Rolls Royce the car of choice for ultra-rich
Illustrating the fickle nature of the ultra wealthy, a new survey of 500 bona fide rich people conducted by the Luxury Institute reveals that Rolls Royce is the most luxurious brand of 2006, a position that was held by Maybach last year.
"Too many luxury firms are looking to 'Wow' the client with extraordinary, but fleeting, gimmicks," says Milton Pedraza, CEO of the Luxury Institute, who performed the survey. "First and foremost, the wealthy want these firms to simply execute the fundamentals of each customer experience extraordinarily well. Consumers have spoken and Rolls Royce is the ultra-luxury brand they recommend to their peers most often."
Brands in the survey included Aston Martin, Bentley, BMW, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and Rolls Royce. The participants, who were required to have a gross annual income of at least $200,000 and a net worth of $5,000,000, said only Rolls consistently provided superior quality, reputation, and service. Only in social status did Maybach beat Rolls Royce.
Of course, what's the point of ranking these brands when you can afford to buy one of each?
[Source: Luxury Institute via The Auto Channel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Phelix 9:22AM (7/17/2006)
There's a "Luxury Institute?"
Reply
Graham 9:27AM (7/17/2006)
Luxury Institute? WTF is that? I'm going to start my own "institute" and put out surveys for autoblog to publish. :)
Reply
mavkato 9:40AM (7/17/2006)
In other news: Water is wet.
Reply
BOB 10:00AM (7/17/2006)
LETS HAVE MORE QUOTES FROM FOOLS NO ONE HAS HEARD OF-- IT IS SO GOOD FOR YOUR CREDIBILITY -- LOL. Just by observing, I can tell you the Beverly Hills choice___
Rolls: dozens, driven, often by oil princes under 40.
Mayback: -- Oh, I think I have seen 3.
Reply
javier febles 10:19AM (7/17/2006)
ok, i will not buy any of those car, but my preferences are:
1.- Aston
2.- RR
3.- Bentley
3.- Lamborghini
4.- Ferrari
5.- Maserati
BMW , Porsche and Mercedes are good cars , but aren't in the same league as the others.....
Reply
DustinTarditi 11:05AM (7/17/2006)
1) RR is the standard by which other cars are measured for build and material quality
2) In regard to poster #5 - Porsche's secret is that you get amazing performance from a car you can literally drive everyday... can't do that with any of the exotics you listed. In regard to MB, they don't only make luxury cars - they make taxis, trucks, 4x4s, etc. They are getting their build quality and reliability too...
Reply
Jim in Tampa 11:06AM (7/17/2006)
I'd pick the Bentley Flying Spur.
Reply
anahit 11:21AM (7/17/2006)
So "ultra wealthy" means $200k/yr and $5mm net worth? Did I miss a recent bout of hyperinflation? I'm no classist and from a typical wage-earner's perspective that's serious cash but is it "ultra wealthy"? Not in my book.
I'd bet that the typical Rolls/Maybach/Aston, etc. owner here in the US has a higher than $200k income but a lower than $5mm net worth because so many people are suckers for trying to show the world they have "ultra wealth" when they really don't.
Reply
Edsel 11:37AM (7/17/2006)
anahit(#8) is exactly right.
"ultra-wealthy" don't drive, they are driven. The Rolls is flaunted by the nouveau rich, the Bentley is reserved for those with refinement.
Reply
ik 12:42PM (7/17/2006)
Edsel, that's not true.
Anyways, I don't consider Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche and BMW to be in the same category as the others. Lamborghini, Ferrari and Porsche make sports cars. BMW and Maserati makes luxury sports cars. Aston Martin shouldn't be there either. It's not really ultra-luxury, like the others.
