Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Land Rover Range Rover Sport

2456721

Comments

  • hsquaredhsquared Posts: 2
    To feel the need to let everyone know that you're
    not so shallow as to judge an SUV by horse power
    and quarter mile times, seems pretty shallow.

    The tiny bit of marketing that Land Rover has
    done for the Range Rover Sport suggests that it's
    meant to be an X5 killer(my words). The
    performance numbers that they've released tell a
    different story. That doesn't mean it's not a
    worthwhile purchase. So, if you have the means,
    then by all means, get one.
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    Just saw one Friday; it was a company test car driven by the company rep visiting the dealer. Second seats do fold: bottom tilts forward and the back folds down.

    They have my order!
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    I believe center lock is standard, and rear lock is a $400 option.
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    Full rear hatch opens up, and a section including the window opens up separately.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    The 2006 Range Rover Sport will use the new LR3's chassis

    The LR3 has an...

    (from edmunds.com)

    "Integrated body frame is just a fancy way of saying that the LR3's traditional ladder frame is aided in crash-worthiness by a body that has almost unibodylike strength. In most typical body-on-frame designs, the frame provides all the strength while the bolted-on body simply holds the passengers. The LR3's body, though, has extra strong sills that literally envelope its frame. So closely does it wrap around, in fact, that in the case of an accident, the body is forced into the frame rails greatly adding to its strength. Land Rover says that this significantly increases resistance during offset crashes, the common bugaboo of body-on-frame designs."

    image

    The 300 hp 4.4 V-8 used in the LR3 is based on Jaguar's 4.2 V-8 but modified for off-road duty. Jaguar's V-8 is not a Ford V-8. Jaguar's 4.2 liter V-8 does not have the potential timing chain tensioner or nikasil problems of the 4.0 liter V-8 from the 1997-2000 XK8.

    Check this link:

    http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    Are the tires and wheels (20") planned for the Supercharged Sport suitable for off road use? The low profile tires on my Mercedes S500 seem to work wonderfully on the road, though they wear out in 20k miles or less. And the tread design is anything but even "mud and snow." Will that be the case for the tires on the Supercharged Sport? Are these same profile tires offered on any Land Rover vehicle, and if so what is the experience with them off road?

    Would a Supercharged Sport used for off road be better equipped with the standard tires and wheels of the regular Sport model?
  • madlawmadlaw Posts: 7
    Saw the Sport at the NYC show this past weekend. Was very impressed inside and out. HOWEVER, just saw the performance(or lack thereof) numbers and if correct this vehicle is a terrible joke. SUVs costing 1/2 as much as the 70k supercharged sport are as fast if not faster. If correct, the Sport is not a serious threat to anything except a select few pocketbooks.
  • simbahsimbah Posts: 9
    ..I also checked out the RR Sport at the NY auto show this past weekend, and was surprisingly underwelmed by the vehicle. I thought I would like it more up close and personal. I thought it was a slam dunk as my next vehicle, now there is definetly doubt on my part (or ho-hum) regarding interior styling/layout/cargo particularly ..and the performance numbers as stated don't astound.
    One positive is that it did re-affirm my lust for the current RR exterior styling.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    Get a new Dodge Magnum SRT8 if you want speed and cargo room.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    XKSS, I beg to differ with you. Sure, the engine now used by Rover is not the Jag V8 of yesteryear with the nikasil liner problems, but it IS a Ford V8 derived engine. Its basic architecture, bore centers, main line to fire deck surface dimension etc. are similar to the Ford V8. Naturally, most of the moving parts are different and the hang on accessories like the fuel system and electricals are all different but the basic lines came from Ford. No harm in any of this and probably it kept the initial development costs down.

    Moreover, the V12 used by Aston is in a very basic sense, two V6 (Duratec?) Ford blocks bolted together. Now, I don't mean to imply that the V6 Taurus engine is simply 50% of the engine in a Vanquish and that your local junk yard could be a source of Aston Martin engine cores. But, when stripped of all internals and accessories, they are very similar. Before anyone gets angry at Aston for bolting two sixes together, this is an accepted practice in the engine world, and Detroit Diesel has done it for years.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Do you or anyone else have anything specific about the Jaguar V8's origins? I know the Aston V12 started out as two Duratec V6s, but I always thought the Jaguar V8 was of their own creation - totally seperate of any Ford V8?

    M
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    Jaguar's V-8 is NOT a Ford-derived engine. Read this link:

    Jaguar's V-8

    You can email the people at that site to confirm what I have said.

    Not to be rude, but have you heard an Aston Martin DB9's V-12?

    DB9 video

    One Aston Martin DBR9 won the 12 Hours of Sebring (GT1 class) last month for the first time since 1956.

    image

    The following is from http://astonmartins.com/db7/db7_v12_vantage.htm:

    (Tim, who runs that site, would know a thing or two about Aston Martins)

    "The 6.0 litre, 48 valve, all-alloy, 60º V12 engine delivers 420 bhp and 400lbs ft of torque. Developed in close co-operation with the Ford Research and Vehicle Technology Group and Cosworth Technology, the V12 was designed to operate at a maximum speed of 7000rpm, features four valves per cylinder, twin overhead camshafts for each bank of cylinders and a sophisticated Visteon electronic management system."
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    IMO the Aston-Martin DB9 is the most beautiful production car in the world today!

