# Range Rover Sport



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

Did someone get one of these not too long back?

How you finding it? Any specific likes / dislikes?

cheers.


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

That'll be JampoTT - V8 Diesel


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

Cheers. V8 is a bit out of my price range, but lookign at the V6 td


----------



## barton TT (Nov 13, 2004)

elderberry blue bought one.
http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... over+sport


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I rented one for 4 days in May last year (the V6 TDi), some words here:

http://thinkcar.org/?p=81


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Bit of a thread hi-jack, I know - but why buy one of these things?

I don't just mean the Range Rover Sport but all these 'sporty' 4x4s, like the Porsche Cayenne too. If you need a good 4 wheel drive car get a Landrover Defender. If you want a sports car then get one. If you want an all round vehicle that will carry plenty of passengers, luggage or even tow something but still has decent performance when you want it then get an RS4 Avant or something similar.

Yes, the Range Rover Sport is a well-sorted car, but why buy a car that is a complete mish-mash, that is never going to be anything but a compromise and doesn't really perform any of it's functions as well as the (quite often cheaper) alternatives? The whole concept of a sporty 4x4 is a contradiction in terms - it might as well be a 'performance' JCB! They've always seemed to me a car without a point.

I'm open to being convinced, so if you are considering buying one I'd be interested just out of curiosity to hear why, because I just don't get it.


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

Mark Davies said:


> Bit of a thread hi-jack, I know - but why buy one of these things?


Possibly because, despite Brown's and Darling's best efforts, this is still a free country and we still, for a little bit longer if we're lucky, have freedom of choice. :wink:


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

2 reasons really - firstly because i now do the school run and was feelign a bit out of place not having a 4x4.

Second - I'm trying to start a new car club, stickers being considered so far are:-

FU Darling, I'm a hybrid
sub 20MPG - do you think I give a SH1t
and 
2 Fingers with 'FU Darling'

Club to be called 'I'm gunna enjoy my car regardless of what you do Darling'.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

shao_khan said:


> 2 reasons really - firstly because i now do the school run and was feelign a bit out of place not having a 4x4.
> 
> Second - I'm trying to start a new car club, stickers being considered so far are:-
> 
> ...


Good on yer :wink: The green ticket its all a CON


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> Bit of a thread hi-jack, I know - but why buy one of these things?
> 
> I don't just mean the Range Rover Sport but all these 'sporty' 4x4s, like the Porsche Cayenne too. If you need a good 4 wheel drive car get a Landrover Defender. If you want a sports car then get one. If you want an all round vehicle that will carry plenty of passengers, luggage or even tow something but still has decent performance when you want it then get an RS4 Avant or something similar.
> 
> ...


Is this just about sporty 4X4's or 4X4's rather than a defender? By the way have you seen the inside of a defender?


----------



## TTwiggy (Jul 20, 2004)

cuTTsy said:


> By the way have you seen the inside of a defender?


more to the point; have you tried pimping one on 22inch rims? :wink:


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Bit of a thread hi-jack, I know - but why buy one of these things?


Some people want a combination of space, speed, safety and comfort.

Something like a RRS or Cayenne will tick all those boxes, especially in Supercharged or Turbo flavour.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Yeah, the RRS ticks plenty of boxes...

Big enough to be comfortable, economical enough (just) to be a good mile muncher. Plenty of toys as standard.

I prefer it to an Estate Car, and I'd just swapepd from one (S4) so wanted something a bit different.

4x4 wasn't exactly necessary, but the Sport is a much better prospect than a Defender.

It is a good combination with the R8 - I don't need another 'sporty' car, so why bother?


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2008)

TTwiggy said:


> cuTTsy said:
> 
> 
> > By the way have you seen the inside of a defender?
> ...


Thing is, a good defender is like a tonka toy.
I dont care where i park it in tesco, not many places i cant get to near me, especially handy for towing the horse box and the jetbikes around and all in al its a good laugh.

Get a dent, have a go yourself,.
I think thats why i like mine so much.
Tinkered with it a lot, been off greenlaning in some real mud and it doesnt seem to care.

Something a lot on here wouldnt do with a RRS.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

cuTTsy said:


> Is this just about sporty 4X4's or 4X4's rather than a defender? By the way have you seen the inside of a defender?


Well, mainly the sporty ones, but generally 4x4s being mis-applied to a use where they simply aren't necessary. I just think the sports versions are the obvious extreme of it.

