eugkim

I've been looking for a new set of wheels for a while. I finally got it down to a CT, but I walked into a Land Rover dealer today and got info about the RR Sport. I had seen writeups in numerous mags (CAR, R&T, C&D, Automobile), but it seems that the supercharged RR Sport doesn't have the power of the CT. It's got more than the CS, but it's actually slower than an X5 4.8. The CAR writeup (always biased towards the British cars) liked it over the CT and the 4.8, but they were driving on a snowy racetrack. The RR had a huge edge in the snow - all had 20" wheels, but I believe the RR comes with all seasons. The BMW and the CT were getting stuck in snow drifts.

Anyway, the reason the RR is coming into play - I would have the ablitly to get it pretty close to invoice. The first supercharged ones are arriving at the dealer in June. The Porsche dealer has quoted 91K for a 99K MSRP CT. The base price for a supercharged RR S is about 69K, probably close to 78K loaded. I would think that invoice might be high 60's. When you do the math, that 30K put into the down market now will do some damage in 20 years.

I decided to wait to drive the RR Sport in June before I make a decision. If it drives like a RR or the LR3, it doesn't matter to me how much less it costs. However, the reviews I saw seem to say that it handles like it should be driven on a track. If that's the case, I may be able to settle for 390 HP instead of 450. My wife may actually be in favor of staying with the Porsche, though.

Any thoughts?

cobalt

I am sure it is very nice. It is a considerably larger vehicle. If you like the lines, the size and the price then go for it.

For me nothing comes close to the CT for driving pleasure SUV style. I wouldn't own an RR myself but thats just my needs coming into play. It concerns me that they are supplying a high powered vehicle like this with all season rubber. Why would you want a vehicle this size with all that power and not have the best rubber to use the power safely?

eugkim

Actually, the RR Sport is based on the LR3 platform, so its wheelbase and width are smaller than the RR. Basically, it's the look of a RR in the size of an LR3. I would agree with you that the RR is a very bulbous looking vehicle, but CAR describes the RR Sport as a real looker, actually smaller than the Cayenne, albeit taller.

In terms of the rubber, I thought I read that Land Rover doesn't want to sell its cars without all season rubber. They set an electronic limit at 145 MPH if I recall.

Having said everything, I kind of doubt that I'll end up with a Land Rover. I'm almost scared to death about the build quality. Plus, I'm infatuated with the CT. If the one sitting on the dealer lot is there in a month or 2, and they drop their price demand, I'll probably bite. I've had serious issues with the dealer in the past in both sales and service, and I've made it known that they'll have to almost stop short of giving me oral sex to regain my business. We'll have to see how accomadating they're going to be.

ozr

...it's ACTUALLY slower, than BOTH above.

Going back to Cayennes...FORGET about comparing your RRSuper with CayTT!..It is slower, than CayS, eventhough having more HP "on paper"...may be it is NOT using it?..

...there could be ANY OTHER criteria for your selection of RRSuper, but performance IS NOT ONE OF THEM...and for these all other functionality criterias a cheaper RR V8="a one step down alternative..." is a smarter choice...

In my opinion, this car is a "competition looser" even before it was born!

...here are performance reference figures for your selection...

RRSuper:
Technical data V8-Kompressor, in front lengthwise built • capacity 4197 cm³ • achievement 291 KW (396 HP) with 5750/min • torque 560 Nm with 3500/min • permanent all-wheel drive • six-course mechanism • independent suspension with pneumatic cushioning • trunk 535/2122 litre • tank of 105 litres • L/B/H 4972/1956/1902 mm • tire 255/50 R 20 • unloaded weight 2632 kg • point 210 km/h (abgeregelt) • 0-100 km into 7,5 s • consumption 16.0 l/100 km • price 99,900 euro

...more at:

http://translate.google.com/translat...de54406ed35b88

ISUK

eugkim,

I'm in the UK and have now seen quite a few RR Sports being driven around on transporter trucks near the factory. It is a VERY good looking SUV, particularly in silver or black and has lots of prescence. It looks like the original RR in silhouette due to the angle of the rear screen. You will not be disappointed by it's looks I'm sure but I obviously can't comment on performance as I've only read road tests in magazines as well. The performance is blunted by the weight as Land Rover have opted to give the car serious off road ability to protect their brand image. This means it has two chassis like the new Discovery (LR3 in America) and is much heavier than either an X5 or a Cayenne as a result.

ltc

I'm sure you will be thrilled with the Cayenne build quality

Texas993

I actually saw a RR Sport a couple of months ago with Manufacturer plates. I thought it looked cool. But it was no Cayenne.

jhunt@huntinter

There is also a Range Rover Supercharged version based on the existing Range Rover. Firmer suspension, more hp, brembo's, same body.

