RE: Range Rover Sport SVR 'ring time
Discussion
NomduJour said:
It might say that on the side, but something like a Scorpion Verde or Eagle F1 will be absolutely hopeless in the kind of off-road conditions you're likely to see in the UK. Even the Scorpion Zeroes were marginal, and they're clearly more "aggressive".
It's fairly irrelevant, because no one will seriously off-road there RRS due to the fact every stone chip or scratched pannel will knock about £10k off it's value!. People off road Defenders because they are worth the same when scratched / dented as when new, because their value is intrinsic to their capability. For the RRS, their value is as a "show off trinket" to those that drive them (on the road) or parked at the Golf club. Denting one is a massive No-No. Try going to a LR dealer and getting a Trade-in price for a RRS with a dent and scratched panels, they will laugh in your face!So, whilst all LR products can indeed easily and capably get around off road (or round the Gaydon T&D off road route) you'd have to be mad to do it in your own one ;-)
mrpushrod said:
On seeing this I immediately thought back a few years to the BMW X5 Le Mans concept, I think even the SVR would fold compared to this....
The slow speed stuff may be a bit tricky though, from memory you couldn't give it all the beans in the first couple of gears as the drivetrain couldn't handle it. I suppose that's what happens when you put a Le Mans V12 into an X5!
The slow speed stuff may be a bit tricky though, from memory you couldn't give it all the beans in the first couple of gears as the drivetrain couldn't handle it. I suppose that's what happens when you put a Le Mans V12 into an X5!
That's an incredible beast. I'm still impressed with the handling of my old style RR Sport (TDV8), considering its bulk...so this SVR must be off the scale!
I cant understand the hatred towards fast SUV's. I've had some nice cars, and the RR Sport is by no means the fastest I've owned, but as an all-rounder it cant be beaten. Why do people dislike the idea of adding speed to what's already a great package? There's plenty of choice for smaller engine options available, if that's your kind of thing.
Personally, the SDV8 will be enough for me. But I'm glad the SVR will exist.
I cant understand the hatred towards fast SUV's. I've had some nice cars, and the RR Sport is by no means the fastest I've owned, but as an all-rounder it cant be beaten. Why do people dislike the idea of adding speed to what's already a great package? There's plenty of choice for smaller engine options available, if that's your kind of thing.
Personally, the SDV8 will be enough for me. But I'm glad the SVR will exist.
A.J.M said:
It handles well, can outdrag lots of normal cars, can seat 5 adults with luggage, tow a caravan really well and p
s off lots of people in the process.
What's not to like about it.
You can get AT tyres in both 20 and 22 inch size should you wish for them. I've seen a few L322s with 22s with AT tyres.
So that should cover the muddy part if you needed.
I think the disapproval others have is that there is often a difference between a drivers car and a performance car. s off lots of people in the process.What's not to like about it.
You can get AT tyres in both 20 and 22 inch size should you wish for them. I've seen a few L322s with 22s with AT tyres.
So that should cover the muddy part if you needed.
When you say 'handles well' do you mean handling or grip? I view the two very differently but I would be interested to know what you think?
vee5 said:
Grotesque. I simply do not understand the interest in trying to make something (an SUV) that is inherently unsuitable for track driving (heavy, large, high CoG) go round a circuit (where it is highly unlikely to be used by paying punters) more quickly than you'd think possible.
If I consider it from an ownership proposition, why would you be proud of hooning around a circuit in something which would have punched a large hole in the scenery before it got to Hatzenbach if all the clever electronics were disabled? It's not like your superior driving skills are being allowed to shine through….
I don't blame the marketing people for trying it on, I'm just disappointed that people seem to be susceptible to such shallow tactics.
I simply do not understand the interest in trying to make something (a hot hatch) that is inherently unsuitable for track driving (heavy, large, high CoG, FWD) go round a circuit (where it is highly unlikely to be used by paying punters) more quickly than you'd think possible. If I consider it from an ownership proposition, why would you be proud of hooning around a circuit in something which would have punched a large hole in the scenery before it got to Hatzenbach if all the clever electronics were disabled? It's not like your superior driving skills are being allowed to shine through….
I don't blame the marketing people for trying it on, I'm just disappointed that people seem to be susceptible to such shallow tactics.
Can't say I think much to the paint job! Does that make me shallow?
Looks like it has been attacked by a frenzied environmentalist wielding spray gun loaded with co2 absorbing paint.
I see a Cadillac CTS V got round in under 8 seconds (source Wikipedia) so maybe the RR time is not such a big deal.
Looks like it has been attacked by a frenzied environmentalist wielding spray gun loaded with co2 absorbing paint.
I see a Cadillac CTS V got round in under 8 seconds (source Wikipedia) so maybe the RR time is not such a big deal.
Joeguard1990 said:
Bit hard to believe the title to be honest when you look at both cars' power to weight ratios.
The power to weight aren't that far apart (1M 340/1500 RRS 550/2200) and i suspect JLR have spent rather more effort getting their lap time than any of the previous attempts in the 1M.Also, there is a bit of selective comparison here. ie Comparing the lap time of a £100k brand new (in fact, not even released yet) car to a 5yo £40k BMW and some current £30k hot hatches.......
NomduJour said:
It might say that on the side, but something like a Scorpion Verde or Eagle F1 will be absolutely hopeless in the kind of off-road conditions you're likely to see in the UK. Even the Scorpion Zeroes were marginal, and they're clearly more "aggressive".
All on standard A/S tyres:US Sand and Rock Crawl
Wading and river crossing
Sand Driving in Dubai
Mud
How much more extreme would you want from a consumer SUV that is largely driven on road?!
RacerMike said:
How much more extreme would you want from a consumer SUV that is largely driven on road?!
As I said, I know from experience that the Scorpion Zero is as road-biased as a tyre on something like a Range Rover should be (been there, been stuck). In the UK, the most likely issues you face are wet grass and mud - it seems entirely stupid to spend so much time, money and effort equipping a vehicle with technology like Terrain Response and then not even offer the option or choice of a tyre which won't fill its treads with mud within ten feet of the field gate.Amazing and I'd have one if I could afford it for sure!
I'm waiting for my new Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit to arrive - it's currently on the boat from Detroit - and can really see the appeal of a proper 4x4 SUV that is sporty too. I was very nearly tempted by the Jeep GC SRT which sounded glorious and handled pretty well and imagine this new RRS is a more refined, even better handling version of that.
I'm waiting for my new Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit to arrive - it's currently on the boat from Detroit - and can really see the appeal of a proper 4x4 SUV that is sporty too. I was very nearly tempted by the Jeep GC SRT which sounded glorious and handled pretty well and imagine this new RRS is a more refined, even better handling version of that.
Joeguard1990 said:
Can I ask where you got the 1M time from?
Was it driven by an official BMW Test Driver?
Bit hard to believe the title to be honest when you look at both cars' power to weight ratios.
What tyres were both cars running?
Doesn't really matter RE the laptimes, the 'ring data guff is for boring people. The interesting car enthusiasts talk about how something feels to drive. The fact the diesel threads are full of people going on about statistics such as torque and laptimes illustrates the point. Was it driven by an official BMW Test Driver?
Bit hard to believe the title to be honest when you look at both cars' power to weight ratios.
What tyres were both cars running?
speedjockey said:
I'll just leave this here for all the ///M5 fans out there
I know many will say a time with the speed limiter removed isn't legitimate but it should be noted & recognized. Unfortunately many don't know about this. Not sure why either as the 8:13 time came as a pre-production testing time before the stability & traction control systems were properly calibrated (in other words even that isn't totally legitimate). Also the Continental tires that were on the testing car & early models were later succeeded by the Michelin Pilot Sport 2 once the face-lifted version came about so in theory the car might be even quicker.
Anyways, enough babbling from me, here's the link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060629152411/http://...
Sorry caller^^^^^, your point is what exactly??I know many will say a time with the speed limiter removed isn't legitimate but it should be noted & recognized. Unfortunately many don't know about this. Not sure why either as the 8:13 time came as a pre-production testing time before the stability & traction control systems were properly calibrated (in other words even that isn't totally legitimate). Also the Continental tires that were on the testing car & early models were later succeeded by the Michelin Pilot Sport 2 once the face-lifted version came about so in theory the car might be even quicker.
Anyways, enough babbling from me, here's the link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060629152411/http://...
Max_Torque said:
The fact it's a triumph of marketing over sense. All of those things on that list (except perhaps pissing off other road users) can be done better, and cheaper by a normal estate or saloon car, without any of the compromised involved with having to make it capable of "going off road" despite the fact exactly none of the people buying that car will actually do so. Added to which, in the UK, LR will sell precisely 3 V8 superchargered Petrol models, and about 50,000 diesel V6s, which can't lap the 'ring in 8.14........
(ok, the V8SC is not really about the UK, but still)
It is just as well you are not in charge of marketing the Range Rover because you do not seem to understand the product or its market. It started out at launch (1970) as an all rounder, with the best off road capability in its class, 100mph on the road, 4000lbs towing capacity and was an instant hit. In essence the principal changes since the original are to improve both on road and off road performance, to add comfort and luxury features asked for by customers, to trim tow capacity to 3500lbs, to adapt it to match the regulatory needs of more markets and to increase its price to match its positioning as a premium product. The result is that more are sold today than ever before. And to say, as you do, that no owner will take it off road is manifestly wrong. The max speed of the latest RRs was raised because it was demanded by owners who drove it off road. (ok, the V8SC is not really about the UK, but still)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff