test drove the Range Rover today

[MEnthusiast]

We are always wondering what will replace our 525it and lately we've been admiring the Range Rover. So I went to test it out.

I think its a great vehicle! It drives very much like a tall E38 7 series up until 7/10ths driving. I didnt go beyond that point but my guess is it would get a little dramatic.

Acceleration- yes it could use more power, but its more than adequate- so long as you dont desire Cayenne turbo performance.

Handling- surprisingly manageable. The vehicle drives much smaller than it looks and the steering doesnt have tremendous feedback, but it makes you feel confident and has nice weighting

Body roll- more than a sedan for sure, but not as dramatic as you would expect from a "truck"

Brakes- very strong and reassuring- although the measured 70-0 stopping distance seems long compared to a 5 series- consider this truck weighs nearly 2000 lbs more!!!

interior- although I could find places where they cut costs on some materials, the overall sense is one of high quality and the atmosphere is extremely clean and classy. controls are logically placed and pretty easy to figure out.

nav system- its the old system from the E39- CD based and not as pretty looking. this was one of 2 dissapointments

the other dissapointment was the lack of integrated phone- the dealer says they just dont offer it since most people just get aftermarket companies to install phones.

these are 2 minor dissapointments that are quickly forgotten because the rest of the vehicle is so right.

Overall I am very impressed!

Comparing to an X5- while the RR feels smaller than its size, it still feels like a larger vehicle, especially compared to the X5. If you will the RR is more of a E38 up high while the X5 is more of an E39 up high. I think my wife will retain the X5, but as a foul weather family hauler, for me, I think I found what I am looking for- best of all- no idrive!

[TCM]

I must admit that I am quite smitten by the new Range. I love the looks and the stance of the truck. The fact that it has BMW underpinnings up until next year make it even better. My only worries would be how will Range Rover get your BMW parts replaced when they switch the underpinnings over to Ford next year? Are they going to continue offering BMW replacement parts or will it be a hassle to search for them. Other then that, I can see no reason not to get the Range.

[pdiack]

The Range Rover is stunning, but I've been concerned about storage ability - how do you think it compares with the X5(not exactly a benchmark, but a comparison nonetheless).

Also, have you compared the Range Rover with the Cayenne? I think that would be a great comparison...

[MEnthusiast]

TCM,
Whoa- next year? Are you sure? The dealer told me the RR will retain the BMW licensed engine, etc for the entire model run. If what you say is correct, then that might change my time table a little bit.

pdiack,
Heres a quick comparison:

power: Cayenne wins with 340bhp vs. 282 in the RR

weight: Cayenne wins with ~5000 lbs vs ~5400 for the RR

0-60: Cayenne wins with ~7.2 seconds vs ~9.6 seconds for the RR

Top Speed: Cayenne wins with 150mph vs 130mph.

Fuel Economy: Cayenne wins with 13/18 vs. 12/16

Cargo: even- both have 19 cuft. The X5 has 16.

Price: I cant do a fair comparison since the Porsche car configurator wont load properly. Base prices are: $55,900 for the Cayenne vs. $69,995 for the RR. However, consider that with the Cayenne much is optional and with the RR much is included.

So the Cayenne has the numbers. IMHO the RR has the feel.

Having driven a Cayenne S for around the same time as the RR so far, I would characterize the Cayenne S as driving like an elevated MB S class; whereas the RR drives like an elevated E38 7 series. Here are some observations I made on both:

Engine: Both are smooth- but the Cayennes doesnt feel as powerful as its numbers suggest. The RR doesnt feel as slow as the 0-60 number, but I bet it really does take that long to go 0-60. The RR will not win too may stop light wars. Its kind of like my 525it in that respect- once its underway its more than fine. And as you know BMW engines have a way of feeling more powerful than they are. Once you have that 5400lb mass under way, well you know physics- an object that is in motion tends to stay in motion. Overall Id characterize the RR engine as having grunt- while Id say the Cayenne has refinement. I like grunt!

Throttle: the Cayenne's feels somewhat vauge- which was a surprise and the transmission is not geared to kick down at high way speeds the way the X5 or the RR does. I didnt like this at all. Instead of a jolt of power upon fully depressing the throttle, you get a smooth rush of power- this is very much like driving a S500. I like the BMW way of that kick down jolt- some will consider the Cayenne's way more refined. I dont. I just remember thinking: thats it?! I was really surprised by this. The RR throttle sensitivity and how it works with the engine/ tranny is nearly identical to a BWM automatic.

Brakes: The Cayennes are the best I have experienced in a SUV- Id say here you cant lose between the two because you basically have the best brakes available from the factory in the Porsche and probably the 2nd best in the RR. The RR brakes have great feel and are very powerful.

Steering: here was the real surprise- the Cayenne S felt overly boosted and even a little vauge- kind of like the throttle and like a MB S class. The RR doesnt have tremendous feedback but you will recognize the weighting as BMW. The real surprise is highway driving in the RR. The car lowers ~6/10ths of an inch and the steering boost is really reduced. This makes the car feel very stable.

