By on September 27, 2010

When the Range Rover Sport was first introduced I didn’t much care for it. The shape wasn’t quite right, the interior was too cheap for the price tag, and for a model with “Sport” in its name, it just didn’t seem to have the thrust required even in Supercharged trim. Apparently the Landie headquarters was listening, so for 2010 the Range Rover Sport gets an overhaul, but does it take the Sport from an expensive plastic box to something Jeep owners secretly crave? The boffins at Tata lent us the keys for a week to find out.

There are hundreds of choices for the modern SUV shopper, but when it comes to the ultimate in rugged off-roading there are only two brands that spring to mind: Jeep and Land Rover. While Jeeps certainly go off-road, only one company can claim they are By appointment to Her Majesty the Queen, Manufacturers of Land Rover Vehicles. Of course I have to ask who else would make a “Land Rover vehicle” other than Land Rover?

Royal warrants aside, if luxury is what you seek in your off-road conveyance, then a Range Rover is what the doctor ordered. Despite the fact that Land Rover sales have been lack luster and the brand changes hands more often than the village bicycle, it would appear that Tata (the new owners of the Queen’s favourite off-road brand) has continued where Ford left off improving the quality of the brand’s products. Back in 2004 Ford decided there should be an off-road model with some on-road performance ability and a slightly cheaper price tag. To that end the engineers in the UK took a Discovery 3, tarted it up with Range Rover look-alike sheet metal and stuffed the Range Rover engines inside. The resulting product was not-quite sporty and not-quite a Range Rover, but it did give you some designer looks at outlet pricing.

While the changes for 2010 are not terribly obvious on the outside, and Land Rover has done nothing to correct the silly sloping rear window angle, the interior changes make this a car finally worth the $82,000 price tag (as tested). From the wood trim to the beautifully stitched dashboard, this interior is now world class. Beneath the aromatic leather lies the reality that the 2010 model is merely a facelift of last year’s sport which means that the basic shapes of the dash (and the problems they cause) are still very much alive and well in the 2010.

The navigation screen’s angle makes it impossible to read the screen in bright sunlight, the horn cannot be honked by pressing the centre of the airbag cover (you have to use the two silver coloured bars on either side), and for a vehicle this large there are strangely few cubbies or compartments to stuff your stash. Also on the nag list are iPod and USB connectors that are in the lid of the centre console which means that every time you want to get into the refrigerator in the centre console (worth every penny I must say) your iPod falls into the cold abyss of the fridge. For the price, Rover could have splurged for a connector in one of the two glove boxes in the dash, especially considering that the upper glove box is small enough to make is useless for much else.

Once you press the start button you’ll notice a few other deficiencies. The navigation screen which also controls phone and car functions is far from intuitive, the method of pairing a Bluetooth phone is the most convoluted I have experienced and the process for playing a DVD to entertain rear seat passengers is infuriating. Instead of having a DVD player in the center console or under a seat, it’s stashed behind a very small panel in the rear of the cargo compartment that is completely unlabelled and barely big enough for the changer’s cartridge. Once you have a disc in the changer, you have to turn on each screen individually by means of the nav/control screen up front. Good luck figuring out how the included IR remote control works for controlling the video, we never did. After a solid 45 minutes of fiddling with the DVD player, figuring out how to operate what and setting a destination on the navigation system, I pressed the accelerator to begin my journey and what happened next is nothing short of intoxicating. This nearly three-ton wood and leather wrapped steel box tore down the highway like a wannabe M3.

Motivated by the same engine as the Jaguar XFR, the RR Sport Supercharged’s all new 5.0L V8 cranks out 510HP and 461lb-ft of twist which is some serious power, even for a vehicle of this heft (the 2009 Supercharged model churned out a measly 390HP). Channelling this power to the ground is a 6 speed ZF transmission and the requisite full time all-wheel-drive system that you would expect in a Range Rover.

The best way to describe the power that the Sport Supercharged delivers is: savage. Land Rover claims that the RR Sport Supercharged will do a 0-60 run in 5.9, but I beg to differ. Here at TheTruthAboutCars.com we speak the truth no matter what. I can honestly say I never timed a 0-60 run slower than 5.2 seconds which puts this SUV in some serious company. At first I figured that my G-Tech accelerometer based performance meter was in need of calibration, however a quick trip to my local drag confirmed a 5.15 second time to 60 with no rollout. Feeling like I had been given some crazy modified press car and feeling quite indignant, I managed to convince a local dealer to loan me one for a short while and again timed a 5.2 second run to 60. BMW has long been known to understate the performance of their cars, but Land Rover? Who knew?

