RE: Driven: Range Rover Sport Supercharged

RE: Driven: Range Rover Sport Supercharged

Author
Discussion

Trommel

19,238 posts

261 months

Wednesday 21st October 2009
quotequote all
rocksteadieeddie said:
Well, yes - if it was a Range Rover Sport.

It's not as good as the old Epsom Green, but the next best thing.

rocksteadieeddie

7,971 posts

229 months

Wednesday 21st October 2009
quotequote all
Garlick said:
rocksteadieeddie said:
Trommel said:
Tonga Green. 99.9% of the Supercharged ones appear to be "murdered out".
Like this one:

http://www.saxton4x4.co.uk/detail?template=/saxton...
Oh no...once these are less than £20k my wallet might start twitching, sub 17k and I am in trouble.
That one has been up for at least 6 months now - possibly because it is odd-green??

I absolutely love mine. Still looks great. Goes pretty well. And is a real sense of occasion to drive. 15mpg isn't much fun but you know all about that already.

I got an absolute minter from PH. Private seller. Ran a 355, load of classic bikes, a '72 Silver Cloud, and various other bits and bobs so had been well looked after. He was selling to buy a facelift car. Prices are up a bit since then but £20k can't be so far away.

bobbym

220 posts

185 months

Wednesday 21st October 2009
quotequote all
Greenpis said:
Right Update For You All On My Uncool Car Predicament

I have been discussing with a couple of Dealers my options, so far it's this:

A 2003 Nissan Micra FSH, 12mths Mot & Tax. Only thing is the RRS doesn't cover the cost, will have to stump up £3K.

A 2001 Subaru WRX something or other, he said I won't need to tax it as most owners of this year don't bother. But he will throw in a Pitbull and a tracksuit.

But on reading some of the other posts about safety in accidents, should I really just buy a bike that way I won't upset anyone?
Or am I being naive on the whole safety issue?













Or being naive on the worrying if anyone else thinks my car is cool or not.
Tongue now firmly not in cheek - where it's been for the last couple of hours.

Suppose it would be worse if people had no opinion of it, like a Lexus.
Say what you like about the RRS. I'm not asking you to drive it or like it.

As long as you enjoy driving whatever your choice of car is.
Stick with the RRS; you get abused that way by people that just hate any form of large SUV, and "classic" RR owners can look down their noses at you.

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

244 months

Thursday 22nd October 2009
quotequote all
[quote=Sport Coupe
A nurburgring time of 8min 49 secs also shows that it’s sporty enough considering it would cross the line only 11 secs behind a Honda NSX which is widely regarded as a sublime sorts car package.

[/quote]

Are you comparing like with like? Who got the 8m 49s in the RR, and who in the NSX?

Sport Coupe

415 posts

200 months

Thursday 22nd October 2009
quotequote all
NoelWatson said:
Sport Coupe said:
A nurburgring time of 8min 49 secs also shows that it’s sporty enough considering it would cross the line only 11 secs behind a Honda NSX which is widely regarded as a sublime sorts car package.
Are you comparing like with like? Who got the 8m 49s in the RR, and who in the NSX?
Sport Auto posted the NSX time which for me is perfectly good yardstick and I presume that a Land Rover test driver achieved the RRS time as it was a promotional event that they did.

LuS1fer

41,187 posts

247 months

Thursday 22nd October 2009
quotequote all
Nice choice of comparator but 11 seconds is an eternity and what you could have said is it would cross the line 2 seconds behind a Chevrolet HHR SS people carrier.


wink

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

244 months

Thursday 22nd October 2009
quotequote all
Sport Coupe said:
NoelWatson said:
Sport Coupe said:
A nurburgring time of 8min 49 secs also shows that it’s sporty enough considering it would cross the line only 11 secs behind a Honda NSX which is widely regarded as a sublime sorts car package.
Are you comparing like with like? Who got the 8m 49s in the RR, and who in the NSX?
Sport Auto posted the NSX time which for me is perfectly good yardstick and I presume that a Land Rover test driver achieved the RRS time as it was a promotional event that they did.
I'm not convinced that the 8:38 time is representative

Looking at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_...

and also contemporary road tests

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/es.charla.motor/b...

