Turbo R v Continental

[JeffreyD]

I've been trying to be sensible and do without a classic barge but I've got the urge.

Over the years I've had a few classic V8s, choosing Bristol and Jensen as in general maintenance and parts were a lot less expensive and prices were there or thereabouts.

I've been doing some browsing and noticed Bristols and Jensens are now well north of Turbo Rs and pretty similar to Continentals - this now swings the pendulum back towards Bentley.

How do the Continentals compare to the Turbo R in terms of general running, maintenance and the like? Are there any specific areas to worry about over and above a turbo r?

thanks in advance

[TarquinMX5]

Which Continental, the 90s-onwards one or the later VW one?

[JeffreyD]

TarquinMX5 said:

Which Continental, the 90s-onwards one or the later VW one?

The 90s one

[BenTurboR]

I've no experience of the Continental but I love my Turbo R. It's definitely a barge, but handles surprisingly well.

I'm not sure why the Continentals are so much pricier than the Turbo Rs, I suppose they are rarer and coupés are generally more desirable.

In terms of running costs I understand it they're very similar under the skin, same engine, transmission etc.

These are certainly not cheap to keep running, I've already spent more than I was hoping to but I'm still happy. There's really nothing else like driving these cars.

[TarquinMX5]

Yes, they're basically the same running gear. Having said that, it depends on which year and model, ie Continental R or T, as there were numerous changes over the years, primarily related 'state-of-tune', ie ecus, intercoolers etc., so the same issues as would apply to the Turbo Rs of differing years.

In terms of maintenance, in my view potentially the biggest 'unknown' is the later Zytek ecu, fitted from (without checking to confirm precise dates for the Continental) the 1996 model-year; support is patchy, if available at all, recon units are sometimes available but not cheap (unless things have markedly improved in the last couple of years, which I doubt). It's not necessarily a problem, it's just that IF there is a problem, resolution might not be straightforward. Worth researching further if it's a consideration.

People often ask 'how much per year'; I think that's difficult to say when you're dealing with a car that's 20-30 years old, as so much depends on how it's been treated/looked after during that time and how you intend to use it. In essence, they're fairly 'simple' mechanically (particularly engine/ g.box-wise) but, if there is a problem (ie head gasket), it's a little more involved than similar work on a Ford Ka.

Is a Continental 'worth' more than a Turbo R? Purely personal; how do you value 'style' and 'exclusivity'?

Lovely cars.

[JeffreyD]

Thanks for the replies.

It will be regular use, but not daily, smoker style use. Not washed very often but won't lack servicing and the like. I'm erring towards a cheaper Turbo R, but in the current market the Continental looks well priced. I was surprised how little prices have moved compared to other cars - it seems very difficult to find a decent, interesting car for the same price as these beauties.

[Penguinracer]

Early Arnage prices seem to be converging with those for the later Turbo R's.
May be someone could comment on the early Arnage v late Turbo R comparison.

[JeffreyD]

Penguinracer said:

Early Arnage prices seem to be converging with those for the later Turbo R's.
May be someone could comment on the early Arnage v late Turbo R comparison.

It's a good shout but if I was going a bit newer then I'll start getting into the full male mathematics.
Something like a really nice Conti R is 50 and decent Jensen is 60 and oh look a mulsanne is only 60k.

As it stands I've not had a drink this week and 15k on a turbo R with a nice slush fund seems reasonable. After dinner with a fresh bottle on the go then who knows where I'll end up.

[alabbasi]

JeffreyD said:

The 90s one

It's the same car under the skin.

[BenTurboR]

TarquinMX5 said:

In terms of maintenance, in my view potentially the biggest 'unknown' is the later Zytek ecu, fitted from (without checking to confirm precise dates for the Continental) the 1996 model-year; support is patchy, if available at all, recon units are sometimes available but not cheap (unless things have markedly improved in the last couple of years, which I doubt). It's not necessarily a problem, it's just that IF there is a problem, resolution might not be straightforward. Worth researching further if it's a consideration.

My car is a later Turbo R with the Zytek ECU. I think you're right that they came in for the '96 model year. It was a bit of a concern when I started looking for mine but from what I could find online issues with them seem really rare, and they do give a fair bit more power than the previous system. Another factor for me is that I much prefer the interior changes that came in for '96, as I'm 6'1" the additional inch of headroom is a boon too.

[alabbasi]

Fuel rail o-rings on zytek cars are a ticking time bomb that can burn your car down if not replaced before they fail. The job guarantees that they rarely are.

Whoever thought of using o-rings on a fuel rail where the lines connect was a proper idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmwadKev3TI

Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 13th February 16:45

[TarquinMX5]

BenTurboR said:

TarquinMX5 said:

In terms of maintenance, in my view potentially the biggest 'unknown' is the later Zytek ecu, fitted from (without checking to confirm precise dates for the Continental) the 1996 model-year; support is patchy, if available at all, recon units are sometimes available but not cheap (unless things have markedly improved in the last couple of years, which I doubt). It's not necessarily a problem, it's just that IF there is a problem, resolution might not be straightforward. Worth researching further if it's a consideration.

My car is a later Turbo R with the Zytek ECU. I think you're right that they came in for the '96 model year. It was a bit of a concern when I started looking for mine but from what I could find online issues with them seem really rare, and they do give a fair bit more power than the previous system. Another factor for me is that I much prefer the interior changes that came in for '96, as I'm 6'1" the additional inch of headroom is a boon too.

I don't disagree with any of that and I also prefer the later look after the changes made to the radiator grille and bumpers, however, it's just a case of going-in with eyes open, which you clearly did. Many people seem to think that they're all much the same but there were quite a few changes on the SZ-series throughout its production run.

[Panamax]

On either of these the "big" service can be .... interesting. I've seen bills of many tens of £thousands.

[alabbasi]

A guy i know recently bought a 97 Turbo R. Clean car, drove it into the local specialist and was quoted around $15k to sort out whatever the specialist saw was wrong. Working on these cars is like peeling an onion however so you should expect the starting estimate to be lower than what it's actually going to cost as they identify stuff to fix along the way.

As far as values, Turbo R resale values are going to be significantly lower than a Continental R. They were cheaper when new, around much longer, less distinctive and more were made. Sourcing Continental R specific parts is going to be a challenge. Very few were made.

Unless you want to drag race everywhere, the 93 model year with CIS injection and the 4L80E 4 speed would be the best compromise between maintainability and driving enjoyment.