This latest generation of the Jaguar AJ V8 incorporates variable valve timing and direction injection giving the 2010 a 15% improvement in fuel economy over the outgoing model. The only quibble I have is that for all the power the RR Sport is practically silent. If only Land Rover’s Indian masters had fitted the Sport Supercharged with the exhaust system out of the XFR… The one problem with the prodigious power the Sport’s engine produces is that the laws of physics still must be obeyed. Rover tried their best by fitting enormous brakes and wide tyres, but when you try to take three [tall] tons into a corner at speed, grip will be limited.

It is on the road that comparisons to the BMW X5 M are inevitable, I tried coaxing one out of BMW but came up short handed and had to visit to my local BMW dealer for an extended test drive. Compared to the X5 M, the Range Rover doesn’t handle as well, nor does it have the same feel and presence on the road, but what it does have is a greater sense of occasion. The M badge on the BMW is accompanied by bulges and flares and a reduction in off-road ability while the Rover is certainly the sleeper in this pair. Despite 510HP, the Sport Supercharged retains the adjustable height dynamic air suspension found on the regular Sport models, which means that you can still ford 27.6 inches of water, climb some rocks on the weekend and stop-light race Mustangs on the way home.

For those that must take their luxury ride where cars fear to tread, the terrain management system makes the process a cinch. Soon to be duplicated in the Ford Explorer and essentially copied by Chrysler for the new Jeep Grand Cherokee, you select the surface you wish to traverse and you let the car’s brain determine what to lock, where to send power and how loud the nannies will yell at you for playing in the mud. Since off-roading in a Range Rover means you’ll probably be dressed in your favourite tweed riding gear, 4×4 information can be commanded to appear on the Range Rover’s nav screen displaying which diffs are locked, the position of the wheels, air suspension ride height and range selection. Just be careful on those rocks, I kerbed two wheels in a parking garage in San Francisco with very little effort.

At the end of the day, the Range Rover Sport Supercharged may just be the ultimate man-wagon: rugged, capable, flashy, and insanely fast. Most owners of an $82,000 SUV may never take it off road but they will nevertheless be comforted by the knowledge that it is capable, just in case the apocalypse happens while you’re on the school run. So if you’re out shopping for a Jaguar but you’re afraid it can’t make it down your gravel drive, then the 2011 Range Rover Sport Supercharged may be chock full of flaws, but it is also just about as close to SUV perfection as it gets.

Readers who are following TTAC on Facebook were given the opportunity to ask reader questions of the 2011 Range Rover Sport Supercharged. If you would like to ask questions of car reviews in progress, or just follow TTAC, checkout our Facebook page. FB fans, here are your answer: Brett W: yes, it can climb that mountain in the background, but I took the easy way, there’s a road that goes up the back. Patrick C: It will not do burnouts, I could find no way of disabling the AWD system, but it will spend plenty of time spinning all four wheels on the grass, wet tarmac, gravel, etc. Tony J: On a 560 mile round trip to Tahoe, highway speeds of 75MPH, going from sea level to ~7,100 feet and rolling hills in-between we averaged 18.8MPG. My daily commute resulted in an average of 18.4 and while stabbing the throttle at every occasion I averaged 14.4.

Land Rover provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

56 Comments on “Review: 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged...”


  • avatar
    grzydj

    Not a big fan of low profile wheels on pseudo off-road looking trucks. Speaking of wheels, those also look like some cheap aftermarket things for some reason. I suppose the XL pizza pan wheels were necessary to clear the huge brakes for this hulking beast.
     
    Also, I do like the poser shots, even though it was never really taken off-road.

  • avatar
    Alex L. Dykes

    Yep, you’re right it was never taken off road and the reason was as you say: the low profile tyres and wheels. I do live in an area with poorly maintained gravel and road base roads and spent many hours flying down them, until I badly kerbed two wheels…

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Long live cheap steelies that can be pounded back into shape with a mallet so they’ll at least hold air and get you to a service station.  (That is as long as your smart enough to carry a small 12v compressor.)

