Bentley has revealed a faster and more powerful V8 Bentayga Speed
Out goes the W12, in comes an uprated turbo V8 with a new 'Sport' mode
Skip 19 photos in the image carousel and continue reading
Turn on Javascript to see all the available pictures.
1
/
19
Bentley doesn't make its 6.0-litre W12 rolling thundercloud anymore, so for its new Bentayga Speed has deployed an eight-cylinder powerhouse to startling – and surprisingly sideways – levels.
So welcome to the new Bentley Bentayga Speed: now a V8-powered luxury SUV with a 'Sport' mode. That's right, 'Sport'… in a big, two-and-a-half-tonne SUV.
Advertisement - Page continues below
Bentley said this new mode makes it exceedingly pointy, because 'Sport' stiffens up the dampers by 15 per cent, backs off the ESC 'to permit exhilarating drift angles or power-on oversteer', and even launch control. That's right, 'drift angles' and launch control… in a big, two-and-a-half-tonne SUV.
And speaking of launches, you'll get there quicker in this V8 car than in the old W12-engined Bentayga Speed. Bentley quotes 0-62mph in just 3.4s, a full half-second quicker than the 6.0-litre car. It's also a full second quicker to 62mph than the regular V8 S.
Interestingly, Bentley hasn't gone for the 771bhp hybrid V8 monster as fitted in the nose of the Conti GT Speed, but an 'uprated' twin-turbo 4.0-litre V8. Uprated to the tune of 641bhp and 627lb ft. More power than the outgoing Bentayga Speed (which had 626bhp), but less torque (the old SUV churned out 664lb ft).
Still, Bentley has given it a good old bark, because there's a standard-fit sports exhaust, or the option of an Akrapovic titanium system. A far better soundtrack to accompany that new 'Sport' mode, which joins the standard 'Comfort' and 'Bentley' modes, the latter two carried over from the W12 car.
Advertisement - Page continues below
There's all-wheel-steering and the option of carbon ceramics, which all points to Bentley's efforts to make this massive luxury SUV… dance. Or, in Bentley parlance, 'recalibrates one's expectations of handling, roadholding, accelerating and steering response for a luxury SUV'. Quite.
As befits a Bentley Speed car, the big Bentayga gets dark tint brightware, Speed badging inside and out, 22in wheels (with the option of 23s), a choice of caliper colours, an optional black roof, a new 'Precision Diamond' quilt pattern for the interior, and a darker secondary leather as the 'predominant' colour.
No word on how much this surprisingly sideways Bentley SUV will cost, but it'll be... more.
Top Gear
Newsletter
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. Look out for your regular round-up of news, reviews and offers in your inbox.
Get all the latest news, reviews and exclusives, direct to your inbox.
Success Your Email*
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Car finance ruling leaves motorist involved in Supreme Court case ‘dumbfounded'
One of three drivers involved in a legal row over motor finance compensation has said he is 'dumbfounded' after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments. Marcus Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. In October last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the 35-year-old and two other drivers who had also paid commission as part of car finance agreements before 2021 were entitled to compensation. The court ruled that the motorists were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. The Supreme Court overturned the decision on Friday, but said Mr Johnson should retain his compensation and interest as he was in an 'unfair' relationship with the lender. When asked by the PA news agency how he felt about the outcome of the case, Mr Johnson, from Cwmbran in Wales, said: 'It was surprise and sadness, because I was quite confident, just based on how I felt about it, the unfairness of what happened to me. 'I thought people looking at all the information would come to the same conclusion, and I'm just dumbfounded. 'I feel terrible that people won't be able to claim anything like I have.' Mr Johnson said he did not 'disagree with commission' as he understood 'that that is how the market works'. But he said that the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. Mr Johnson said that he managed to sell his Suzuki after winning a Honda Civic in a raffle on Facebook, which he entered for £1. He said he could not afford the insurance on the Honda, so he sold it and used the money to pay off the remaining balance on the Suzuki. He then sold it privately at a loss thanks to the amount he still owed after three years of having the Suzuki on finance. While Mr Johnson acknowledged that he would 'steer clear' of hire-purchase agreements in future, there was little in his contract for the Suzuki which alerted him to the commission. He said: 'The problem with that, the reading of the small print, in my case, would not have told you any of the information anyway. 'There was a single sentence in my entire contract that said 'you may or may not be charged commission'. 'There was no information besides that single sentence about commission. 'Going forward, I don't know how I would purchase a car besides that way, but I would really steer clear of doing a similar transaction in the future.' Mr Johnson continued that the ruling 'does not sit right with me at all'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' In a 110-page ruling, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen said that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest. They said: 'An offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically.' They continued: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.'
BBC News
10 minutes ago
- BBC News
Newscast The Battle For Car Finance Compensation
Today, a landmark result from the Supreme Court rules that lenders won't have to pay compensation to millions of motorists over car finance loans. The Court determined dealerships weren't duty-bound to act solely in the interests of their customers, overturning a previous judgement that ruled in favour of consumers. It was a long and complex verdict so Adam is joined by political correspondent Helen Catt and Theo Leggett, international business correspondent, to help break it down. And, Global stocks have dropped after President Trump has increased tariffs on more than 90 countries. Canadian PM Mark Carney says he is 'disappointed' that the US tariff on Canada has increased from 25% to 35%. Higher tariffs for Mexico were paused for another 90 days, but Brazil faces a 50% levy. Adam is joined by Dharshini David, deputy economics editor. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast'. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: Get in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@ or send us a whatsapp on +44 0330 123 9480. New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Jack Maclaren with Gabriel Purcell-Davis and Jada Meosa John. The social producer was Joe Wilkinson. The technical producer was Mike Regaard. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Sign up to our free money newsletter for investment analysis and expert advice to help you build wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
