2003 4.6is vs Range Rover Sport supercharged

[alpineE53]

Originally Posted by TQ2K

4.6 is faster... even the 04+ 4.4 is faster....

Yep..I was just about to say that the 4.4 is even faster than the RRS Supercharged. The 0-60 is around 7 seconds. You have to remember that just because the Range Rover is a SPORT model dosn't mean that its going to be as sporty as a X5 or Cayenne. Range's are still very heavy and off road capable cars..

[jst2878]

Could you imagine a 2001 4.4 beating a range rover sport supercharged to the quarter mile....I have done it....I don't believe the range rover sport is geared for speed.

Originally Posted by woodranch

Which is faster in 0 to 60 the 2003 4.6is or the Range Rover Sport Supercharged.Any thoughts on the RangeRover in comparison to the 4.6 in all other areas?

[Aimster]

Road and Track got 15.0 for the Range Rover Sport.
I decided to check Road and Track
They got 15.1.

For comparision:
4.8 X5 runs 14.5
4.6 X5 runs 14.8
4.4 X5 2004 runs 14.9
4.4 X5 2000-2003 runs 15.2
3.0 X5 runs 16.1 (pre-facelift)

The above times for the BMWs might be off from .1-.3. Depending on weather, driver, road condition, etc etc.

[2002Silver4.6is]

Ahhh.. but the Rover got the Brembos!!!! Damn you BMW execs for not giving the 4.6is the good brakes!!!

[DINANM3]

4.6 definately beats the RR sport. My 4.4 with exhaust only spanked one pretty bad.
A good friend of mine got one and was talking shit about my X5. Finally I couldnt take his crab anymore and smoked him. He was speachless.

[BimmerDude]

Nice!!! people under estimate the X5. I love that, so when I blow certain cars or Suvs off the road they freak out. I had a Caddy Escalade and a neon try to mess with the X just yesterday. Guess what happened? Blow the Caddy by far and the little neon with some loud and nasty exhaust had a chance but once I hit 2nd gear he just some how stayed far far back....

[jst2878]

Originally Posted by Aimster

Road and Track got 15.0 for the Range Rover Sport.
I decided to check Road and Track
They got 15.1.

For comparision:
4.8 X5 runs 14.5
4.6 X5 runs 14.8
4.4 X5 2004 runs 14.9
4.4 X5 2000-2003 runs 15.2
3.0 X5 runs 16.1 (pre-facelift)

The above times for the BMWs might be off from .1-.3. Depending on weather, driver, road condition, etc etc.

All I know is my x5 01 4.4 is stock and it is faster than 15.2...and def faster than a range rover.

[ljnlaw]

Ahhh.. but the Rover got the Brembos!!!! Damn you BMW execs for not giving the 4.6is the good brakes!!!

Silver I think the stock brakes on the 4.6 are more than adequate...when this vehicle was produced by BMW it came equipped with the largest rotors BMW offered on any production vehicle including (I believe) the M5.

[2002Silver4.6is]

Originally Posted by ljnlaw

Silver I think the stock brakes on the 4.6 are more than adequate...when this vehicle was produced by BMW it came equipped with the largest rotors BMW offered on any production vehicle including (I believe) the M5.

I agree the stock brakes have amazing stopping power but it would have been nice to have the Brembos under there!!

[BimmerDude]

Its been said that the 01 4.4is are faster then the other years. Don't know why, but I'll tell you something about my 4.4i. This baby drives much more aggrasive then my buddys 03 4.4i. I've taken him each time he tries off the line and on the highway. One day we said we would video the quick race. But never have really gotten to that point. Before summer is over, I'll get some video footage. My car only has CAI, and his is just stock. But he is to be pumping 290 Horse.... So, I agree with JST2878....