      I found an early ad for it which is remarkable for its good state of preservation.

    6. I can’t remember whether I included this piece of information in the article (thanks for the kind words, fellers!), so I’ll mention (again) that the Rekord D was penned by Hideo Kodama, one of the most influential Opel designers over the years.

  14. When it comes to the Rolls Royce Carmargue by Pininfarina (plus Bentley one-off and initial Delta prototype with smaller grille), together with the earlier Mercedes-Benz 300 SEL 6.3 Pininfarina and Bentley T1 Pininfarina Coupe can see all three possessing the potential of being very attractive designs with the right styling touches.

    1. The latter two are one-offs and while around 531 Carmargues were made, all of their front ends are IMHO visual let downs in the sense that is the only frustrating element preventing all three cars from looking remarkably modern for their time, instead of something one would expect on many an American Car during the Malaise Era (were one to be very harsh regarding the divisive looks).

  15. Am I the only one whose first impression was:


    But I got over it rather quickly. The similarties in form between these disparate products helped me learn how to separate the qualities of design from craftsmanship in fabrication, and to better appreciate the values of both artisanal and mass production.

    BTW, I was recently surprised to discover an incorrect assumption I made: the attractive 124 Sport Coupe is credited to Felice Mario Boano, Centro Stile Fiat. While Martin may have borrowed from Boano, I still respect his choices.

    Furthermore, I credit Martin and Pininfarina with helping Crewe reset its compass, setting the table for John Blatchley’s successor Fritz Feller’s long lived, and lauded SZ series (Silver Spirit, et al.). At the time, I welcomed the SZ’s successor, the Seraph/Arnage, and its return to a more traditionalist mien, but now it seems a bit too quaint, meek, referential, weak, and uninspiring to me, while I find the bold unapologetic modernism exhibited by the Camargue and continued with the SZ series have aged rather better, despite their flaws. Such is the nature of “character”.

    1. The Seraph and Arnage were very much the right designs for the times. I think they´ve aged very well indeed. The proportions are first rate and both cars manage that tricky feat of being quite huge without being gross (which our American cousins and sometimes the German brands don´t pull off so well). I will go an look at at photo of one of them to confirm my recollection…
      yes, fabulous. The Feller cars are too much like well-done versions of the Chevrolet Caprice to really satisfy me.

    2. I think there is plenty of room for disagreements here since we are talking about two brands that shared a lot of mechanicals and bodywork, but starting with the advent of the SZ series, they started to develop divergent images that were perhaps appropriate to their historical roots, and of the evolutionary progression towards sportier saloons during the 1980s. Some of the designs we are discussing may have worked better as Bentleys. I’ll grant that the Seraph’s design suited Rolls Royce very well. That said, I think VW Group did a fine job in massaging the Arnage. I will still maintain that its tail end appears to be sending two very divergent messages simultaneously, which seems intriguing, not necessarily off-putting, as they managed to execute it as if threading a needle.

    3. “Some of the designs we are discussing may have worked better as Bentleys. ” Even when almost nobody was buying Bentleys, I mean the Camargue, if only they were willing to push it even further in the direction of a driver oriented car. My hypothesis here is that it the Camargue shook Crewe up a bit and pointed them down the path toward the eventual twin turbo V8 brutes that rightfully contended for “the best car in the world” (as LJKS in particular noted in a Giant Test comparo, the reprint of which we revisiteed here some time ago). I don’t think that Crewe and the Rolls Royce brand would have accomplished that and been able to stand where it does today without the resurgence and flourishing of a more sportingly oriented Bentley brand.

    4. To me, Silver Spirit/Spur/Seraph always had more than a whiff of Florida Plastic Surgeon Car to them, unlike the respective Bentley variants. Similarly, X300 always seemed much more appealing in XJR guise, whereas the luxury orientated specifications also seemed a faint bit too vulgar to me. What a difference a few slices of chrome can make…

  16. My fellow author, Robertas Parazitas, kindly brought this beauty to my attention, a bespoke Camargue convertible:


    Note the Audi 100 C3 Taillights, a significant improvement over the awkward originals. My only serious criticism is the huge bulk of the hood when folded, something that would be impossible to avoid without re-engineering the whole rear deck. Oh, and the gold wire wheels are hideous!

  17. It seems that the Camargue DHC converted by Autoconstruzioni Torino c.1985 for Dino Fabbri, co-founder of publishing house Fratelli Fabbri Editori is far from being the only open-topped re-work.

    Honourable mention should go to the 1987 conversion by Niko-Michael Coachwork of Long Island, NY, which features a retractable hardtop:


    Going by the pictures, the Niko-Michael conversion neither adds, nor subtracts from the original, except possibly in the matter of rear passenger space – no voluminous cabriolet roof issues here.

    Incidentally the other two Dino Fabbri Rolls-Royces referred to in the Bonhams Camargue description are both Silver Spirits, and both converted into four door cabriolets by Autoconstruzioni Torino. The 1987 yellow/black two-tone ‘Kroko’ is certainly not self-effacing, the 1984 car has a more sober colour scheme:



    Whichever you prefer, those wheels are part of the package.

    1. Oh dear, the Autoconstruzione Torino convertible looks like someone slung an old mattress onto it for taking to the refuse site. The Niko-Michael effort is much better in this regard. Thanks for sharting, Robertas, and apologies for my lateness in replying.

  18. I’ve giving some thought to what a Camargue in Rolls-Royce’s contemporary style might look like and came up with this:

    Possibly, a more classical and less controversial shape than the Wraith:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: