RE: Range Rover Sport SDV8: What They're Saying
RE: Range Rover Sport SDV8: What They're Saying
Monday 11th November 2013

Range Rover Sport SDV8: What They're Saying

How many superlatives can one car accumulate? PH acts scorekeeper on the Range Rover SDV8



Should a time ever come, post-fracking apocalypse, when we are restricted to just one car in the garage, the new Range Rover Sport SDV8 could be a more than decent shout for that golden berth. Its 339hp, 516lb ft of torque, six-second 0-60 time, 32.5mpg on the combined cycle and nailed-on handling on or off road, allied to looks and comfort that will fit into just about any social milieu, had our other Dan (Prosser) coming back from the launch with a bit of dribble on his chin and a sign-off line describing the SDV8 Autobiography as "'one of the most complete cars on sale."

Were the other motor noters on the launch as convinced by the big diesel RR Sport?


What Car?'s Steve Huntingford laid down a general Sport marker by calling it "so good that it makes you question the sense in buying the full-size Range Rover." Probably not what Land Rover was aiming for, but Steve was calling the SDV8 as he saw it: "very agile... confident steering... torquey, sweet engine... classy." He liked the fact that for a relatively low £1,600 LR will fit a third row of seats. The only disappointment for him was the touchscreen infotainment system, which he thought "frustrating, confusing and slow." At the end of the day he nominated the only marginally slower (but £6.5K cheaper) SDV6 as the pick of the Sport range, noting as an aside that the six was over £21K cheaper in HSE spec. And he accidentally answered a few PH posters' questions by reckoning that the SDV8 definitely wouldn't keep up with a V8 diesel Cayenne.


Auto Express sent Tom Phillips. He was impressed by the SDV8's "staggering breadth of capability." He called it a "potent driver's car"and an "engaging, accurate way to take on your favourite road." Tom liked the "gurgling, bassy noise" and thought the difference between the Sport and the Range Rover was that it "connected you to the road rather than cossetted you from it." He didn't say that made it better, just different. Within the Sport range, he thought that the SDV8 "could be the sweet spot."

 


The Autocar man on the spot, or indeed Sport, was Matt Saunders. He made the interesting observation that for exactly the same £81,550 as the SDV8 Autobiog you could slap in an order for the 169g/km Sport Hybrid that's due out next year. He noted the SDV8's performance was "a little shy" of the Porsche Cayenne S and BMW X5 M50d diesels. "'Brisk but not all that quick" was his summation. Having said that, he rated the "excellent steering precision" and the car's grip and fluency. He ended up recommending it over the Germans for its "honesty, polish and poise", the "'warmth and luxury of its cabin" and its "unquestionable superiority over the rough stuff."


Car Enthusiast was represented by Kyle Fortune. He was pleased by the relative simplicity of the second-gen car's styling, by its "smoothness and composure" and by the functionality of the cabin, but not by the "really old" satnav. His main point was that the differences between the eight and the six "aren't perhaps as marked as you might expect." Kyle thought you'd be impressed by the V6 but left wondering why you've spent the extra on the V8. "The V6 seems to over deliver where the V8 seems to under." Don't you hate it when things under? Anyway, for that reason, he too came out on the side of the SDV6 as the best value proposition in the Sport range.


PHers said:

"The price simply staggers me. Aside from that, 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." Digga

"I have no doubt that this is a spectacularly good car. There is only one, huge, elephant sized issue that we must address. The issue is, of course, reliability." toppstuff

"I think it's got to a point where these need to start being compared to things more like Bentley Continentals." dukebox9reg

"I seem to recall a number of dealer stories about diehard 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 and were converted straight away. And these were people who really don't need to worry about money." zeppelin101

"£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." rtz62

"Wait until the hybrid Sport hits the road next year. It has the 3.0 diesel and performs as well as the V8 diesel. The fuel economy is quoted as 44mpg." wargriff

"Is it just me that can't see the benefit over the V6? 0-60 in 6.9s, where the V6 is 7-point-something (I think). Take a hit on the fuel (if you care about that) and a good £10-15k more expensive. I don't see the benefit." brickwall

"My view is that the TDV6 at £51k is the sweet spot for this sort of car. Specify the optional third row of seats and you are are done... Save yourself £30k." TWPC

"A golf is £30k nowadays." jdw1234

"Despite the £80k price tag, the shiny paint and the acres of leather, Land Rover still engineer their cars to be capable of overland expeditions. So the engine needs to be able to run on diluted camel piss while towing a three and a half tonne trailer in all terrains. Ultimate tarmac performance against a competitor vehicle which has been solely honed at the 'Ring, is one criteria - but not the defining one." Impasse


[Sources: What Car?, Auto Express, Autocar, Car Enthusiast]

Author
Discussion

oldtimer2

Original Poster:

729 posts

163 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
If, as on Desert Island disc and a choice of music, you were forced to choose just one car for all purposes then the Range Rover Sport would be top of my list. When the rest of the Land Rover range is updated using the RR/RRS architecture then perhaps a new Discovery or Defender replacement would fulfill that role - but they are not yet available.

oldtimer2

Original Poster:

729 posts

163 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
If, as on Desert Island disc and a choice of music, you were forced to choose just one car for all purposes then the Range Rover Sport would be top of my list. When the rest of the Land Rover range is updated using the RR/RRS architecture then perhaps a new Discovery or Defender replacement would fulfill that role - but they are not yet available.

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

277 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
I just don't think t looks that special.

