By on December 14, 2012

With the introduction of the new Range Rover already underway, next on the agenda is the smaller Range Rover Sport.

The Range Rover Sport was launched in 2005 and got a facelift in 2010. Next year, Land Rover will finally bring a vastly improved version, which is not only lighter, but better looking too. Codenamed L494, the second generation Range Rover Sport will adopt the new Range Rover’s D4u platform, which is made of aluminum, resulting in an overall weight loss to the tune of nearly 900 lbs.

Interior room will be increased thanks to a longer wheelbase, and a 7-seat version is also rumored. Both the exterior and interior will be influenced from the Range Rover Evoque. The company will offer the same range of diesel and gasoline engines, mated to an 8-speed ZF automatic gearbox. Prices are expected to go northwards with sales starting in the latter half of 2013.

Faisal Ali Khan is the editor of MotorBeam.com, a website covering the automobile industry of India.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

16 Comments on “Upcoming Range Rover Sport Rendered...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It doesn’t seem that different, just more slitty headlamps and more slitty brake lights.

  • avatar
    corntrollio

    Seems like the styling is bigger Evoque, but beyond that doesn’t seem very different.

    I always saw this car as a cheaper car (but not cheap) than a true Range Rover for people who had to have a Range Rover badge. I imagine that makes it profitable. My impression is that it’s not as competent off-road as a Disco/LR3/LR4 or a Range Rover, because it’s a dedicated pavement pounder.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      I suppose you could say the same thing about the 22″ monitor I just chose over the 30″. My wife asked why not the bigger one. I pointed out the extra price and lack of need and we left. Should I feel lesser? I thought we bought her an X3 and later an A5 because she really didn’t want the bigger vehicles, but maybe it’s really because we are peasants with aspirations above our means?

      Either your logic is lacking or my airplane is really embarrassing as it only has a single piston engine rather than the proper pair of turbines. I’ll be sure to pass that along to Angie and Brad as well since she is flying a single engine turbo prop last I heard. Poor thing. (Disclosure, I don’t hang with any famous people or jet owners).

      Okay, that was all over the top, but there actually is something wrong with insulting buyers who choose the entry level, or anything less than the top. It’s not endearing behavior in my mind.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        Dude, have you seen the price tag on a Range Rover Sport? It’s anything but entry-level. Most of the vinyl seat/roll-up window compact truck buyers who comment here would have a heart attack if they saw the Monroney.

        It’s only marginally smaller than a Range Rover (6 inches), and has less utility than a Disco. What question is asked that the Range Rover and the Disco/LR3/LR4 don’t cover and that the RRS does? Other than having a better 0-60 time, I’m not sure.

        It’s a nice rant you wrote there, but it has nothing to do with my comment.

      • 0 avatar
        hubcap

        Single engine turboprops are great airplanes. You get much more utility than VLJs as well as reduced operating costs (I suspect) without giving away much in trip times. The only hit I can really see is increased maintenance expense because of the prop and associated reduction gearing and of course they don’t have the cachet of a jet.

        I don’t know who recommended Pitt-Jolie to go in that direction but I’m sure many current and future VLJ owners should take an objective look at single engine turboprops. They’d be pleasantly surprised.

        And if I had Pitt-Jolie money in addition to the “daily flyer”, I’d have an L-39, a P-51 as well as a helicopter of my choice.

        Is it too late to take acting lessons?

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Corntrollio,

        You said,”I always saw this car as a cheaper car (but not cheap) than a true Range Rover for people who had to have a Range Rover badge.” I believe my rant applied. If your intent was different, good.

        Hubcap,
        The Pilatus is hers. He reportedly does not like that she flies. It’s an excellent plane for an owner pilot which requires much less initial and ongoing training than most jets. It performs much like a King Air without the complexity of the second engine. I suspect many pilots for whom money is no object would choose that plane. Alas, it’s beyond my means and needs. Rarely have I ever filled the seats in my little four seater which isn’t currently flight worthy.

    • 0 avatar

      I don’t like it–at all. I agree that it just looks like they’ve grafted the features of the Evoque onto its larger, more-slabsided brother. Part of the reason it looks so much like the Evoque is because (like the Evoque) it’s missing one of the trademarks of the Range Rover brand: rather than employing vent windows for the rear doors, this car goes for the plastic-triangles…a look that works on the Evoque, but not here on the Sport…

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    So they took a Ford Edge, stretched it and made it a bit more sexy???

  • avatar
    Lynchenstein

    I agree – it’s just another Range Rover. I guess there’s only so much you can do with a box.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Keep poking me with sharp sticks and yelling NO in my face. How much will it cost? Or lease.

  • avatar
    wmba

    “the second generation Range Rover Sport will adopt the new Range Rover’s D4u platform, which is made of aluminum, resulting in an overall weight loss to the tune of nearly 900 lbs.”

    Vehicle weight still over 4750 lbs, so now just obese, rather than morbidly so. Well, the UK motorway police will enjoy them, anyway. I wonder if their models delete the wood trim, leather seats and deep rugs and substitute tin, vinyl and rubber. Nah.

    The bare aluminum body shell of the actual Range Rover weighs just 397 lbs, according to an SAE article, which is amazingly light, only 26 lbs more than the MINI Countryman. The question is, where does the extra 4400 lbs come from? The mind boggles, as the Countryman is a bit of a waddler itself at about 3400 lbs. Must be the 4WD transfer case, airbags and LED lights plus almost six miles of wire. Anyone?

    http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/vehic/11341

  • avatar
    Defender90

    Well this is Land-Rover’s design philosophy nowadays innit?
    Make stuff tailored for rich but unsophicated urban types… as opposed to making stuff for rural types like they used to. It seems to be working though as JLR is making money like nobodies business. I assume that part of the secret of L-Rs new found money making success is making products with less in the way of expensive chassis and heavy duty axles in favour of cheaper independant suspension.
    I don’t like them personally but I imagine Land-Rover can live with the disappointment as I don’t have that sort of disposable income.
    I think the styling says it all and contains far too much bling. Like I say, unsophicated customers: The rise of nouveau riche in the developing world means that we are seeing our streets cluttered with designs that appeal to their tastes.


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
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India