Range Rover V8 Sport Supercharged and ...

[philharve]

Hi All

This Land Rover model is a fairly uncommon sight on British roads but I encountered one this afternoon doing close to 100mph uphill on a bypass close to were I live. I had not a hope in Hell of catching it because it easily out-accelerated my humble C230K. At the speed it was travelling it would clearly provide serious competition even for a big AMG.

I have always regarded Range Rovers, even their top-of-the-range models, as fairly agricultural in origin. However, encountering their new 390bhp Sport Supercharged model is such dramatic circumstances was quite a sobering experience.

I had a similar experience once before when a large white van, a Volkswagen, easily passed my C230K up a steep incline and I wasn't travelling particularly slowly. I don't know what engine it had but it cannot have been standard.

I saw a pink '59 Cadillac Eldorado last weekend and it was in surprisingly good condition for the year. It's the one with huge fins and twinned, bullet-shaped rear lights closely resembling the outline of a rocket ship of the type appearing in early American sci-fi films. The driver - not called Sheilas Wheels - said it was totally original, including its 6.2L engine. I thought this was a posers car but the driver said it was capable of 130mph when new, but only in a straight line.

A few weeks ago I encountered a 1935 boat-tailed Auburn which is the closest thing I've seen to the Batmobile. It's long bonnet hiding a supercharged, 4.6L, straight-8 engine and a folding roof line so low that the windscreen was barely more than a slit. I thought it was a custom car until I noticed the Auburn name. In 1935 a car capable of exceeding 100mph was very rare; this one could manage 110.

I suppose the moral of this story is not to judge the performance of a vehicle by its appearance alone.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day I'm overtaken by a Model T Ford. Wasn't there a Thunderbird (Gerry Anderson: Supermarionation) based on a Model T? Showing my age again.

REGARDS

Phil

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

Please bear in mind it's also slower than the porsche twin turbo and the ML55 - so it shows how fast they are.

 

[ant500sl]

The other point being that due to Land Rovers build quality and the supercharged Jag V8 with the 50k mile Ford timing chain tensioners under the bonnet it would probably have broken down in the next five minutes allowing pretty much any Mercedes from the last fifty years to have soundly beaten it.

 

[philharve]

The other point being that due to Land Rovers build quality and the supercharged Jag V8 with the 50k mile Ford timing chain tensioners under the bonnet it would probably have broken down in the next five minutes allowing pretty much any Mercedes from the last fifty years to have soundly beaten it.

Hi ant500sl

So ... it's a Jaguar engine under the bonnet of this Range Rover! For such a large vehicle it has an impressive turn of speed an faster, I suspect, that most sports cars. I was unaware that it had such a poor reliability record.

Hi Dave's E55 AMG

I've never encountered this model of Land Rover before but it seems indecently fast for a large people carrier. It must be a bit of a beast to drive but it was my impression it handled well? Very thirsty, I expect?

Would the Mercedes ML55 AMG be its nearest German competitor?

REGARDS

Phil

 

[Mark A]

My own experiences of LR/RR having owned V8 versions of both is that I wouldn't touch one again with a barge pole. Reliability is poor with them all - is it a Jaguar or FORD.

What about the ML-63, now that's a beast.

Mark

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

Hi ant500sl

So ... it's a Jaguar engine under the bonnet of this Range Rover! For such a large vehicle it has an impressive turn of speed an faster, I suspect, that most sports cars. I was unaware that it had such a poor reliability record.

Hi Dave's E55 AMG

I've never encountered this model of Land Rover before but it seems indecently fast for a large people carrier. It must be a bit of a beast to drive but it was my impression it handled well? Very thirsty, I expect?

Would the Mercedes ML55 AMG be its nearest German competitor?

REGARDS

Phil

I think the Porsche twin turbo 4x4 is quickist off the mark.

 

[James R]

From my experience of two Discoverys (Mk II and III) I can say that they are neither agricultural or unreliable. In fact the latest one is more than a match for anything Mercedes build, remembering the the old ML didn't have the best reputation for build quality either. I have driven the RR Sport and it is absolutely superb and just as fast as an ML55 (but not ML63 which has the supercharged engine). I would recommend Land Rovers to anyone thes days. The only real agricultural one is the Defender but the others compete on performance and win on price - they're far cheaper than their competitors. Just my experience : don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Speedmaster]

I had a black Porsche Cayenne 4x4 a few years ago (was a 54 plate ex-demo) and had almost every extra but was a truly awful car. Uncomfortable, lot of warranty claims, tyres every 8000 miles and v v v rude Porsche dealer servicing staff. My first Porsche and something I would not rush back to.

