Input on Land Rover Evoque or Porsche Cayenne SUV
08-07-2012, 07:11 AM
#31
Rennlist Member
thanks for kind comments.
I thought that the windscreen would have a small section around the rear view mirror, with out the 'mettalic' film for toll transponders. I know some cars do.
yeah I would love a CTT, but head/wallet said diesel! Fortunately it goes pretty well, as fast as our 4.4 X5, but a whole lot better to drive.
In Oz the diesels are really holding their value.
I thought that the windscreen would have a small section around the rear view mirror, with out the 'mettalic' film for toll transponders. I know some cars do.
yeah I would love a CTT, but head/wallet said diesel! Fortunately it goes pretty well, as fast as our 4.4 X5, but a whole lot better to drive.
In Oz the diesels are really holding their value.
08-07-2012, 11:39 AM
#32
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
We are not getting a turbo one - I want it simpler, less cost, and more reliable.
But we are going to drive a Cayenne so some thread updates later this week.
But we are going to drive a Cayenne so some thread updates later this week.
08-07-2012, 12:40 PM
#33
I currently drive a 2008 RRS S\C and the wife drives a 2008 FFRR. Both have been very reliable, more so than the Lexus GX470, much more than our Cayenne GTS and Cayman. I believe 2008-2009 were the sweet spot for Land Rover reliability - as blazing928 states - thank you Ford. My mother-in-law's 2010 FFRR has had a lot of electrical problems. Always buy a few years out from the model year change. The 2013 FFRR is going to be a radical new design (hopefully), and is suppossed to lose about 1K pounds. Our Rovers are extremely competent off road, very comfortable, and have character. The Cayenne absolutely obliterates the RRS S\C on the road - not even close, but the Cayenne, even with AT tires, simply does not have the traction climbing gravel/grass slopes and mud. Albeit, if I did not need lots of off-road capability, at present, I would be driving a Cayenne.
I really like the Evoque - Ford mechanicals, great interior, fun to drive; but, I think it is overpriced and gives-up a lot of utility and comfort to the Cayenne.
I really like the Evoque - Ford mechanicals, great interior, fun to drive; but, I think it is overpriced and gives-up a lot of utility and comfort to the Cayenne.
08-07-2012, 03:34 PM
#34
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Thank you bg.
That is kind of where we are too. She likes the looks and the "smaller-ness" of the Evoque . She did not test the Sport - or the Supercharged Sport.
I hoped the Evoque would be better all around and more sorted out for mechanicals and relaibility issues. I have to believe the Cayenne is, especially in the 6 cylinder.
Here in Houston we dont have much 4WD, some water, some wind, but if she is in Nebraska with it that all changes. Mud, gravel, snow and ice all come home, so I was expecting the RR to do better than the Cayenne. She is not there much - but we could be more.
I am an outdoorsman, a bit of a country gentlemen now that I am past 50, and so the Rover character fits. She needs to go to horse stuff with the daughter. So I am thinking the Cayenne test drive will sort it out one way or the other. Plus the amount of time on gravel etc.
What would your take on a 2012 or the 2013 RR Sport be if you dont mind saying, or have seen or heard of the relability. If it breaks I will be the one at the car shop, not her, so you see where I am. LOL
I do truly appreciate your input.
At some point I had thought I might get her a Cayenne, sell of my 951 and some other things and get a Cayman, and just be the Porsche garage, along with an older Ford 250 or 350. But I have to say I am not nearly so up on that Porsche idea as I was .
That is kind of where we are too. She likes the looks and the "smaller-ness" of the Evoque . She did not test the Sport - or the Supercharged Sport
. I hoped the Evoque would be better all around and more sorted out for mechanicals and relaibility issues. I have to believe the Cayenne is, especially in the 6 cylinder.
Here in Houston we dont have much 4WD, some water, some wind, but if she is in Nebraska with it that all changes. Mud, gravel, snow and ice all come home, so I was expecting the RR to do better than the Cayenne. She is not there much - but we could be more.
