RE: Range Rover Sport SDV8: Driven

RE: Range Rover Sport SDV8: Driven

Friday 8th November 2013

2013 Range Rover Sport SDV8 | UK Review

Diesel V8 promises the ideal combination of performance and parsimony. Does it deliver?



The new Range Rover Sport rather bowled us over when we first drove it back in June. It was so broadly capable both on and off-road and such a leap forward from the original Sport that we described it as "breathtaking". With the familiar 5.0-litre supercharged V8 engine its straight-line performance was 911-baiting, too, but when driven in a manner so as to upset sports car owners the fuel economy was fairly tragic.

The diesel V6 improved on the range-topper's mid-teens mpg figures somewhat, but the strained performance of that entry-level model detracted from the overall experience. This new SDV8, though, could offer the best of both worlds.

The 4.4-litre turbocharged unit delivers 339hp and some 516lb ft of torque. Land Rover claims an impressive 32.5mpg on the combined cycle, which is more than 10mpg up on its figure for the petrol V8. With both V8 models listing at £81,550, does the diesel hold of an economy advantage over the petrol to make it the more attractive proposition?


The usual concerns that we associate with diesel power – clattery soundtrack, narrow powerband – are swiftly dismissed. The SDV8 fires with an authentic eight-cylinder thrum before settling into an inaudible idle. It feels muscular with a broad torque band at town speeds and, praise be, the gruff rumble as you begin to work it harder is genuinely pleasing to the ear; yes, here is a diesel engine that you appreciate for its aural qualities. At motorway speeds it's very refined, too.

There is so much torque over a wide operating range that the hefty Sport really does shift along at full throttle. There isn't the outright pace of the petrol V8, but he who needs more performance than this from his SUV won't be buying diesel anyway. Only the way it runs out of puff above 4,000rpm really betrays its preference for the black pump.

The SDV8 is well matched to the brilliant ZF eight-speed gearbox, too, which shifts cleanly and smoothly in auto mode and faithfully in manual mode. After half a day of town driving, fast autobahn and some spirited country thrashing the SDV8 returned around 23mpg. With a lighter foot high 20s should be easily achievable, if not quite the 32.5mpg that Land Rover claims, which is usefully better than the petrol model would achieve in the same conditions.


Do those with close to £90,000 to spend on an SUV, after options, care too much about fuel economy? Perhaps not, but in objective, real world terms this engine is absolutely the pick of the Sport range.

We know from prior experience that the junior Range Rover is hugely capable off-road, too, as it tackles rocky inclines, deep water and muddy ruts on its road-biased tyres with utter disdain. Land Rover has sacrificed a little in ride height, approach and departure angles and axle articulation compared to the Range Rover in order to achieve the sharper on road handling traits, but the Sport remains true to the badge on its prow.


Driven back-to-back, it is markedly more precise and direct through corners than the Range Rover, at the same time trading only a little of the bigger car's limousine qualities. The brakes are strong and the steering, though far from feelsome, is direct and sufficiently weighted to give you confidence as you attack a demanding stretch of Tarmac. It is superbly judged. What the Sport can't hope to do is match Porsche's Cayenne for outright on-road dynamics, but the German is fitted with uncompromising performance tyres and simply wouldn't see which way a Sport went in a muddy field.

The only lingering doubt that we had about the Range Rover Sport at launch was that the supercharged petrol V8 was just a little too excessive. With this diesel V8 – refined, strong and with a soundtrack to match – Land Rover has put those concerns to rest quite emphatically. In this specification, the Range Rover Sport is one of the most complete new cars on sale.


SPECIFICATION | 2013 RANGE ROVER SPORT SDV8
Engine:
4,367cc, V8 turbodiesel
Transmission: 8-speed ZF automatic, four-wheel drive
Power (hp): 339@3,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 516@1,750-3,000rpm
0-62mph: 6.9sec
Top speed: 140mph
Weight: 2,398kg
MPG: 32.5mpg (claimed)
CO2: 229g/km
Price: £81,550





Author
Discussion

Jonny TVR

Original Poster:

4,533 posts

281 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
I must be out of touch as £81K seems like a lot

aeropilot

34,526 posts

227 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Great bit of kit.......but sadly at a price beyond affordable for many of us.

skyrover

12,671 posts

204 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
pistonheads said:
The only lingering doubt that we had about the Range Rover Sport at launch was that the supercharged petrol V8 was just a little too excessive
Bloody hell is this mumsnet?

It's an 80k performance SUV...

kambites

67,547 posts

221 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Certainly sounds like an engine that matches the car well.

Digga

40,300 posts

283 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Jonny TVR said:
I must be out of touch as £81K seems like a lot
The price simply staggers me.

I'm about to take delivery of a new Defender and have therefore spent a bit of time at the local stealers recently. It is eye-opning to see how they try (and, I can only assume succeed) to sell cars that, clearly, people cannot afford.

Asiode from the price, the RRS is too fat to be easily used everyday, but, having riden in a mate's '08 plate 3.6 TDV8 RRS, this is the sort of motor I'd be buying if money were no object.

deltashad

6,731 posts

197 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
81k and worried about saving a few pence on fuel??? 5.0 supercharged V8 please.

Gecko1978

9,684 posts

157 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Jonny TVR said:
I must be out of touch as £81K seems like a lot
I feel exactly the same, I am wanting to buy a large 4x4 to tramsport family and dogs etc, I thopught my budget of £45k to £50k would allow me to buy something nice but sadly no at £81k (neare £100k with options) a RR is out of the question.

In my head they were always around £60k but as a recent article on PH pointed out a Focus is a £20k+ car these days and I 3 series can set you back upwards of £40k. Either I am just really poor or certain marques have just moved up to the next level.

I suppose RR want to be seen as a rival for a 911, SL, S Class, etc in terms of cache, rahter than just a great 4x4.

toppstuff

13,698 posts

247 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
I have no doubt that this is a spectacularly good car.

And the price pitches it right against the V8 diesel Cayenne, which is also excellent.

There is only one, huge, elephant sized issue that we must address.

This is an issue road testers and journo's seem to pay less attention to than they should, probably because they only have these cars for short periods and don't get past the honeymoon period.

The issue is, of course, reliability

LR products seem to have a marmite reputation where this is concerned. Get a good one and there is nothing, but nothing, to beat it. Get a bad one and it will drive you crazy and make you want to set fire to it.

I wonder what the new generation RR and RRS will be like?


Gecko1978

9,684 posts

157 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
toppstuff said:
I have no doubt that this is a spectacularly good car.

And the price pitches it right against the V8 diesel Cayenne, which is also excellent.
I think the basic list Price of this is actually around the £50k mark there is a Diesel s option that cost a bit more and of course Porsche are great add bumping up the price with options...would sir like a steering wheel with that etc

but no £81k basic price before options v almost any other diesel 4x4 is not competative on price but as I said they ar enot competing agaist other 4x4 but rather high end cars like the S class 911 etc whihc I think are all around this price point (is a 991 non turbo around £100k now)

toppstuff

13,698 posts

247 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Gecko1978 said:
I think the basic list Price of this is actually around the £50k mark there is a Diesel s option that cost a bit more and of course Porsche are great add bumping up the price with options...would sir like a steering wheel with that etc
You're right. The V8 engined diesel S Cayenne is £57k base. Add a few extras and it is still a good deal less than the V8 RRS.

Crikey, RR are being ambitious.

k-ink

9,070 posts

179 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
When you dump £30k a year in depreciation MPG variations makes such a difference hehe

toppstuff

13,698 posts

247 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Actually , on reading the PH article again, their comparison with the Porsche Cayenne does not quite work.

PH has only reported on the V6 diesel Cayenne and this is the car they have linked to. The V6 Cayenne competes with the V6 RRS.

Hasn't PH tried the V8 diesel Cayenne? If not, in the interests of comparison, they should. Give Pork HQ in Reading a call… smile

dukebox9reg

1,570 posts

148 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
I think even the 'basic' RRS sports though come with a lot more kit than some of their equivalents though.

And I think its got to a point where these need to start being compared to things more like Bentley Continentals etc where its a big engined, 4 wheel drive GT car (obviously one that's a little taller and can offroad) and then the RR and RRS sport look like a bargain (I still can't afford one though)

Edited by dukebox9reg on Thursday 7th November 10:40

zeppelin101

724 posts

192 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
deltashad said:
81k and worried about saving a few pence on fuel??? 5.0 supercharged V8 please.
You'd be surprised. I seem to recall a number of dealer stories about die hard Range Rover fans who have always had the petrol V8s doing some 20k miles a year. They were then convinced to try the V8 diesel (this would be the older L322 mind) and were converted straight away. And these were people who really don't need to worry about money.

Why you would cost yourself a considerable sum more in fuel just because you're loaded baffles me. The rich don't stay rich by spewing their money away frivolously!

Froomee

1,423 posts

169 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
The rear end and back three-quarter profile on these is awful... saw one in person a few weeks back and the lights look far too small and the plastic lower looks cheap.

FFRR for me with the supercharged v8 smile

Axel350Z

194 posts

127 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Having to top up the tank several times a week sours the ownership to no end tbh, when its a daily.
I have a few mates who sold their E60 M5`s for this very reason.

rtz62

3,360 posts

155 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
The great leveller in all this will be depreciation.
Despite whatever the manufacturers may trumpet, the reality is that a vehicle like this will shed a good portion of its value over 3 years, so I guess in my head I'm asking myself "will this be a £35k vehicle in 3 years?", at which point it falls more into the budget area of most readers I'd suggest.
Sorry, but £81k is way too much IMHO, easy to make it £85k+ on the top model! I look at these and think, like most 4x4s, that they should be about £48k.

jdw1234

6,021 posts

215 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
zeppelin101 said:
deltashad said:
81k and worried about saving a few pence on fuel??? 5.0 supercharged V8 please.
You'd be surprised. I seem to recall a number of dealer stories about die hard Range Rover fans who have always had the petrol V8s doing some 20k miles a year. They were then convinced to try the V8 diesel (this would be the older L322 mind) and were converted straight away. And these were people who really don't need to worry about money.

Why you would cost yourself a considerable sum more in fuel just because you're loaded baffles me. The rich don't stay rich by spewing their money away frivolously!
I think the convenience of a longer range is a factor as well.

I hate stopping for fuel.

dukebox9reg

1,570 posts

148 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Froomee said:
The rear end and back three-quarter profile on these is awful... saw one in person a few weeks back and the lights look far too small and the plastic lower looks cheap.

FFRR for me with the supercharged v8 smile
Have to agree I don't like the Evoque treatment on the rear.

I am impressed by all these records their going for with this car though. Haven't they just completed one across the desert and there was the Pikes Peak one not long ago. Showing that it is really an all rounder.

jdw1234

6,021 posts

215 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
rtz62 said:
The great leveller in all this will be depreciation.
Despite whatever the manufacturers may trumpet, the reality is that a vehicle like this will shed a good portion of its value over 3 years, so I guess in my head I'm asking myself "will this be a £35k vehicle in 3 years?", at which point it falls more into the budget area of most readers I'd suggest.
Sorry, but £81k is way too much IMHO, easy to make it £85k+ on the top model! I look at these and think, like most 4x4s, that they should be about £48k.
I agree.

Also, without meaning to start a big argument about the pros and cons, I expect a lot are bought with the monthly payment being the deciding factor rather than the list price.