A colleague has the Supercharged Range Rover (not the Sport) and loves it. It seems well put together and he has had no problems with it, although you should not expect any for a £70k car

 

[Mark A]

I think the Porsche twin turbo 4x4 is quickist off the mark.

RR Sport - 7.2 (0-60)
ML-63 - 4.8 (0-60)
CayeneTurbo S - 5.0 (0-60)

Mark

 

[Mark A]

From my experience of two Discoverys (Mk II and III) I can say that they are neither agricultural or unreliable. In fact the latest one is more than a match for anything Mercedes build, remembering the the old ML didn't have the best reputation for build quality either. I have driven the RR Sport and it is absolutely superb and just as fast as an ML55 (but not ML63 which has the supercharged engine). I would recommend Land Rovers to anyone thes days. The only real agricultural one is the Defender but the others compete on performance and win on price - they're far cheaper than their competitors. Just my experience : don't shoot the messenger.

My 04 plate Discovery II V8 ES with 25K on the clock needed a new short block due to the liners shifting and a coolant loss. The transfer box started to leak, and the auto box needed replacing twice. My ABS control unit failed as did the pump for the ACE system. Before that my RR Vogue had similar problems. They were nice to drive, but I ended up driving the courtesy cars more often than I did my own car. Early ML's did have a few problems but they were soon overcome and the problems were mainly related to poor finish not design faults.

The ML-55 is still quicker, with a 0-60 of 6.6 vs 7.2 for the RR sport (which is supercharged - so you should compare to the ML-63 which is 4.8 ).

 

[James R]

Well, I can only speak as a I find. My father had a new ML270 and he ended up rejecting the car because it was delivered with a seemingly unrepairable electrical fault. It went in five times before he gave it back.

A Discovery II and a Discovery III are very very different cars. Discovery III is a revelation in comparison.

I don't know. I guess it goes to show that each experience is different and a lot goes down to personal preference. When I did my sums before I bought the Disco, it was significantly better value than the Merc and did just the same job.

 

[Mark A]

Well, I can only speak as a I find. My father had a new ML270 and he ended up rejecting the car because it was delivered with a seemingly unrepairable electrical fault. It went in five times before he gave it back.

A Discovery II and a Discovery III are very very different cars. Discovery III is a revelation in comparison.

I don't know. I guess it goes to show that each experience is different and a lot goes down to personal preference. When I did my sums before I bought the Disco, it was significantly better value than the Merc and did just the same job.

As long as we are all happy with what we have, it doesn't matter what we drive.

Mark

 

[philharve]

I think the Porsche twin turbo 4x4 is quickist off the mark.

Hi Dave

I'm shocked to hear a Range Rover being mentioned in the same sentence as a Porsche. The RR must be good.

REGARDS

Phil

 

[philharve]

Missing the point?

Hi All

Am I missing the point? What is the purpose of having a large, ultra-powerful, 4x4 people carrier (RR, MB, etc) capable of out accelerating most vehicles? Surely a humble Land Rover would be a better performer off road? It seems an odd mix: speed and off road capability. I don't suppose many of these people carriers see much off road use?

REGARDS

Phil

 

[Peter De La Mare]

All the AMG 63 motors are normally aspirated these days.

Supercharging is old hat. Very fuel inefficient. It'll be all turbo's from now on for everyone.

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

RR Sport - 7.2 (0-60)
ML-63 - 4.8 (0-60)
CayeneTurbo S - 5.0 (0-60)

Mark

Thanks Mark, now we know.

 

[scousetechie]

The RR sport isn't exactly a Range Rover, It is built on the Disco III floor pan. Park it next to a Vogue and you will see about a foot difference.

 

[ant500sl]

And heres a site setup by a slightly unhappy owner. And we thought Mercedes lost the plot on quality a few years back!

http://landrover.haveyoursay.com/

 

[The German Flower Pot]

only 2 range rovers id have

overfinch

or

khan

 

[Mark A]

And heres a site setup by a slightly unhappy owner. And we thought Mercedes lost the plot on quality a few years back!

http://landrover.haveyoursay.com/

Looks as if the build quality hasn't got any better, but I think that his frustration was warranted.