Ibanez

Someone help me out here. I have an '02 911 twin turbo and a '02 Dodge Durango R/T (among others) and was waiting for the Cayenne to come out so I could sell my Durango to a friend and get the Cayenne TT. However, given the fact that a Cayenne TT with a few options, tax and license will cost $105k-$110k (for a first year and first time SUV) I have decided to not get the Cayenne (styling aside) as I can't justify the price for this truck (its almost as much as my Turbo). I was at a Range Rover dealer the other day, and checked out the new Range Rover. For $73k, you get a fully loaded Rover. Now I am distressed about the 9.6 0-60 and the skid pad ratings, but honestly, someone give me justification for buying the Cayenne. As a loyal Porsche owner and buyer, I can't justify buying it. If the Range Rover were a little quicker, there wouldn't even be a debate over which one to choose.

Rob in WA

Two very different vehicles, if you plan on doing a lot of serious off roading go w/the Rover. I love mine. I heard that the BMW 4.4 in the Rover will only last a year or two w/the new Ford ownership of LR though. Coming froma Durango the Rover will feel a bit doggish. When they gave me one as a loaner when my Rover was getting serviced. I remember thinking if they put the Durango's motor in the Rover it would be the ultimate SUV. You already have your 996 TT if you want to go fast. Both are basically first year runs. If you can wait, at least drive the Cayenne though, w/the air suspension in the Turbo it could prove to be an off - road contender w/the RR. Tough choice -

Ibanez

Wasn't your Rover reaaallly slow? The reviews I read said the new Rover is over a second faster than the old one (I guess its all relative).

I won't be doing serious offroading. Given that I want a luxury SUV (not a Ford or GMC) the Rover seems like a relative bargain. However, it is a pig. Unless the Cayenne is truly amazing, I don't see it as a possibility (its a rip off) and BMW is out for me (don't like them; too middle market and too common). Dammit, why did Porsche have to stick its head up its ***. If it had priced it in the same range as the Range Rover and X5 it would have been a great seller. Instead, I think it is going to be a mistake (and that is a shame because I am a true Porschephile).

Bob S. 1984 Silver

Why not look into the VW equivalent of the Cayenne...The Touraug? Same vehicle, much more reasonable price.

As for the deposit, I have been told by fellow PCA members that it is non-refundable, but I do not know this for a fact.

Rob in WA

I have the 4.6l motor in mine and IMHO it's really not that slow, especially in sport mode. I came from a Jeep Grand Cherokee and that's why I went w/the 4.6l. The only SUV I've driven (and that's a lot ) that felt faster are the Durango and the X-5. I love the way the Rover cruises on the highway, in addition it can go places where virtually no other vehicle can go. If your not going to do any off roading it's probably a waste of money. Like having a Porsche and not pushing it's limits...

Burnham

How about getting an Overfinch Range Rover, they are the best in bespoke Range Rovers after all....not sure how you would go about getting it across the pond though!

<a href="http://www.overfinch.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.overfinch.co.uk/</a>

Ibanez

I am in California so all deposits are refundable. The Dealer told me that when you actually order the car then you have to give them a $5,000 non-refundable deposit (had to give them a $1,000 refundable deposit to get a place in line last year). Hopefully I can flip my place in line if I don't get the Cayenne.

VW is an option, but a VW is still a VW and I drive more upscale cars (not trying to sound snotty, that is just reality). The VW will actually have better engine choices. I think it will be like VW vs Audi. Passat and A4 are same car, the Audi is just a bit classier (and more expensive).

What year was your Rover? I called Dinan and they said no plans to make any mods to the BMW engine in the new Rover. It did feel like it had a little get up and go when in sport mode, but I was on a test drive and was only on city streets.

Flying Finn

[quote]Originally posted by Ibanez:
[QB]...VW is an option, but a VW is still a VW and I drive more upscale cars (not trying to sound snotty, that is just reality)...QB]<hr></blockquote>

Why don't you get Cayenne S then?
It's less expensive (than TT) and you'll get the badge you're after.

Ibanez

Its not the badge (already have that). Its a price vs performance vs cost issue. The S doesn't even equate.

Flying Finn

[quote]Originally posted by Ibanez:
<strong>Its not the badge (already have that). Its a price vs performance vs cost issue. The S doesn't even equate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then Tuareg or BMW should do the trick?

John Murray

If it really is a performance VS. cost issue, then why do you have a 996TT??

Z06.....