I see the following

Circuito de Thruxton. 1996
Coche Tiempo - Valoración Manejo


Honda NSX 1:32.12 - 4º
Toyota Supra 1:32.84 - 9º
Porsche 911 1:33.16 - 13º
Lamborghini Diablo SV 1:33.18 - 8º
Nissan Skyline GTR 1:33.36 - 14º
TVR Cerbera 1:33.42 - 20º
BMW M3 1:33.78 - 15º
Caterham Superlight 1:33.80 - 6º
Suburu Impreza Turbo 1:34.01 - 2º
Lotus Elise 1:34.24 - 1º
Mercedes E36 AMG 1:35.44 - 10º
Jaguar XK8 1:37.10 - 11º
Peugeot 106 GTI 1:38.32 - 5º
BMW 528i 1:38:24 - 16º
Alfa Romeo GTV 1:38:52 - 18º
BMW 318ti 1:39.92 - 19º
Citroen Xantia Activa 1:41.86 - 17º
Nissan Primera SRi 1:41.96 - 12º
MGF 1:43.24 - 3º
Peugeot 306 GTI-6 1:43.26 - 7º


1997
Lap times around Castle Combe circuit, under damp conditions.


1 Ferrari F50 69.37
2 Ferrari 550 Maranello 72.04
3 Honda NSX 72.20
4 Chrysler GTS 72.86
5 Caterham Superlight R 73.17
6 Nissan Skyline GT-R 73.09
7 Lotus Esprit GT3 74.40
8 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 74.89
9 Jaguar XJR V8 76.20
10 Venturi Atlantique 76.71
11 Subaru Impreza Turbo 76.83
12 Porsche Boxster 77.52
13 Honda Integra-R 78.94
14 BMW Z3 2.8 79.02
15 Lotus Elise 79.05
16 Peugeot 106 GTI 79.63
17 Renault Sport Spider 79.83
18 Ford Puma 83.15
19 MGF VVC 85.80
20 Ford Ka2 94.81


1. There is a Viper GTS that got 8:10, a Skyline that got 8:22 and a 993 8:28. Why are they so much quicker compared to the NSX?
2. There is a video floating road of an early NSX doing 8:16 during development

(it is shown here, but not sure why not in Wiki page)

http://www.zerotohundred.com/newforums/car-talk/57...

3. Sport Auto got 9:05 in a Focus RS, yet an ST did 8:51, and another 8:35

4. There is a 350Z that got 8:26

5. The NSX Type R did 7:56 - there is not 40 seconds difference between a Type R and non.

I would estimate the NSX 3.2 is an 8:10 to 8:15 car.

Riggers

1,859 posts

180 months

Friday 6th November 2009
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
What a ridiculous article all round.

As if any bike rider would give a flying about a Range Rover? They are not likely to pick up on the nuances of difference between high 5s and low 7s to 60. At the end of the day the Rangie will be a small disappearing spot in a vibrating mirror partly obliterated by their elbows.

New or old, supercharged ot not, it makes no difference. How about a decent article based on the merits of the Rangie rather than a childish reference to the traffic light grand prix?

Edit to add: I notice the article also refers to buying an XFR in order to 'actually beat superbike riders'. A quick google reveals 0-60 in 4.7 or 4.9 whichever review you happen to believe. Either way any middleweight naked 600 would show it a clean pair of heels, let alone a superbike.

Edited by hornetrider on Monday 19th October 12:56
Okay. I realise that any remotely fast bike with any rider trying hard in any way would beat both RRS and XFR. That wasn't the point. The point was to illustrate that it steps away from the line with far more vigour than you'd expect.

I was merely trying to illustrate that in an entertaining way.

It wasn't the main point of the article though. It was just - as you even pointed out yourself - a childish reference (perfectly happy to admit it was childish wink). Read the article again and I hope you'll find that the bulk of the piece does actually discuss the merits of the car.

Lord Flathead

1,288 posts

181 months

Friday 6th November 2009
quotequote all
"You can't keep everyone happy all the time, but you can keep most people happy for most of the time"

I'd say your still up Riggers biggrin