Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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?
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!
Was the dealer able to tell you when a RR Sport ordered this month would arrive?
If you must "see it in action" now, '05+ Range Rover (not Sport) will give you a clue. Though the UI is the Touchscreen on RR (since there is no separate radio head unit), the actual system is the same on LR3/RRS.
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Ok the power. Really bummed. It is decent from 4K to 6k. It has a nice rumble and kicks great for passing. Off the line, the LR3 is quicker hands down. Now maybe this preview car is tuned down if that makes sense. It had 1100 miles on it. It just did not go anywhere like I had hoped(quick or fast.) A 4.4 RR will give it a challenge from 50 to 70 mph accelatation, unless, again, I am drivng a poor performing SC model.
The car is really quite carved out and it feels super sporty with the console up. It makes one feel as though they are sitting lower in the saddle. The headrest DVD's were cool. This car did not have blue tooth or rear back up camera. Lit said it would, but the sales guide said the camera was only in full size RR. The car had ACC, but I did not try out as we were under a do not damage order due to the fact we were not supposed to be test driving the vehicle. Anyway, I hope I am really wrong. I want RR and LR to be dominant 4wd, but I would say the X5 will kits this guys butt.
my take
mgreene
PDF of the technical specifications: http://apps.us.landrover.com/thenewrush/images/06RRS_Specifications.pdf
First off, we still are better than the Euorpean markets. Considering that a bottle of Snaple soda is more than a gallon of gas, as well as a gallon milk is some areas. Also there are alot of consumer products that in are much higher than gas that are smaller in quantity that a gallon of gas.. Alcohol and or cigerates are higher than gas also.
Through the grape vine there is not a shortage. As before in the 70's it's just a ploy to raise prices That just big business. I'm not agains't the environment, or issues concerning it. As long the vehicals that are prodcued cleaner for it. I do believe that you will see more fuel efficent products coming out. I also think that everyone in the auto industry, as well as an auto enthusiast like's performance. Racing is a big thing around the world, i dought very much if there's an end to it.
Just a thought on gas and issues
Power in the HSE is acceptable and actually better than expected. The supercharged version will definitely haul. What really impressed me was the smooth power delivery--uphill, downhill, or on the flat (compared to X5 and Cay S, not RR/LR3). Some body roll is perceptable at high speeds on corners, but the RRS stuck to the road and refused to cave. My only quibble was what seemed to be a large amount of travel in the brake pedal--seemed like a loooooong way to the bottom. That said, braking was very responsive once you got there (dealer mentioned this might be adjustable).
Some other forums have noted some minor electrical/speedo problems with the initial batch of RRSs, but all these seem easily fixed. The only constant complaint I have seen is the lack of hooks for a cargo net. Would be nice, but I'll get over it.
Did not drive the RR or LR3 (I had already spent an hour in the RRS) but compared the three visually as they were parked side by side. By itself, the RRS appears very similar to the RR, and even next to one another the RRS appears more similar to the RR than the LR3. Stock interior may be similar to the LR3, but with the Lux package the RRS is just as comfortable as the RR.
RRS w/ Lux package had everything I wanted standard. The nav system is the best I have seen--accurate and easy to use. Stability is good for a vehicle of this size/height and the suspension system is both useful and easy to use.
The RR "look" plus the features and capabilities at this price made the decision a no brainer. Put an order in for the next lux blue/black/grey one that comes off the boat.
opinions may vary, but this one is mine...
Cheers,
thanz
Congratulations on your purchase!
How do you find the leg room in the driver's seat (I am
6'4")?
Before upgrading my order to a regular RR, does anyone else have the same opinion about the RRS handling as compared to the RR? Obviously the RR is roomier, more luxurious and costlier BUT from a performance standpoint Is there something I missed when driving the RRS?
Early test reports also indicate that the Jaguar engine is smoother and quieter than the BMW engine.
I have a 2004 RR and last week drove a 2006 Supercharged... seemed quicker (no surprise) but also smoother with an interesting exhaust "burble"
One feature that specialized reviews rave about for on-road handling is Dynamic Response, standard on Supercharged but "delayed availability" on HSE accordin to Land Rover. Anyone knows what that means (next year? This fall?) and is willing to guesstimate how much this optional feature may end up costing on a RRS HSE model?
--
Umberto
I guess it's no longer a "future vehicle" now, since it's officially launched...
I would be interested in finding out how anyone took delivery of a Range Sport before July first since Land Rover had set it up specificly so that now cars could be officialy delivered before July first.
Overall, the system isn't that great. If you don't have the factory system and don't have a compatible "dockable" phone, it's really not very special. Third party systems are far more capable and normally less expensive.
This will be my first Land Rover. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
PS I know there is a list of Approved Phones on the Land Rover Site, but it is rather short, many of them are no longer offereed and none of them are available from Verizon Wireless.
http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/Range_Rover_Sport/Interior/Information%20and%20ent- ertainment.htm
Scroll to the bottom of the page and there is a link to FAQ's, Quick Start guide and List of Phones. The list is unfortunately not very long, well at least the phone I was looking to buy is not on there....however they mention that it will be updated every six months as they test new phones for compatibility.
http://dts.vzw.com/how_to_use/bluetooth_car_kit.html
Of course, the only manufacturer still being "tested" for compatibility with Verizon's skimpy selection of BT phones appears to be Land Rover (the Range Rover - I assume the RRS uses the same Bluetooth kit as the RR). It is interesting that the kit on the Range Rover is Nokia OEM - at least that is what Verizon's chart says. So, I would not hold my breath on Motorola phones working flawlessly with Nokia BT kits, but let's hope for the best...
Anybody else have bluetooth phone experience with Range Rovers (particularly the Sport)?
The sales brochure mentions wireless headphones..
Can anyone verify that headphones are optional?
TIA
I will try to post a photo later today!!