    M
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,914

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    xkss, I was wrong and I apologize. Clearly the Jag-sourced Rover engine is not Ford derived.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    no worries :)
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    I was in the market for an SUV in December and for a variety of reasons (aesthetics, reliability, first year teething problems, a genetic dispostion against paying list price, etc.) felt that the LR3 at 50K wasn't a good deal compared to the X5 or the Cayenne (which I bought).

    Now the Land Rover Sport is due out with an MSRP in the high 50's. This seems to be a fair price. If I didn't think (and still don't) that an LR3 is worth 50-51K why do I think that the Sport is worth 59K? Am I delusional?
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    7-seat capable LR3 wasn't really a direct competitor to the X5 and Cayenne. It's obvious you weren't keen on the "pure utility" aspect of the LR3.

    The RRS is aimed differently, much closer to the virtually utility-free X5... and, of course, the Cayenne. No delusion necessary.
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    Will the Range Rover Sport accommodate a roof rack for carrying kayaks, bikes, etc.?
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Grommet, thanks for the insight. I think you're right. I kept thinking that for utililty I should buy a Denali and for fun an X5 or Cay. I think I unknowingly created a matrix with sport on one side and utility across the top. In my mental matrix the LR3 came up as maximizing neither sport nor utility. At a transaction price of 43-45K the Germans and the General were all priced the same with used Denalis available for 30K or so. The LR3 though was at a firm 50K with no negotiating and some possible baggage.

    One thing which swayed me toward the sport dimension, was the answer to the question: do I really want to own an 8 -10 year old Denali (I do keep cars) or an older X5, Cay, or LR3?

    In any case, if I pick up a Range Rover Sport when the Cay wears out, it would be just the thing when at 70 I pull my last lobster trap, sell my emerging market bond funds (by then they will be all in the doldrums of no-growth Western Europe) and head down I95.
  • jdidionjdidion Posts: 4
    Got a call from my sales rep last week. They had a couple Sports in for a few days. Went by this weekend and saw the new Range Rover Sport-Supercharged and was taken for a ride. Nice combination of the size and comfort of the full size Range Rover coupled with much more power. My wife drives a 2005 Range Rover. I love the comfort, but lacks the power of my Cayenne. The sport offers that power that I have become used to with the Cayenne. I have ordered a Sport Supercharged and look forward to it's arrival. Any others been for a ride or driven a Sport?
  • mgreenemgreene Posts: 32
    Has anyone come across hi res pics for the RRS on the internet in colors other than the "burnt orange"? If so would you consider posting a link.

    Also, it has occured to me that the RRS is not really a 1st year production. It seems to me that although the dimensions are somewhat diffrent and the shape is different, all of the major systems and components were already developed and produced for the LR3. Would it be wrong of me to feele relaxed about "teething pains" for the RRS? The LR3, though having some issues , they seem confined to 4-5 areas, whereas the RR (from my research) is FUBAR all over. Any one care to share some thoughts on my observation?
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    I don't have hi-res pictures, but I just found these.

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image
  • calbritcalbrit Posts: 24
    I think you are right in your estimate that much of the RRS is shared with the LR3 and so many of the glitches will be worked out by the time it lands at dealerships. The number of problems on later produced LR3's are reduced and it seems much of the problems were of a software nature.
  • mgreenemgreene Posts: 32
    thanks for the pics. BTW do those assembly workers look a liitle sauced to anyone but me? Just kidding...........though rumor has it......!
  • calbritcalbrit Posts: 24
    One of the dealerships I have been in contact with in Northern California have had their second order call for the RR Sport. Last month they were only able to order the non-supercharged engine. This month they have been able to order 1. They have a waiting list of orders currently for 6 more customers. The Supercharged engine will be like the LR3 HSE. Extremely short supply. They will have no problems selling the vehicles initially, just like the LR3.

    I had a chance to drive the RR Sport non-supercharged engine and it is significantly faster than the same engined LR3. There is a very interesting insert in Land Rover Monthly magazine totalling 32 pages all about the thought process, design, testing and production of the RR Sport. One journalist I read from Top Gear magazine I believe reported that the RR Sport can do 80% of what the X5 Sport and Cayenne Turbo can do, but they can only do 50% of what the RR Sport can do. The X5 is a great car, but very common and the Cayenne Turbo is considerably more expensive! The Cayenne is great around a race circuit, but cornering is shabby to me for day to day driving, braking not what I expect and the ride to hard for a day to day car.

    I'm not in the position where I can't afford the RR and thus am looking at the RR Sport to be my affordable RR. I look at the RR Sport as a stand alone model designed to be a completely different car for a different purpose. Those who are looking for the Luxury of the RR will be disappointed. Those who are looking for a Race SUV will be disappointed. Those who are looking for a fun all rounder that does most things better than most and has a unique look will love it. They already are from the response the dealers in Northern CA are getting!
  • bgreigbgreig Posts: 17
    Hi,
    Was the dealer able to tell you when a RR Sport ordered this month would arrive?
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    I guess there's more than just 0-60 times, but 7.2 seconds for the 390 HP Supercharged version for the RR Sport isn't that impressive. It's all that heft that has to be hauled around. At 70 grand, it isn't the rocket-ship it's supposed to be. But real world driving may make up for less than stellar 0-60 times.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    There is more to the new Range Rover Sport than 0-60 times such as actually performing off-road.
Sign In or Register to comment.