Bland. The old one looked better. More presence. I know it was sh*t but the new one looks like some japanese mpv thing.

smilo996

3,859 posts

200 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
So given the state of the Range Rover range as it were and with upcoming new Disco and likely frelander. Why would anyone buy an X6, 5, 3 or 1? There is certainly no illogical or logical reason to buy a G wagon either but some people of course will. Just cannot remember what they are called.
Certainly going places Jag & RR at the moment. Wish they would take Aston As well.

Benstermin

32 posts

256 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
Surely the higher price points are punching a lovely hole for Jaguar to fill with their SUV?!

lindrup119

1,235 posts

173 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
Love it just can't get over the rear design, looks squished and stupid, and I never normally say this but the exhausts seem too small...

williamp

20,436 posts

303 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
Yes but how does it compare with the M135???

Amirhussain

11,653 posts

193 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
lindrup119 said:
Love it just can't get over the rear design, looks squished and stupid, and I never normally say this but the exhausts seem too small...
+1. The rear end is ugly as fk hurl

RacerMike

4,970 posts

241 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
williamp said:
Yes but how does it compare with the M135???


thumbup

anonymous-user

84 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
I drove the FFRR in SDV8 flavour recently and it was astonishingly capable, but then it cost more to buy than my current property so it should be pretty decent. Not sure I'd actually part with my own money for one but as a jack of all trades car nothing really comes close.

f328nvl

507 posts

248 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
The Crack Fox said:
This "what they're saying" feature still doesn't work for me, it just seems like a lazy way of putting a feature together, perhaps with half an eye on SEO.

Give us something original, interesting, inspiring!
Agreed. Journalists quoting journalists and a web site quoting its own users, all a bit self referential and consequently in danger of having no meaning. I mean, is "the set of all sets that are not members of themselves" a member of itself, or not?

0a

24,157 posts

224 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
I really like this feature - I often buy one or more of the mags listed and wonder what the others (and PH) thought of the same car.

Nothing wrong with PH reviewing the reviews and adding in some PH forum opinions, in my view.

You don't have to read it after all!

Hitch78

6,119 posts

224 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
A Golf GTI is 30k? Never read that on here before.


22Rgt

3,575 posts

157 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
I just don't think t looks that special.

Bland. The old one looked better. More presence. I know it was sh*t but the new one looks like some japanese mpv thing.
This
^
Another fashion victim. A RR has always just been a very British go anywhere, carry anything muddy family load lugger but this thing just looks like another Korean/Jap effort. Looks no better than a Santa Fe..

dukebox9reg

1,721 posts

178 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
The reason why the RRS etc are slower than for example the Cayenne (and thirstier on paper at least) is that they are stuck with their heritage which is also a curse.

Land Rover if they ever bought out a car they couldn't cross the desert or the alps in a single bound would get hammered in the press (and all the haters that currently say well its not as good on road as a Cayenne would suddenly say, 'well it can't even off-road'. How many people get to the handling limits of a RRS or Cayenne to really feel the need to make out its the worse thing EVER). For God sake the Evoque can off road but why would you.

This brings extra cost, weight, complexity and compromises that other manufacturers aren't controlled by.

At least with the new Jag SUV they can ditch the majority of the off road constraints and so they can go chasing (and hopefully overtake) the Macan going down the road.

robm3

4,930 posts

257 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
Amirhussain said:
lindrup119 said:
Love it just can't get over the rear design, looks squished and stupid, and I never normally say this but the exhausts seem too small...
+1. The rear end is ugly as fk hurl
Completely agree, and so does Land Rover I suspect. They show endless front on and two third quarter shots in brochures and their webpage but I counted only two rear shots.

How did they stuff the rear up so badly I wonder because the front and side is lovely...

MonkeySpanker

319 posts

167 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
22Rgt said:
TTmonkey said:
I just don't think t looks that special.

Bland. The old one looked better. More presence. I know it was sh*t but the new one looks like some japanese mpv thing.
This
^
Another fashion victim. A RR has always just been a very British go anywhere, carry anything muddy family load lugger but this thing just looks like another Korean/Jap effort. Looks no better than a Santa Fe..
I'm guessing a Cayenne/Q7/X5 is beauty personified.........

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
MonkeySpanker said:
22Rgt said:
TTmonkey said:
I just don't think t looks that special.

Bland. The old one looked better. More presence. I know it was sh*t but the new one looks like some japanese mpv thing.
This
^
Another fashion victim. A RR has always just been a very British go anywhere, carry anything muddy family load lugger but this thing just looks like another Korean/Jap effort. Looks no better than a Santa Fe..
I'm guessing a Cayenne/Q7/X5 is beauty personified.........
Neither of us has mentioned any of the three cars that you brought to the conversation. I compared it to the old one, and the other guy compared it to the asian designs.

So I fail to see your point.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

235 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
Is this 'story' just a sponsored JLR advert?!

Cotic

469 posts

182 months

Tuesday 12th November 2013
quotequote all
dukebox9reg said:
At least with the new Jag SUV they can ditch the majority of the off road constraints and so they can go chasing (and hopefully overtake) the Macan going down the road.
Absolutely this. The Jag SUV can chase all the German soft-roader sales without tarnishing LR's off-road USP. Makes perfect business sense, if not aesthetic sense if you consider the idea of an upright Jag.

It's interesting that the supporters of the Cayenne, X5, Q7 quote figures like 0-60, mpg, etc. An off-roader as good as the RRS will never be able to compete directly with these numbers. The Jag will.