Okay, it's a tired argument that you don't need a Range Rover to take your kids to school in Chelsea - but it's your money so you're entitled to do what you want with it. But that doesn't make it an intelligent or sensible choice. Very few (if any) of these Sports 4x4s are ever going to do anything off-road that's going to be in any way demanding. Top Gear proved by driving across Africa in perfectly ordinary cars that you really need to be doing something quite demanding to actually _need_ a four wheel drive car. So, if you're towing a horse box across a field get the machine that's best for the job - a Landrover Defender. If you're not doing that then you don't need a big 4x4.

I think my point is this - whatever use it is that you put these cars to, there is almost invariably something else that does it entirely . . . and far better . . . and usually cheaper. I don't buy the argument that it's an all-round vehicle - with the road-going tyres that are fitted to give it acceptable performance it simply isn't a worthwhile offroader. So, you lumber yourself with all the disadvantages of a compromise - and for what? Bling?

If that's what you want then fill your boots, but it makes no sense to me.

And yes, I regularly drive a Defender - and a rather old, armour plated one too - and no, I wouldn't want to ever do more than 10 miles in it!


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I've driven mine off-road, thank you very much. :lol: :wink:


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> I've driven mine off-road, thank you very much. :lol: :wink:


And I've driven my TT across fields too.

Yes, of course it's do-able - Top Gear proved you could do it with almost anything - but was your offroad driving so demanding you couldn't have done it with something that would be far more suitable and better for the driving you do the other 99.9% of the time? I don't know, but I'd guess for the vast majority of people with these cars they'd have to admit not.

I'm not having a pop about it - I just think it's an interesting topic for discussion. If your reason for buying it is simply because you think they're cool then that's as good a reason to buy a car as any other. But for me a choice of car needs to have just a touch of head to it, even if it does have a huge dollop of heart. It should, for instance, at least be fit for the purpose it is being used for. And if you are spending quite a lot of money then surely you'd be wanting to get the best car for your needs? This is where they don't make sense to me - they're just too much money for something that doesn't excel at anything.


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

Fit for purpose - Easier for the Mrs to get the kids into without further damaging herself.

Main reason for my purchase was because I wanted a good lookign car, practical for my requirements and can be used on the odd occasion round the farm. IF I wanted a Defender I'd use the families, but having done MK to York and back with one - I dont fancy another trip like that with one, so went for the more comfy version.

Also as I said, I do the school run and I thought I was supposed to have a pointless car for it - couldnt get both kids in an exige. Could have had an A6 Q Avant - but didnt fancy a reps car, plus living in MK every other person drives a VAG car.

Anyway - barring issues new car should arrive this week


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I've driven mine off-road, thank you very much. :lol: :wink:
> ...


Fields, eh? Wow.

What you probably don't know is, as well as replacing the S4, my RRS also replaced Bert, my Lightweight ex-military Land Rover.

The RRS is no more or less a suitable car for my family as my R8 is for my daily driver. Both happen to be choices I'm perfectly happy with, and that is all the justification I need.

I have both, because I can.

Nobody needs to own 2 V8s, but if you have the means, I heartily recommend it.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> I've driven mine off-road, thank you very much. :lol: :wink:


Traversing the local Waitrose car park again Tim? :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I've driven mine off-road, thank you very much. :lol: :wink:
> ...


Nah, Waitrose is too chavvy. It's all Fortnum & Mason these days, don't you know?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> Nobody needs to own 2 V8s, but if you have the means, I heartily recommend it.


Fair enough - if you've got a massive garage, a bank balance to suit and can afford to have a car for every occasion then why not?

But let's just assume you're more like the majority of us and this is the only car you would have. Still the best choice for the money?


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody needs to own 2 V8s, but if you have the means, I heartily recommend it.
> ...


I think it is all relevant some people would look on a TT and ask is this the best choice for the money?


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

jampott said:


> What you probably don't know is, as well as replacing the S4, my RRS also replaced Bert, my Lightweight ex-military Land Rover.
> 
> I have both, because I can.
> 
> Nobody needs to own 2 V8s, but if you have the means, I heartily recommend it.


Lightweight? I used to have one of those; ex RAF FFR. I fitted a V8 and power steering and used it as a tow motor for my off-road racer; which was also V8 powered. 

Two V8s ??? Like your style jampott. 8)


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody needs to own 2 V8s, but if you have the means, I heartily recommend it.
> ...


cuTTsy got it spot on, fella...

If you want to preach practicality, economy and being 'fit for purpose', the TT is unlikely to be the first choice for many people.

Not saying it isn't a great car - but if you want to wax lyrical about why people buy 4x4s, perhaps spare a few braincells to work out whether or not a 2+2 'coupe' is as good a car as a hatchback. :lol: :lol:

The TT is a lot of money for a car which doesn't excel at anything.