I am an outdoorsman, a bit of a country gentlemen now that I am past 50
, and so the Rover character fits. She needs to go to horse stuff with the daughter. So I am thinking the Cayenne test drive will sort it out one way or the other. Plus the amount of time on gravel etc.What would your take on a 2012 or the 2013 RR Sport be if you dont mind saying, or have seen or heard of the relability. If it breaks I will be the one at the car shop, not her, so you see where I am. LOL
I do truly appreciate your input.
At some point I had thought I might get her a Cayenne, sell of my 951 and some other things and get a Cayman, and just be the Porsche garage, along with an older Ford 250 or 350. But I have to say I am not nearly so up on that Porsche idea as I was .
08-07-2012, 05:51 PM
#35
This is a Cayenne forum - so I will not elaborate.
I really like the 2010+ RRS & S\C, with their primary advantage over my 2008 being the engine and dashboard interface. The new 5.0 liter is much more refined and has gobs of torque - immediately. Really nice to just drive the torque, without having to mash the throttle to merge. The 5.0 S\C is more so with 125 extra hp/lbs. The 2010's had a lot of electronic issues - it seems, but the 2012's seem to have much fewer issues - typical for Rovers.
We have a cattle ranch on the coast just North of Big Sur - lots of very steep jeep trails, marsh, and creek crossings. There have been a few places that my Cayenne with AT tires got stuck, whereas, my LR3, RRS or FFRR never had an issue. The Cayenne seems to spin its tires more, while the Land Rovers are much more "thoughtful" about putting the power down. I attribute this to the Terrain Response System, as I once did not make it up a hill, but realized that I had forgotten to select Mud&Ruts, and still had it in Normal.
Again, on the road the Cayenne is a much more fun and sporty drive, and has much more interior room than the RRS. Even the Evoque has more front seat head room than the RRS. My GTS with the 21" OE wheels/tires matched my Cayman's high-speed corner speed.
With the exception of the Evoque, Land Rovers are trucks.
I really like the 2010+ RRS & S\C, with their primary advantage over my 2008 being the engine and dashboard interface. The new 5.0 liter is much more refined and has gobs of torque - immediately. Really nice to just drive the torque, without having to mash the throttle to merge. The 5.0 S\C is more so with 125 extra hp/lbs. The 2010's had a lot of electronic issues - it seems, but the 2012's seem to have much fewer issues - typical for Rovers.
We have a cattle ranch on the coast just North of Big Sur - lots of very steep jeep trails, marsh, and creek crossings. There have been a few places that my Cayenne with AT tires got stuck, whereas, my LR3, RRS or FFRR never had an issue. The Cayenne seems to spin its tires more, while the Land Rovers are much more "thoughtful" about putting the power down. I attribute this to the Terrain Response System, as I once did not make it up a hill, but realized that I had forgotten to select Mud&Ruts, and still had it in Normal.
Again, on the road the Cayenne is a much more fun and sporty drive, and has much more interior room than the RRS. Even the Evoque has more front seat head room than the RRS. My GTS with the 21" OE wheels/tires matched my Cayman's high-speed corner speed.
With the exception of the Evoque, Land Rovers are trucks.
08-07-2012, 09:32 PM
#36
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The Cayenne has more room than the Sport - wow. I was surprised sitting in the Evoque that is was more roomy than I thought it would be, Front is great - the rear is tighter but ok. Just not for a long trip.
08-08-2012, 01:51 AM
#37
Rennlist Member
Totally agree with bgsntth assesment about RR.
One advantage for the Cayenne is the smaller rims, 18'" [maybe 17" toureg fit] that make it easier and far cheaper to have a second set of winter/mud tyres. We have ordered ours with 18" and will get aftermarket 20" for the 'look'.
RRFF will take a 19" rim and a 3.0lt D4 HSE will also only go down to 19" due to caliper size. The 2.7lt base version D4 uses smaller rims. On the AULRO forum, most feel the pre 07 RR were better off road.
for us our 4wd needs are limited snow and aussie gravel roads, so the cayenne is fine. Besides it also rides better than the RR - a major surprise for me. I think the air suspension Cayenne can also disconnect the anti roll bars when off road modes are selected, allowing greater axle articulation.
i have had a couple of RR classics and early Discos in the family, but not much more off road than the snow.