  • avatar
    werewolf34

    This is a poser vehicle for the streets of LA not dirt roads

  • avatar

    Can’t really go off-road. And when I drove an RRS a few years ago I was disappointed by the among of sport in the “Sport.” It’s no BMW X5, much less Porsche Cayenne.
    The reliability picture is unclear. The first few years of the related LR3 remain much worse than average based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. On the other hand, the unrelated LR2 and the LR4 seem to be about average. I don’t have enough data on recent years of the LR3 or the RRS. Would like to.
    To help with the survey, with just about any car:
    http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
     
     
     

    • 0 avatar
      skelly

      I bought a used 2008 RR Sport with 33,000 miles in 2011 because I needed a Schedule 179 business vehicle and didn’t want a Chevy pickup truck. I use my RR for commuting to my construction site which is across the Santa Cruz Mountains from my home in Morgan Hill, CA and I average 19 miles/gal. I have 67,000 miles on the rig now and have had not one problem. I agree with comments about the low profile tires, I’m running 55 series Bridgestone Duellers on it now and they are performing well, better than the previous 50 series Pirelli Scorpions, which cupped. The car runs great, handles fine and feels very secure on the road. I have taken the car off-road in Hollister, CA and it climbs hills like a frigging tank. Nothing short of amazing, just put it in low range and select the terrain type and up you go. I like the 2008 dashboard because its completely analogue with big buttons and knobs that fit my stubby fingers just right. I recommend the vehicle very highly for its quite, solid ride, excellent brakes and comfortable cabin. I feel that the fuel costs are offset by the benefits of the mass, traction, power and crashworthy nature of the vehicle. Economy cars are great, but how much does a day in the intensive care unit run you after you have been injured a traffic collision? I think mass and power trump gas mileage every time in terms of personal economics. I am a True Delta member/data contributor as well.

  • avatar
    jmo

    No mention of ride quality?  How does it compare to the Cayenne or the X5?

    • 0 avatar

      The dynamic air suspension yields a ride that is neither too soft, nor too hard. It works fairly well and doesn’t exhibit any real wallow or “boaty” feel. It is much softer than the X5 or Cayenne, but that is in tune with the overall feel of the RR.

  • avatar
    dswilly

    I’ve always thought this to be a beautiful car and maybe a good family hauler picked up pre-owned on the cheap because they depreciate like crazy.  Too bad the maintenance and upkeep are outrageous plus  the MPG sucks.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      <i>owned on the cheap because they depreciate like crazy</i>
      Really – where did you hear that?  Land Rover Sport has the highest resale value in its class.

      http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&subject=best_resale

    • 0 avatar
      dswilly

      New 80k and I can find two year old ones for under 40k all day with less than 40k miles.  Crazy.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      2 year olds for 40k  - where?  You do know he’s talking about the top of the line Supercharged Sport model?  The base RR Sport starts at 59,654 with a 54,227 invoice.

      http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/landrover/rangeroversport/101162032/prices.html

    • 0 avatar
      dswilly

      Ok fair enough I don’t know my RR’s that well. Whats this one?
      http://www.carmax.com/enus/view-car/default.html?AVi=19&id=6870755&N=4294966590+4294966126&D=90&zip=64113&sY=2008-2011&pD=0&pI=0&pT=400&pC=200&pB=0&No=0&Ep=homepage:homepage%20Make&Rp=R&PP=20&sV=List&CD=240+398+9&Q=be0c090d-2a06-4a39-a7c8-445458c2cbfa

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      d,
       
      That’s the HSE – the base model.

      Also, Land Rover is offering 1.9% financing AND $3,000k cash back.  So, the price people actually pay is about 10k less than the MSRP or about 50k out the door, not including the value of the 1.9%. I seem to recall they were putting upwards of 10k worth of incentives on the hood back in 07/08 so that one might have sold for 44k new.

    • 0 avatar
      dswilly

      Ok so the hold value well enough.  Do you still need the service manager on speed dial?

    • 0 avatar

      Unless it says “Supercharged,” it’s not.

    • 0 avatar
      Brendon from Canada

      @dswilly – no need for a service manager.  I’m well out of warranty (let me knock on a little wood anyway!) on our ’06 LR3, which shares the underpinnings with the RRS…. it’s been as reliable as any other vehicle we’ve owned.   Yeah, yeah, a single person isn’t a viable reference for the brand, there isn’t much data on the vehicles; TrueDelta is probably the best, but I’m not sure it has enough statistically relevent data for these vehicles – and I’m not sure if the “average” owner would participate in TrueDelta.

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      In 3 mins I found 2 or 3 supercharged models for sale at CarMax in the same price range… they have a 2006 supercharged with 27k for $36k.  And CarMax has horrible prices, I am sure one could do even better elsewhere.  Still dont think I would trust the reliability, if someone HAS to have a Rover its better to buy new or lease.