Handling: I am sure on a skid pad or road course the Cayenne would produce better numbers due to its lower weight and greater power- but the basic feel of the cars is very much S class vs. 7 series. You can tell which one I prefer. Actually I remember thinking the Cayenne suspension never really felt like it settled down on the highway- which was odd given this is a Porsche afterall. I was very dissapointed with this. Id say the RR has a little more body roll- but its not as big a difference as you might think.

Interior: The Cayennes is pretty nice. The grab handles on the center console are a nice touch. Some of the switch gear felt a little cheap. The ambience is a little too Audi-esque for me- although most people think Audi makes some of the best interiors, I never warmed up to them. Overall its a nice, clean interior that is worthy of its asking price. You can nit pick on the materials. From a materials stand point, the same is true of the RR. I could tell immediately where they cut costs. Most surfaces felt fine, but they didnt feel of the highest quality. None was out of place though. But what the RR manages to achieve is what BMW could not with its new interiors. The interior of the RR feels very special, one reviewer said something like you feel like a rock star. I can see where they are coming from. Nevertheless, it feels like an automobile interior and not a nouveau style hotel room. In terms of controls, both are about the same- youll have to take a few minutes to get used to them, but theres no maddening interface to deal with. You get in and go.

Exterior: This is purely subjective- I really dislike the Cayenne's sheet metal. I think it looks like a jacked up 911 mated to an Audi wagon. The RR has an austere look to it, which is something I think BMW used to have and has for some sad reason has abandoned. I really like it- it looks purposeful and even a little mean- but not in an overdone way.

So for me, Id never be looking at the Cayenne because I just truly dont like the styling. However, if it drove the way the RR did then I would be considering it more (when did you ever think youd hear that about a Porsche vs. a Land Rover?!!!! ). Im not surprised that RR bench marked the E39 5 series for the RRs on road driving behaviour- and Im also not surprised that Porsche apparently benchmarked MBs S class. Porsche wanted to be the other car in the garage of its 911 and Boxter owners- and for many that other car is/was an S class.

I remember thinking the whole time I was driving the Cayenne: Id take the X5 over this any day- period. A number of magazines have remarked the same thing. The RR kind of feels like a bigger X5 but with a little bit different driving position from a BMW and with a little bit more body roll- but not bad at all.

So in the end its like choosing BMW vs. MB. Kind of funny isn't it?

anyone want to pick up the remaining 14 months on a 525it lease? its a rare color- carbon black.

[Terk]

Exceptional report Jerry. Other than the missing pics, I thought I was reading a road test in one of the mags. It is very interesting that you compare the RR to a tall E38 which of course is not a bad thing as the last "7" was a great car. I also agree with your comments on how the Cayenne and RR are priced as Porsche really seems to nickel and dime you (poor choice of coinage) on the options that really should be standard on an SUV of this status. I wonder how long before Ford start to use a Jag or AM V8 as I am sure that they are paying Munich a good buck for that engine.

Once again excellent feedback.

Regards,

Terk.

[MEnthusiast]

Terk,
Thanks for the compliment.

As I was told by another member here, Land Rover builds the engines themselves under a license from BMW. They or BMW did some tinkering to make sure oil is always in the engine because the RR is capable of some pretty severe off road manuvers which could drain the standard 4.4 V8. So its a BMW engine, but its actually made by Land Rover, which is owned by Ford. I was also told that the BMW parts would be for the model cycle- which does make sense. I think they might want to offer a more powerful engine as the model ages though.

[pdiack]

[quote=Terk] Exceptional report Jerry.
QUOTE]

I agree, very well done! Interesting perspective on the S-class v. 7-series analogy.

So, what color is it for the Range Rover? I think the Adriatic Blue is just gorgeous...

[MEnthusiast]

great minds think alike. In this case its you and my wife

I like silver best simply because of its ease of keeping clean. But she doesnt like it in silver.

The dark blue looks beautiful, but will be more difficult to keep clean and as a beater the car will be run through the car wash and also kept outside.

If we would get silver, I would try to get a navy leather interior with parchment piping and the lighter wood.

With blue, I think its a lighter color interior, navy piping and if I can get it, Id get the lighter wood (American Cherry).

Ill dont believe it but I will be discussing a deal with the dealer tomorrow....

[Terk]

Originally Posted by MEnthusiast

I like silver best simply because of its ease of keeping clean. But she doesnt like it in silver. The dark blue looks beautiful, but will be more difficult to keep clean and as a beater the car will be run through the car wash and also kept outside. Ill dont believe it but I will be discussing a deal with the dealer tomorrow....

A customer of mine owns 3 of the dark blue RR's and they simply look stunning when clean. Sadly they own a paving company so you can imagine what shade of blue they are by days end. For looks you cannot beat the darker colours but for daily duty, you will not go wrong with silver which does look good btw. Good luck with your deal and let us know how you make out.

Regards,

Terk

[TCM]

Jerry:

Sorry to cause the concern with the Ford turnover issue. I thought Ford was taking over everything, even the cars underpinnings. I am glad to hear this is not the case as the RR with the BMW internals is a great vehicle. I like the white, black, and silver on the car but have not seen one in blue yet.

[MEnthusiast]

the blue is close to what carbon black looks like, it just doesnt get quite as black in non direct light and I dont think it has momemts of purpose as carbon black does.