Now, I don't own all of these, so my opinion is not 100% accurate, but here it is:
Order of Luxury:
1. Maybach (The interior is more airplane-like than car)
2. Rolls Royce (Ultra-lux Car made to be driven in)
3. Bentley (Ultra-lux car to be driven)
4. Benz (Some Ultra-lux models, but many normal lux cars)
Order of Personal Preference:
1. Benz (Personal Favourite. Ultra-lux + amg v12 = good)
2. Bentley (prefer driving, and I like the cgt)
3. Rolls Royce (the phantom is ok if there is no cgt)
4. Maybach (There is nothing I like about this car. It should only be bought for fleets and limos)
Reply
luxury affair 1:05PM (7/17/2006)
if you drive a $300k car and can't afford at least 10 more i don't think you should be driving one
http://luxuryaffair.com
Reply
Road Tester 2:47PM (7/17/2006)
Actually, some ultra-rich even drive cars, and if they do, I'm sure they prefer to do so in a driver's car, not in a RR. My choice would be an Aston, a Lambo, or a Ferrari. I agree with the statement that Porsche doesn't really belong into this group. While it's a dream car for the real world, if one could by any car, it would most likely be something more exclusive than a Porsche.
Reply
rip 3:39PM (7/17/2006)
200k/year and 5mil net worth is "ultra wealthy?" Maybe in Iowa.
Considering the median home price in L.A. requires an income over 100k, with STARTER/tear-down homes on the westside coming in at 1 million, 200k/year would only allow you to get a decent home. But nothing special. Ultra wealthy? Hardly.
Try 1 million/year AFTER taxes. Or net worth over 20 million. That would be ultra wealthy. And some would argue that would only make you wealthy.
And the fact that Mercedes is listed says it isn't really for the ultra wealthy. A Mercedes is an upper middle class ride. Or maybe a 4th car (like the G500).
In other words this list is lame.
Reply
Dan 4:45PM (7/17/2006)
This list is incomplete because the Kia Amanti is not even mentioned. What a shame :-)
Reply
Ty 9:00PM (7/17/2006)
So a net worth of $5 million and $200k/yr is ultra wealthy? Hmmm. Don't you think that's kinda of a disservice to people who have net worth over a billion and make nore than $200k a month? I wonder how Uncle Bill and Uncle Warren feel about that. Or, is there a higher level of this hieracrchy of wealth? Uber-rich? Amazingly-stupendously-rich? I $h*t my pants in public and wipe my @$$ with hundred dollar bills because I'm so rich-rich? Haha. I guess I'll just have to settle for ultra-average for now...
Reply
diulei 10:02PM (7/17/2006)
I'll have to agree with all the naysayers.
$200K/year and $5mil of net worth does not make you "ultra-rich". Rich, yes, but not ultra.
IMHO, "ultra-rich" would be closer to $50mil+.
But then again, I live in California where having a million dollar home means nothing, practically all homes are. My neighbor drives a Bentley, two houses down from that is a Aston Martin, 3 houses down from the Aston is a Ferrari.
I just credit that to the California/Hollywood mentality where everyone tries to show off their wealth.
And no, I can't come close to affording any of those cars so I'm not saying I'm rich. I'm freakin broke!
Reply
dorian k. 3:11AM (7/18/2006)
lol number 3 is right, who could not have guessed that
because we all no those rich people like there honda's and kia's lmao
Reply
dtl 8:49PM (7/19/2006)
I must say I have never responded to anything like this,however I found it hard to ignore so many unwordly and ignorant comments. Did it ever occur to you people that maybe some people just like cars. I happen to drive a RR Silver Spur 2 to my office every day. ..And yes I have several other cars, oh and yes I own a jet as well as many other toys. Life is to be enjoyed. Maybe most of you should worry about enjoying your lives and not pre judging others. No wonder our country is in such a mess.
Reply
Princess Lia 2:13PM (7/20/2006)
Just for the record, I agree with the comment that 200k/yr does not make you ultra wealthy IN THE U.S. In most parts of the world, however, even just a tenth of that would be more than enough to feed you and your family for a long, long time.
Reply
Rebecca Frank 2:27PM (7/20/2006)
What about the Nova?
Reply