The Sport is based on the LR3, that is a dissapointment if you ask me. Something closer to the Range Stormer would have been cool.

thomas

The Land Rover Range Rover has been revised for 2006 and a new model, the Range Rover Sport joins it. The Range Rover Sport uses 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."



The 2006 Land Rover LR3, Range Rover, and Range Rover Sport will have an available 4.4 liter 300 hp V-8. It is based on Jaguar's 4.2 liter V-8, but it is modified for more low-end torque and off-road driving. Jaguar's 4.2 liter V-8 does not have the potential timing chain tensioner or nikasil problems of the old 4.0 liter V-8 from the 97-00 XK8. The 2006 LR3, Range Rover, and Range Rover Sport will get a 6 speed ZF automatic transmission.

A 4.2 liter 390 hp supercharged V-8 (from the aluminum XJR) is available for both the Range Rover Sport and Range Rover. The new 4.4 liter V-8 is expected to have better fuel economy than the outgoing BMW V-8.

Enhancements for the 2006 Range Rover include

Dynamics: Sharper steering, crisper braking performance, and improved air suspension.

Refinement: A quieter interior and additional color combinations.

Technology: Adaptive headlights, tire-pressure monitoring, touch-screen control for audio, phone and off-road driving information.

Safety: A rear-view camera that projects directly to the front-fascia screen.

Entertainment: Available rear seat entertainment package featuring a six-disc DVD changer, twin screens, and headphone pods, all fully integrated with the vehicle’s sound system.

Here are pictures of the new Range Rover Sport

New Range Rover Sport

Reefminis

I owned an '03 Range Rover and absolutely loved it. I drove an '05 LR3 and thought it actually was a very nice car. It drove great, rode great, and yes the build quality was not as nice as my RR but I didn't expect that the materials to be the same quaity in a car $25grand less. But I have also driven a few CTT's , and as much as I am a Land Rover fan the Cayenne, without doubt, be my next car to park beside my '03 C4 Cabrio.

Nothing I have driven, drives anything less like an SUV, and still is, like the CTT. I'm curious to drive a new RR Supercharged Sport , but I still won't buy one.........even though those HK Logic 7 sound systems are phenomenal!

jhunt@huntinter

According to CAR the reason Porsche is increasing the HP of they Cayenne S and T is due to the RR Sport introduction.

jumper5836

Unlike the Cayenne or BMW the RR depreciates like a rock in water.
The RR interior while it looks nice and is spacious, has a problem of wearing out so that the plastic coating rubs off. Very poor quality.

Since the RR is 2.5 tons the brakes pads wear out at 60 k (km) which they charge $800 canadian to change them out, that including the $40 dollars to reset the computer indicator for the front brake pads and another $40 to reset the rear. $80 dollars to hook up a computer and click the mouse is a rip. I think they could have but bigger better brakes on the RR.

The tail lights don't have separate pieces and are one component so if you happen to crack one which I did cost $500 canadian to fix.

All these problems with there Flag ship vechical and then they go and make a cheap look-a-like RR version of it. Talk about throwing **** into their existing customers faces who paid big bucks to drive a car that doesn't have a cheaper economy version of it.

I am also unsure of the engine update, I would much prefer the lower HP BMW engine then a Jaguar engine.

I love the look and the space the RR offers but I would have to say go with a Cayenne unless you want to lose a lot of money and have a lot of head aches.

I would defiantly get rid of mine but I don't want to lose all that money right now at this time. So I am going to wait it out. Waiting for a Cayenne Hybrid, if Porsche doesn't go with the Lexus Hybrid technology then I may go with a Lexus Hybrid or the VW Toureg Diesel.

DMin

I have had my Cayenne Turbo for 24 hours now, having traded in a supercharged '05 H2 for it. I absolutely love it. The interior fit and finish is fantastic. I also got a great deal from my local dealer, but this was mostly because they consider me to be a good customer. I essentially traded in my H2 (valued at $47,000) for a single pay 30 month lease from Porsche financial.

We essentially just exchanged keys. I feel bad because I think I got so much the better end of the deal.

P-Car944

The Cayenne Turbo is a Porsche and drives like a Porsche. The Range Rover drives like a brick.

Jared W.

I have driven the BMW 4.4, Cayenne Turbo, Cayenne S, and 04 Range Rover (not the new sport of course). The BMW feels the lightest of the bunch ( I am sure it is). The BMW has more pickup than the Cayenne S, even with less horsepower. The Range Rover feels heavy, has the least pickup, and has a truly "truck" vibe to it. The Range Rover and the Cayenne have the best interiors (Cayenne full leather is all I have experience with). All that said, the Cayenne Turbo blows the rest away. It's fast, fun to drive, decent off road (in snow at least) and feels closer to a sports car than any other SUV I've driven. Of course, it's no 911, but if you need the space its the next best thing in my opinion. Even with 390 HP, I doubt the RR Sport will match it.