Of course you will tell me that it is cheesey American blah, blah, blah....

Same with the Cayenne. The Rover will not be able to compare.


My opinion and its correct.

Ha ha.

Anir

Ibanez,

We've owned a '03 RR for about 6 weeks and 2000 miles, and thus far, it's the best car I've ever owned after the 993TT. My wife feels the same way, and she gladly traded in her '02 BMW M3 SMG to purchase this truck.

With respect to luxury, I'd take the RR any day over my previous 2000 MB S500 Sport. The interior is incredibly beautiful, well-executed, and supremely comfortable for long hauls. Never having owned a truck before, I love the commanding view of the road that the RR provides. You literally sit higher than just about anything else on the road (including most trucks short of an Excursion), yet the car does not seem top-heavy for a 5300 lb. SUV. I suspect that the heavy use of aluminum, particularly in the upper body panels partially explains this, as does the sophisticated air suspension. It's a huge improvement over the previous gneration RR, and the current Discovery.

The BMW-sourced 5-speed auto transmission is buttery smooth, and really does hold a gear nicely during acceleration when in Sports mode.

On the issue of power: Of course, it's no Cayenne TT, but I've never had a problem merging into fast-moving highway traffic, nor cruising along at 90-100 mph on open roads.

I also tried to talk myself into a Cayenne, but for me, it's simply too ugly, too car-like, and too pricey for a truck. The RR has heritage, true off-road capability, elegant yet functional lines, and excellent on-road behavior. Not to mention the $1.4 billion in development that BMW put into it before passing the finished product to Ford. That amount of money can pay for a lot of excellent engineering.

Not that it matters, but I've noticed that the RR gets more admiring looks and compliments than any car I've ever owned, 993TT included. Weird, aye?

Gripes? Lack of a current 3rd row seat, although I've been told by the dealer that an aftermarket version will become available. We finally purchased an SUV primarily to tow a track car and haul people, so the lack of seating for 7 is a shortcoming. Of course, I'd take 400 hp and 500 ft-lb of torque if they ever offered it. For me, the vehicle is otherwise just about perfect.

Good luck with your decision. Teasers can be found below.





A truck that looks like a truck, not a dying catfish gasping its last breath. <img src="graemlins/icon107.gif" border="0" alt="[icon107]" />

Rob in WA

I drove the new Rover and I wasn't that impressed. I don't like the interior, torque's about the same, and the 0-60 mph time is the same. Though like I said, if your not going off road the Rover is not for you.

Anir

[quote]Originally posted by Rob in WA:
<strong>I drove the new Rover and I wasn't that impressed. I don't like the interior, torque's about the same, and the 0-60 mph time is the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Rob,

It's not all about 0-60 times except in Motor Trend land. I've driven several versions of the RR, including a 4.6, and I can assure you that the cruising ability, handling, interior noise levels, and overall refinement is light-years better in the new model. I believe the official towing capacity has improved by 1,000 - 2,000 lbs. as well, which is important to me since I plan to use the RR to tow a track car.


[quote]Originally posted by Rob in WA:
<strong>Though like I said, if your not going off road the Rover is not for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

With the new RR having such excellent on-road manners and luxury, I have difficulty understanding this logic. Although the RR excels off-road, it's also a very valid alternative to a traditional luxury sedan on-road - even if you never plan to go mudding or rock-climbing.

Should we all avoid high-performance vehicles in the U.S. because of the lack of an autobahn? How about avoiding cabriolets in areas with frequent rainfall, since you can't use the cab every day?

I sure hope you take your 993 to the track on a regular basis. Otherwise, you are really not using that car to its full potential either.

Rob in WA

Amir - I'm sure you're new Rover is REALLY, REALLY, nice. By "that" impressed, I meant enough to trade in for a new one. Especially since my service manager has advised me that Ford plans on redesigning it and the BMW motor will only be in it a year or two. The only reason I mentioned the 0-60 time is because Ibanez seemed to be concerned w/it; 9.6 secs is nothing to brag about (Like John Murray said if I was that concerned w/0-60 times do you think I'd be driving a Porsche?). The towing capacity is the same in both the new and the previous Rover at 7,700 lbs. You could tow two track cars with it, though I prefer to drive to the track w/the top down.(I do tow my boats and stuff w/it and I use it on approaches for climbs, etc.) I don't see the Rover as a valid alternative to a luxury sedan at all. You give up a lot (acceleration, handling, braking) because of it's off road prowess.

BTW I have a 996.