  • avatar
    carguy

    It looks nice but I’d rather have a loaded Jeep GC – it provides enough luxury, better off road capability and less poser baggage for half the price. If you really need the drag numbers then wait for the 6.4 SRT-8.

    • 0 avatar
      Brendon from Canada

      Definitely bang on for the pricing, but the fit/finish (save for the newest JGC) doesn’t come close to matching even the lower end LRs.  Off road in a RRS is also far superior to a stock JGC (there really isn’t much of a comparison!) – again, I haven’t wheeled with a newer JGC, and if you start throwing in aftermarket modifications (which can certainly be incorporated for less $$$) you wouldn’t really have a decent comparison.   From a poseur perspective, you’re likely right – I’ve known only a handful of people that would use a RRS offroad – but they are fun to use that way!

  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    Kerbed two wheels in the parking garage? I would assume Range Rover is quite unhappy with you. Firstly, for damaging their poser wheels. Secondly, for revealing that the off-road business-end of their go-anywhere kit is not up to task.

    Why would anyone, given this vehicle’s abilities, stick on something so fragile and useless?

    I shall now go back to my YJ, with its unglamorous 15-inch steelies shod in BFG AT-KOs, and launch myself airborn off your parking lot curbs. Once my kidneys have recovered from the shock, I will then take my Wrangler and its still-undamaged wheels up the backside of the mountain you avoided while in your fancy-pants queen transporter.

    Lacking an expensive computer and a video display telling me which differentials are engaged, I’ll skip ahead and do it myself, courtesy of Detroit Lockers.

    82,000? Well, sure. If you’re the queen. Living off the subjects’ backs. Where cobblestones and public opinion are your only obstacles in life.
    Otherwise, meh. Keep your chariot, but mind Big Ben. When it strikes midnight, it’ll turn back into a pumpkin.

  • avatar
    Tstag

    The new Jeep GC is a lot better than the model it replaces, but I’d rather have the RR Sport than that. It may not be the fastest but it looks smart and has the nicest interior in it’s class. That said this car can’t have much life left in it. For that reason I’d be inclined to try and wait for the RR Sport replacement, which you just know will slaughter the Jeep and will make life much harder for BMW and Porsche as it will lose some of it’s 4×4 ability to hurt the competition in the performance stakes.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Say what you will about Lexus, the GX and LX are actually quite capable off-roaders.
     
    I’m not sure why these things have the appeal they do.  It’s kind of like wearing a tweed sport coat and deerhunter cap with baggy jeans and ultra-white Nikes.  On their own, both fashions are ok.  Mixed?  Not so much.

  • avatar
    Fonzy

    How does this compare the the LX470?  I know the LX isn’t as quick, but I’ve seen Land Cruisers in some remote places overseas. 

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    SUV’s with low profile tires are targeted at people who are too dumb to know being seen driving one is like carrying a huge sign that says they’re posers.
    Or maybe they are people who genuinely need both a sports car and a 4×4, and can’t do without the best, but have to put up with the limitations of being able to afford only one car.

  • avatar
    ellomdian

    There are 2 of these in the parking lot. Owned as new, though I suspect at least one will go back seeing how much gaudier the new ones are.
    If you want to drive offroad in an expensive car, the Cayenne is MUCH better. If you want to pose, the x5m and G-Wagen are better. How LR manages to sell at all is a mystery.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      “How LR manages to sell at all is a mystery.”
       
      They are by far the best looking.

    • 0 avatar
      didgeplayer

      LOL. The Cayenne can’t go offroad. My friend has one.

    • 0 avatar
      WellHeeled

      Youre clearly clueless if you think the Cayenne is even capable of driving through more than puddles on a sealed road.

      The Range Rover is the most capable offroader in its class by far.
      Try looking for a few youtube videos of cayennes or Mercs or Audis doing any of the rock crawling or mud driving that you see Range Rovers doing!

      You clearly know very little about cars so perhaps stick to your Honda.

