I love the idea of an open-top limo ...it is very luxurious. The only problem I have with this car is the way the roof looks when it is folded down. Why does the hood have to be visible?; Why wasn't it designed to fold out-of-sight into a compartment behind the rear seats like other Mercedes convertibles? -- it does seem like they took a cheaper alternative which is a pity.

It's sorta like the Republicans and Democrats... they hate whatever the other does no matter what. If Rolls Royce had come up with this, the Maybach haters would be cheerleading it as the best thing ever!
It's pathetic. But I guess it's human nature.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if Rolls-Royce do make one eventually, they have made them before.




Mercedes-Benz W140 Landaulet built for the Pope. They did a much better job with the folded roof with this one.


Volvo

These are exactly my thoughts, it looks cheap and very odd when the roof is down, so that is why I have a photo of the Opel/Holden in my 1st post.

Well I like this car a lot, and I have no problem with the way the roof is retracted.

If you look at the Rolls's landaulet, this is what I call a bad job: You clearly see it is a limo cutted, you see where it was cut and it looks terrible.

The Maybach on the contrary, the way the roof is cut is wonderful, it does not look "home-made" like all the other Landaulets. Because You don't see a piece of roof on the front that stops suddenly, obviously cutted here.

The Rolls won't be turned into a Landaulet imo, the alu-spaceframe has not enough rigidity. They already had to do an enormous job to create the LWB, cause the structure is not rigid enough; whereas the Maybach is based on the W140 so it is more rigid than a tank.

Concerning the rear seats, honestly, between a cramped rear seat in a Brookjlands with little space and no blue sky, the Rolls which has not much more space and only two doors..

Also, for the comfort.. it is easy to say "I prefer the Brooklands because I prefer to drive myself", however that does not proove that the rear seats in a Brooklands are a better place to be.
Then you could say hey, the Brooklands is a piece of crap, the CGT is a much better place to be because I like sportscar so I don't give a cent for a big boot like the Brooklands.

Brooklands and Maybach are not the same type of car; the rear seats of the Brooklands are infinitely less comfortable than the Maybach. Period. Less head space, less leg space, less comfort, no folding roof, no doors...

Don't turn it into a "chauffeur car vs driver car".

I'm with Artist: the rear seats of the Maybach Landaulet are the best rear seats in the world.
Proove me wrong, but not with "I prefer to drive myself so the rear space of the Maybach is not the best place to be", this is not the point here. We speak of the rear space here.

Of course it's better executed by this Maybach when it's made several decades later with more advanced technology and experience.

If you have a look at the torsional rigidity thread somewhere in this forum, you will find out the Phantom does have a very high torsional rigidity. It is not that difficult to increase the rigidity of a space frame structure, especially one made with aluminium extrusions. The engineers can always increase the wall thickness of the extrusion (up to a limit) to improve the stiffness of the member. Since the entire space frame is connected together without any sort of welding, the structure is extremely strong because there are no heat affected area in the structure.

I didn't know the Maybach is based on the W140, I always thought it is based on the W220. Does anyone have any idea about this?

Yes, it is not a fantastic job ....it was done by a coachbuilder ..not Rolls-Royce themselves.


coolraoul, I like your taste in cars and you are very passionate with your opinions ...but your last post is not entirely factual -- I have to comment.
Total rubbish. The Phantom is just about the most rigid frame in the entire industry.

The rear seats in tht Brooklands are not cramped at all -- it is pretty much as roomy as a standard S class.

I am sure the rear seats of the Brooklands are very accommodating.


I think few people will buy either of these cars based entirely on their levels of comfort-- that is not really the biggest purpose of these cars.

Well you are the one who started a poll comparing the Phantom DHC with this Landaulet.

I still would rather be in the rear seats of that Phantom VI Landaulette (Rolls-Royce call this type of car a Landaulette) -- the Maybach is very special and very nice ....but doesn't have the same sense of occasion. However, I am sure the rear seats of the Maybach Landaulet would be a wonderful place to be on a warm sunny day.

coolraoul is correct, the Maybach is based on the W140.

Thanks for the response Rob, it's true that we share a certain taste for some old-fashioned cars...

Concerning the Maybach Landaulet...I was never a fan of Landaulets, with the exception of the W100. But I think this Maybach is really a great car, for me it is worth the name and honours its ancesters. It is much better than the regular, a bit soulless Maybach.

For the Phantom, I rememberd having read somewhere that the space-frame was difficult to modify, so that they needed hard job to make the LWB, but it may be wrong, I don't know.

I would prefer the Maybach Landaulet to the Phantom VI, bad Landaulette (you're right Rolls says Landaulette...) transformation. It is painful to my eyes, such a cutted Phantom VI.
And I much prefers the Phantom V to the VI, anyway .

I think a Siver Cloud II Convertible could be perfect...This is what I would take, if I had to take a luxury convertible . I would take it over both Maybach and Drophead...