jhunt@huntinter

You got rooked. I just had my 2003 RR brakes replaced (fronts) for a couple of hundred dollars total and that was at 48,000 miles. Just did my first set of tires as well.

I agree with you on the plastics coating, they need a better solution.

John

jumper5836

Maybe I didn't get rooked, I had all brake pads replaced.
My guess it that the rear ones didn't need to be done, and they screwed me on that.
Also the computer indicator for brakes pad wear is way off. I went in for the service 2 months after the indicator went off. I asked how they were was they replaced them and they told me I couldn't have waited another month. I told them that that the sensor started warning me 2 months ago and they were surprised.

For the Guy who said it drives like a brick. You must have never driven one. It drives like Jesus walking on water. Honestly its the softest ride I've ever had. The 2003 and up RR has a lot more peep to it also and the engine sounds great.
Its not a sports car, its a truck. Big difference. Also I could probably fit a Cayenne in the back of it.

cobalt

I agree they are very smooth over the road. IMO too smooth for my tastes but to each his own. The suspension absorbs all the little bumps and jolts that you feel in the CT. I personally like to be in touch with the road and prefer the feel of the CT better.

I also agree that they have much more pep then one would think. Not so fast off the line but once moving they are more than fast enough.

They are also very roomy and luxurious inside. If you have more than one child they can be rather accommodating.

jhunt@huntinter

The dash warning is triggered when a small wire that is threaded in a slot on the pad breaks. The pads have to wear down pretty low before the wire touches the rotor and breaks.

kris

This week-end saw the launch of the Range Rover Sport down here. I grabbed the opportunity to take one for a (on road only) test drive. Our family car is 98 Range Rover P38 Turbo Diesel, about as slow as you can get but great for mama to drive three kids around. The two cars, P38 and Sport, are a world apart although from a distance a novice could mix them up quite easily. Comfort levels and build quality seem much higher than before. Ford has done a good job here, much better than BMW ever did. Driver's position is excellent and the central console is just how it should be, wide and giving you the feeling you're sitting in a Learjet. Some of the interior bits are a bit cheapish like the door handles but all in all it gives a very solid feel, the kids had plenty of room in the back. The model I drove had the 6 speed auto combined with the Ford/PSA V6 Diesel. Very smooth driver but off course no comparison to the Cayenne or the Supercharger. Top Gear had a nice test drive involving a Challenger tank where the off-road capabilities of the car were just spectacular when you imagine the RR had the 20 inch wheels on it. If you can download it somewhere it really is worth looking at.

philg3

Drove a RR Sport yesterday; very nice in many respects. Best looking SUV IMO, comes with virtually every option as standard, far superior NAV system -- DVD based, Voice and Touch Screen. Best driving RR I've every driven. Am definately considering buying one in the future; not good news for PCNA. Power is OK, but no where near a CT, or probably a CS, for that matter. BTW, vehicle is the right size as I always felt the RR was too big. Standard version is about $57K, but you get a lot for that. BTW, my wife loved it and is considering swapping her E500 for one.

PogueMoHone

Looked at it, don't really care for it. I don't like the lift at the rear, prefer the fold down lid on the RR.

Ths proportions are weird, and they want $5K over sticker, as well as $10K over sticker for the supercharged versions (RR too!)

The RR is still the better way to go (IMO) I now wonder about the reliability of the Jaguar engine versus the BMW

philg3

Colm,

Since you and I live in the same city, chances are you went to the same dealer on Steven's Creek, and yes the black demo was marked up by $5k, and was the first and only vehicle they had with a few more expected this week. Tom, the sales guy told me that they only marked it up because they wanted to keep it as a demo, but they would be happy to sell it to anyone who was willing to pay the extra $5K. He was willing to look up the vehicles that were on the way, and said he would sell me one at sticker. Right now I'm not that interested, maybe in a year or two. Let's see how reliable they are, and I won't pay list. All I'm saying is, IMO, it's a very competitive vehicle.