  • avatar
    JJ

    It’s a shame RR felt like they needed to give this car all the offroad abilities you would expect from an old school RR because it basically kills any chance this might have had to be a real competitor rather than poser mobile.
    Now it’s sub par on the road to an X5, Cayenne or FX and at the same time it will never be used off road. It just carries all that extra weight and there’s nothing positive to show for it that you’ll ever use. And seriously, even IF some sheikh BP McShell would like to take his luxury SUV offroad, wouldn’t he go with a real RR?
    Since the new Cayenne is so darn ugly, I’d probably go with the FX50S (in Europe the interior materials are a bit nicer) or the good old X5.
    The new RR Evoque, while it will probably considered a bit of a chick car particularly in the US, to me seems to be a more relevant addition to their lineup than the RRS ever was (and it has a sweet looking interior largely devoid of plastic).

  • avatar

    “There are hundreds of choices for the modern SUV shopper, but when it comes to the ultimate in rugged off-roading there are only two brands that spring to mind: Jeep and Land Rover. ”
    I think leaving Toyota out of this sentence is an oversight.  In fact, were I to need a vehicle capable of leaving the road, paved or not, directly after leaving a showroom floor, I’d choose a Toyota over those two brands.
    http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/25586636/129_0912_10_z+2010_toyota_4runner_trail+cadillac_hill.jpg
    or
    http://images.automotive.com/reviews/images/98landcruiser.jpg
     

  • avatar
    blowfish

    Do you still need the service manager on speed dial?

    u need a satellite phone, should u go off rd, most crazy off rd  places u get no cell service.

    It has not been selling too badly.
    U think they will throw in a dsl someday?

  • avatar
    dswilly

    A friend in Switzerland had one custom ordered with all the sport package equipment but with the diesel.  That’s the one I really want.

  • avatar
    StevenJJ

    Yes please.
     
    nb. will mud-plug with the appropriate tyres.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Is that two sets of RCA inputs with composite video?!!!

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Not sure if your amazement is due to the fact that there are AV inputs, or that it is composite video…
      Since it has rear DVD players, AV inputs make sense, they are pretty much par for the course with such systems today, so the kiddies can plug in a Playstation3 in case they’ve already worked through the DVD library.
       
      If you are aghast that it doesn’t have S-video, component or DVI/HDMI, for the size of the screens in one of these, it doesn’t matter.

  • avatar

    From their website, http://www.landrover.com/ca/en/rr/range-rover-sport/ They show a starting price of $73,200 for the Sport (the Autobiography $101,150 base) and by the time you load it you get to $95,275, plus tax, license, etc. before they hand you the keys! (less bartering) Anyone who would subject that kind of investment (Canadian pricing) to the bangs, dings, gouges, etc. of off-roading would have to be one of the stupidest people on earth. An old Jeep for 3 or 4 grand, maybe.

  • avatar
    Eric Ethier

    I find the new Jeep GC much more appealing than this. I find the controls and console look similar to a 2004 Ford F-150 while the Jeep is smooth and tidy. Off-road the Jeep will take this thing no problem and on-road the 2012 SRT8 will demolish it. Price point or not, the Jeep still wins.

    • 0 avatar
      Brendon from Canada

      The new JGC may be more appealing, but I fail to see how you can compare a single RRS to two very different offerings from Jeep and conclude that Jeep wins?   Up until the new JGC, the RRS is fastly superior off-road – whether this holds true with the new JGC, I don’t know – I suspect Jeep would close the gap, but based purely on specs, I doubt would surpass it (though it may!).  On the road, you’re making a comparison to a strictly on road vehicle in the SRT8 – unless the as of yet non-existing 2012 SRT8 is signficantly different then the current one, which has no offroad abiltiy at all… 

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I don’t get the point of this vehicle.  If you are looking for a discount Land Rover, go with one of the LR models.  If you want a Range Rover, spend the bit extra and get the real thing.  The RR Sport Supercharged starts at $75K according to LRs site, with the real RR Supercharged is $95K.  Granted, $20,000 is a lot of money, but not when talking about a purchase of this magnitude.  It’s the equivalent of spending an extra $5K on a $20,000 car which tons of people do to get the leather, premium sound, moonroof, nav, and upgraded wheels.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Was the 5.2 0-60 time with a launch, or were you just flooring it?
     
    It sounds like 0-60 acceleration is greatly benefited by the AWD system. Did you ever do a test to see its 1/4 mile trap speed?

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      The 5.2 was from a stop, using only my right foot, off the brake and then flooring it. It was honestly quite the thrill. I did record the 1/4 mile but I have apparently erased my G-Tech’s saved runs so I cannot accurately quote it. I want to say it was mid-high 13s and about 100-105MPH. Something around there. I barely made it before I ran out of private driveway. The 1/4 mile suffers from the brick-like shape, the gearing, the mass, etc.