Now my little Haflinger - that had some real off road ability!!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d43e3rh
One advantage for the Cayenne is the smaller rims, 18'" [maybe 17" toureg fit] that make it easier and far cheaper to have a second set of winter/mud tyres. We have ordered ours with 18" and will get aftermarket 20" for the 'look'.
RRFF will take a 19" rim and a 3.0lt D4 HSE will also only go down to 19" due to caliper size. The 2.7lt base version D4 uses smaller rims. On the AULRO forum, most feel the pre 07 RR were better off road.
for us our 4wd needs are limited snow and aussie gravel roads, so the cayenne is fine. Besides it also rides better than the RR - a major surprise for me. I think the air suspension Cayenne can also disconnect the anti roll bars when off road modes are selected, allowing greater axle articulation.
i have had a couple of RR classics and early Discos in the family, but not much more off road than the snow.
Now my little Haflinger - that had some real off road ability!!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d43e3rh
08-08-2012, 08:27 AM
#38
Instructor
I took the off road track at Leipzig with my CTT and was pretty impressed. The key was having the 18" wheels. My 20" wheels wouldn't have done as well. Also saw this:
08-08-2012, 08:43 AM
#39
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
08-08-2012, 01:55 PM
#42
Sure, I will bite ltc
Going through the S turns before the Waldorf tunnel going South toward the Golden Gate bridge during my commute at 4:30am in the morning, my '09 GTS with PDCC and the 21" Yoko's could take the left hander at 85-90mph and enter the tunnel at about 100mph. The Cayman base with 17" Mich was about 5mph slower. Granted this is driving at about 8/10ths, with each doing a bit of a drift and staying in one lane, VSC off, and my having driven through these turns daily for 15+ years. PC -this only was done when there were no other cars around, with the exception of a Bently GT that goes up the hill at about 100 -130mph - Master of the Universe.
Going through the S turns before the Waldorf tunnel going South toward the Golden Gate bridge during my commute at 4:30am in the morning, my '09 GTS with PDCC and the 21" Yoko's could take the left hander at 85-90mph and enter the tunnel at about 100mph. The Cayman base with 17" Mich was about 5mph slower. Granted this is driving at about 8/10ths, with each doing a bit of a drift and staying in one lane, VSC off, and my having driven through these turns daily for 15+ years. PC -this only was done when there were no other cars around, with the exception of a Bently GT that goes up the hill at about 100 -130mph - Master of the Universe.
08-08-2012, 02:25 PM
#43
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I took the off road track at Leipzig with my CTT and was pretty impressed. The key was having the 18" wheels. My 20" wheels wouldn't have done as well. Also saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ps0QNZoYW4
Gnarly - I hope she does not go quite that far
! Thanks though.
08-08-2012, 05:58 PM
#45
Instructor
Join Date: May 2011
Location: No. California
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, I will bite ltc
Going through the S turns before the Waldorf tunnel going South toward the Golden Gate bridge during my commute at 4:30am in the morning, my '09 GTS with PDCC and the 21" Yoko's could take the left hander at 85-90mph and enter the tunnel at about 100mph. The Cayman base with 17" Mich was about 5mph slower. Granted this is driving at about 8/10ths, with each doing a bit of a drift and staying in one lane, VSC off, and my having driven through these turns daily for 15+ years. PC -this only was done when there were no other cars around, with the exception of a Bently GT that goes up the hill at about 100 -130mph - Master of the Universe.
Going through the S turns before the Waldorf tunnel going South toward the Golden Gate bridge during my commute at 4:30am in the morning, my '09 GTS with PDCC and the 21" Yoko's could take the left hander at 85-90mph and enter the tunnel at about 100mph. The Cayman base with 17" Mich was about 5mph slower. Granted this is driving at about 8/10ths, with each doing a bit of a drift and staying in one lane, VSC off, and my having driven through these turns daily for 15+ years. PC -this only was done when there were no other cars around, with the exception of a Bently GT that goes up the hill at about 100 -130mph - Master of the Universe.