PogueMoHone

Philg3,

Yes, we went to the same dealer. I'm with you on not even paying list...but ilike the size of the RR..as an addition to the Cayenne, not a replacement.

911-TOUR

My wife and I bought a LR3 in Feb, our first LR. We were a bit hesitant about LR's history of build quality problems and expensive repairs, but were frankly blown away by the LR3. It's not a race car like the Cayenne, but it's probably the best all-around SUV on the market...and we couldn't be happier. LR is definitely on the right path w.r.t. customers. Now if I could spare another 70K I'd trade my Lexus sedan for the RR sport. Grin.

My 993 is plenty of porsche for me.

cheers,

sean

Carrera GT

It's hard to unravel some of the misinformation and contradictions in this thread, but I'm at the same decision, although I'm looking at the Range Rover Supercharged (catchy name, not) versus the Cayenne Turbo. These two are direct competitors, the RR Sport is, as already mentioned, a smaller Range Rover body styled for "sport" and dropped on the smaller, less sophisticated underpinnings of the conventional Land Rover chassis dating back into the 90's, if not the 80's. The Range Rover is based on the entirely new chassis developed by BMW and sold for a song to Ford. Ford has addressed shortcomings in the four-wheel independent suspension design by programming some very clever behaviour to mimic a fixed beam axle off-road while using the previously discontinued Discover technology to all but eliminate body roll while cornering on road at speed. Very impressive handling on- and off-road and very comfortable to be in a tall-standing SUV without having to brace a knee just to maintain pace through corners. The new engines are "Jaguar" engines ... whatever that really means, but, if nothing else, it will be interesting to go shopping for Jag and other Ford brands in their after-market and accessory catalogues.

The Turbo still works out more expensive than the RRSC regardless of options, but the difference is a single digit percentage, so I won't try to fool myself into a "bang for buck" comparison. It's just irksome to be paying another $10K+ in options for over-priced technology that's not even at the state of the art. Grumble...

In short, for my decision points, the RRSC is a clear winner in terms of luxury, refinement and cachet while the Turbo wins in terms of raw power (if you can overlook the insane level of turbo lag, which I can remedy) and the significantly higher levels of power available with a visit to a good tuner.

My "died in the wool Porschephile" life gives the nod to the Turbo, but I fully expect my wife will end up in the RRSC to replace the current Rangey.

philg3

While I like the RRS, the luxury package includes a heated windshield that has small grids throughout. I found it to be annoying, but maybe it's something you get use to.

The nice thing about the Cayenne is that it's been out a couple of years, and for the most part, is a known quantity. It seems reliable, and most of the buggy software has been fixed -- at least to some degree. The RRS has some real good stuff, but is a new vehicle with some risk, is much slower than the Cayenne -- 0 - 60, and since it's new, dealers most likely will want sticker.

Carrera GT

When the first of the BMW Rangies came to the US, it had some bugs, which was pretty annoying and I'd assume the next one will have at least something happen, but really not much has changed and the "modular" engineering approach tends to limit the extent and severity of problems even when the model change includes a power-train transplant.

As for the windscreen/windshield heater, it's great in the snow and you really do not "see" it once your focus is on the road. I've lived with it for years and it's nothing.

As for 0-60-0, I'm not sure the supercharged car would lose that game, it has bigger stoppers in front and the Cayenne Turbo has lag. There's still no question in my mind the Cayenne is the performer of the two.

mudman2

I agree with most of the comments here hence my seeking a test drive while I was having a week off and getting my pepperes state inspection.

The RRSC does fit the lux bill nicely but it does not drive like anything special, its target customeris the Luxo buyer who wants a more sporty look.

It still a Discovery tho' I dont care what anyone says, just drive it and see. I hope its more reliable in this new guise..

Carrera GT

Again, just to clarify, the Range Rover Sport is a Discovery (which was developed as a lower model using an earlier Range Rover chassis) or LR3 as it's called today. The Range Rover Supercharged (idiotic name) is actually a Range Rover and should -- although I'm yet to find time to go in and drive one -- be quieter and handle a lot better than the out-going model of 2004-5.