  • avatar
    csf

    I just fail to see the point of these vehicles.  I have no doubt they excel off road, but who would take an 80 grand vehicle off roading?  Why do you need an interior of a Jaguar in an off road vehicle?  I guess some need GPS, a DVD system, and 500 hp while hunting wild animals on an African safari.  But as stated, most of these vehicles won’t even be drive off a curb.  These are completely status symbols.  No thanks,  I”ll take my V8 Cadillac STS, my Toyota RAV4, and my Mazda Miata over one Range Rover.  If I really needed a huge SUV I’d get a far more reliable Suburban or Land Cruiser.   I’ll leave the RR to the NFL players, the rap stars, and the spoiled, irresponsible, status crazy soccer moms.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      “I just fail to see the point of these vehicles.  I have no doubt they excel off road, but who would take an 80 grand vehicle off roading?  Why do you need an interior of a Jaguar in an off road vehicle?”
       
      It’s really not intended to be an off-road vehicle; it’s intended to be a fast, tall car that sort of looks like it could go off road.  With those wheels and tires, it would be absolutely useless in the dirt.

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      “I’ll leave the RR to the NFL players, the rap stars, and the spoiled, irresponsible, status crazy soccer moms.”

      – There you go, now you clearly understand the point of these vehicles!

    • 0 avatar
      sledgehammer

      Wow.. you could have summed that up in one sentence.. I AM A BROKE HATER

  • avatar
    Kristjan Ambroz

    Just a brief comment – you might want to replace the ‘sticking in Range Rover engines’ statement. They are lightly adapted Jaguar units and apart from the Supercharged one and the stronger of the 3 litre diesels available in the LR Discovery as well. The only RR specific engine is the 3.6l V8 TDi (now 4l IIRC), which is used in the regular RR and not by Jaguar at all.
     
    As for off-road ability, a G-Wagen (of the not G55 variety) or a Land Cruiser will generally do as well as a LR/RR.

  • avatar
    JD4x4

    Wow- 18 mpg! I’m impressed. I used to work for LRNA but left in 07, and I never really cared for the Sport personally. However, it sounds like a bit of curry in the mix has done some good. :-)
    Btw, even though it’s a crime to put low profile tires & rims on a RR, trust me when I say that even with them on it a good, astute driver can make this puppy kick some serious off-road butt.

  • avatar
    Alex L. Dykes

    As I said in my review, I personally doubt that anyone would take their $80-120K Range Rover off road. Buyers want to know that if they needed to, they could, but other than that they just buy them because they are convinced they need a 4×4 to get to their country home down a short gravel driveway so they leave their XJ8 at their suburban mansion. Whatever floats your boat. I’d take the Jag myself.

  • avatar
    Acubra

    It will be really interesting to see what this pile-o-wires&chips on smart wheels will cost once the warranty is over and some. Say, 150K+ and 10 years.
    I will not be surprised to see mid-teens. Or lower, four-figure and lots of effort and patience required to unload this thing on some poor soul thinking he got a killer deal.
    As for the new Jeep’s GC, it actually makes sense as a fairly multi-purpose vehicle. I only remain suspicious about the new 3.6 engine. It feels kinda weak and has too many “optimized” design solutions for a long-term peace of mind.

  • avatar
    sledgehammer

    I just bought a 2010 rrs supercharged with 17k miles for 56k. Previous car was an 07 x5. Before that was an 02jgc. The rrs is king. And i feel like the freakin king driving it. I laughed at every single comment i have read so far. Poser ? Come on fellas.. you guys are just HATERS! you all know you would drive one if you could, UNLESS you truly think its ugly. Which i doubt. Lets be honest… 99 percent of us dont race up mountains. And 99 percent of us dont have twisty roads or race tracks that we drive every day.. most of us drive around town, and take the occasional road.trip. every once in a while we like to floor it, and like to feel like we kicked a snow storms ass with our “trucks”. Rrs is extremely comfy and luxurious , much more so than the x5 especially on long trips . Yes, the x5 handles better taking a corner doing 40… but really? ? ? The range is faster . Period. X5 was so so in snow. Jgc was better but was a cheap plastic feeling piece of junk. And probably still is. At the end of the day, its pure king of the road feeling driving this thing. There isnt an suv out there i would take over this. Srt8? Slower. And cheap. Infinity ? Ugly.ugly. and, oh yea , ugly. X5? Uncomfortable. And an interior design thats still stuck in the 90s .


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India