----------



## TTwiggy (Jul 20, 2004)

I drive a car that was designed to be just about comfortable enough to drive to and from track days (ok the S2 is a lot softer than the S1) - but as I'm disinclined to see my only car parked upside down in a gravel trap, that's not going to happen too often - so I've wasted 25 large on a car that is pretty much unfit for most purposes...

not that i regret it though!


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> If you want to preach practicality, economy and being 'fit for purpose', the TT is unlikely to be the first choice for many people.
> 
> Not saying it isn't a great car - but if you want to wax lyrical about why people buy 4x4s, perhaps spare a few braincells to work out whether or not a 2+2 'coupe' is as good a car as a hatchback. :lol: :lol:
> 
> The TT is a lot of money for a car which doesn't excel at anything.


Well no, it won't suit everybody but it is the perfect car for me. There's just the two of us and no kids, so we don't need more than 2 seats, but I do need a decent load space to carry SCUBA diving kit. Added to that I want a car with decent enough performance to be fun. Okay, the TT isn't the best sports car in the world but you'd struggle to find one for a Â£30k budget that does everything I need it to. There's certainly nothing else other than a Toyota Celica that's got even close to the load-space, and that's never going to be the winning choice for me.

Yes, a hot hatch would do most of it, but it wouldn't look as good. I think in that respect it's a very intelligent choice for me - with quite a few braincells deployed.

And I'm not preaching so no need to be defensive about it - as I've said, buy what the hell you like for whatever reason you want. It's simply a car choice that's always intrigued me and I thought it an interesting topic for discussion, that's all.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to preach practicality, economy and being 'fit for purpose', the TT is unlikely to be the first choice for many people.
> ...


But I *have* bought what I want. A RRS and an R8. Just because you don't like the RRS (and probably the R8) doesn't make them a bad choice - they are as perfect for me as your compromised 'sports coupe' is for you.

The point I'm making - there's no need to question someone else's car choice when you know nothing about their needs.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> The point I'm making - there's no need to question someone else's car choice when you know nothing about their needs.


And FFS there's no need to be so bloody tetchy about it! I'm not being critical - I'm just curious about your choice and why, because I find these vehicles a bit odd and have explained why and was wondering if there was something I was missing. That's all - and I've explained that already.

It's a DISCUSSION FORUM. Discussing things is what this place is for, isn't it? Are you really that insecure about your choices that you can't bear to be asked about them?

Clearly, I shouldn't have bothered.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > The point I'm making - there's no need to question someone else's car choice when you know nothing about their needs.
> ...


Obviously you shouldn't. The RRS is no more 'odd' than a TT. :roll:


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> The RRS is no more 'odd' than a TT. :roll:


Well that's my whole point - it is - which maybe you're not picking up. The TT is pure and simply exactly what it says it is - a sports coupe. It's exactly what a coupe is supposed to be.

In my mind a 4x4 is purely a functional vehicle - a tractor basically - because what other functions do you need a 4x4 for? Driving across uneven terrain, towing heavy trailers, whatever . . .

But certainly not driving quickly on roads. What place is there for 'sports' when it comes to tractors? So let's have a performance ice cream van or a turbo charged hearse! I just find it a type of vehicle for which the concept of 'sports' is completely misplaced - even if it can be made to work - sort of.

Of course if someone wants one then by all means have one. To paraphrase, I may not agree with your vehicle choice but I will fight to the death to defend your right to make it!

You're obviously not inclined to discuss it though, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The RRS is great for barging white vans out of the middle of the road.

You should get one. :lol:


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

Well mine should be arriving in time for the long weekend.

Cant wait.

As for my real requirements - well i found it faar easier getting kids into the RRs that the various other family cars i tried. Q7 was out as Audi dealer (x5) couldnt be bothered to return phone call / email. Touareg is out - its a VW. For me it was all about making life with kids easy. I ran an S3 for 6 months and it was a pain in the neck with kids. If I could afford a R8 then I'd have one as soon as the V10 is available - well I need the extra 2 cyl to balance the books


----------



## Wolfsburger (Oct 21, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> In my mind a 4x4 is purely a functional vehicle - a tractor basically - because what other functions do you need a 4x4 for? Driving across uneven terrain, But certainly not driving quickly on roads.


Then why do so many constabularies use them (4X4s) for motorway patrol cars?

You`re not doubting the rationale of the police are you? :wink:


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

no point in this either...


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Wolfsburger said:


> Then why do so many constabularies use them (4X4s) for motorway patrol cars?


Because they regularly have to tow bogged-down cars out of grass verges. We also use 4x4s for my job, because we patrol off-road areas. In this case there *is* a reason for it.



jampott said:


> The RRS is great for barging white vans out of the middle of the road.


A winning argument - I'm convinced!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


Now your talking.

Oh, by the way,









Hope this helps.


----------

