RE: In depth: new Range Rover
Discussion
WhereamI said:
goldblum said:
Haha have a word with yourself.
Having said that you do confirm the RR fanbwoy stereotype nicely.
There is something deeply pathetic about people who label those they don't agree with as a fanboy or fanboi but WTF is a fanbwoy? If you don't have anything constructive to say why say anything?Having said that you do confirm the RR fanbwoy stereotype nicely.
As I can't afford a new RR, my opinion isn't valid.
Personally I'm not keen on the styling, I prefer the look of the L322 when it was launched, and think it became too "blinged" as time went on.
However I do think the new car will sell loads & I may think about buying one when they're a bit older & I can afford it.
Personally I'm not keen on the styling, I prefer the look of the L322 when it was launched, and think it became too "blinged" as time went on.
However I do think the new car will sell loads & I may think about buying one when they're a bit older & I can afford it.
unrepentant said:
This site used to be for real car enthusiasts who could appreciate great new cars and discuss them in an adult way. Now it seems to be being taken over by wannabees who use chavspeak and stupid insults to talk about cars they will never buy.
There's a great deal more to this site than just cars, hadn't you noticed? I expect not.unrepentant said:
This site used to be for real car enthusiasts who could appreciate great new cars and discuss them in an adult way.
As long as they agree with your opinion? Are you seriously suggesting that if you don't think the new RR is a 'great new car' you're not a 'real car enthusiast'?unrepentant said:
to talk about cars they will never buy.
You're sharp. goldblum said:
WhereamI said:
goldblum said:
Good constructive post.
Thank you, I suspect that most people on this thread would agree.Edited by goldblum on Sunday 9th September 16:35
Have people been reading the same article as me? This sounds like an awesome piece of kit- 39% lighter than the previous model is a huge achievement and yet people bang on about the way it looks? It's like talking about cars and bikes with the Wife
It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
VidalBaboon said:
Have people been reading the same article as me? This sounds like an awesome piece of kit- 39% lighter than the previous model is a huge achievement and yet people bang on about the way it looks? It's like talking about cars and bikes with the Wife
It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
So, other than not actually being 39% lighter and not being able to do 181mph, it looks like JLR marketing has done the job....................... ;-(It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
Max_Torque said:
VidalBaboon said:
Have people been reading the same article as me? This sounds like an awesome piece of kit- 39% lighter than the previous model is a huge achievement and yet people bang on about the way it looks? It's like talking about cars and bikes with the Wife
It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
So, other than not actually being 39% lighter and not being able to do 181mph, it looks like JLR marketing has done the job....................... ;-(It's not a bad looking car IMHO, as someone said, certainly a contestant for best car ever! 181mph, all-terrain, ability to tow, class-less, lots of toys...
Superb effort from JLR.
So the Monococque is 39% lighter. 450kgs lighter? Still, bloody good going.
Where does it say it cannot do 181mph? Aside from being governed to a speed dependant upon tyres.
VidalBaboon said:
I like to live in ignorance
So the Monococque is 39% lighter. 450kgs lighter? Still, bloody good going.
Where does it say it cannot do 181mph? Aside from being governed to a speed dependant upon tyres.
Tyres are the limiting factor (well, that and the longstanding auto gentleman's agreement about speeds over 155mph!). The stock S/C car's 155mph max is limited and even this is only if you choose the 22"s: the standard car is limited to 140mph. So the Monococque is 39% lighter. 450kgs lighter? Still, bloody good going.
Where does it say it cannot do 181mph? Aside from being governed to a speed dependant upon tyres.
It's the supercharged car's 0-62mph in 5.1secs that I still find mighty. Which it can do before then going on to master Eastnor: remarkable.
unrepentant said:
goldblum said:
unrepentant said:
to talk about cars they will never buy.
You're sharp. A crude comment about Corsas (incorrect use of apostrophe) and tampons? (incorrect use of the capital 't'). I'm a bit disappointed, frankly. But not surprised.
AMDBSNick said:
I have to spec mine tomorrow. Can someone in the know please convince me why I should spec the 4.4V8 instead of the 3.0V6.
Ignoring the Dynamic Response option only available on the bogger engines
It's a question of priorities - the 4.4 is faster and more powerful, the 3.0 is more economical with lower emissions. You pay your money and take you choice. Ignoring the Dynamic Response option only available on the bogger engines
Of course with the 4.4 you can drive a current model car with the same engine and see what you think, not so easy with the 3.0 hence it's a bit more of a punt in the dark. (Unless the 3.0 is the same engine as you can already get in a Sport or Discovery in which case you could try one of them).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff