2003 4.6is vs Range Rover Sport supercharged

[R8DX5]

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?

To the original poster. You do realize that there is no such vehicle as a "Range Rover Sport Supercharged". There is a Range Rover Sport and there is a Range Rover Supercharged. None of which is faster than a 4.6.

[TWALK]

Originally Posted by R8DX5

To the original poster. You do realize that there is no such vehicle as a "Range Rover Sport Supercharged". There is a Range Rover Sport and there is a Range Rover Supercharged. None of which is faster than a 4.6.

True statement

[King]

Originally Posted by R8DX5

To the original poster. You do realize that there is no such vehicle as a "Range Rover Sport Supercharged". There is a Range Rover Sport and there is a Range Rover Supercharged. None of which is faster than a 4.6.

Actually the original poster is correct. The Range Rover comes in 4 different models:

Range Rover
Range Rover Supercharged
Range Rover Sport
Range Rover Sport Supercharged

[LeMansX5]

Originally Posted by King

Actually the original poster is correct. The Range Rover comes in 4 different models:

Range Rover
Range Rover Supercharged
Range Rover Sport
Range Rover Sport Supercharged

http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Ve...ontextLink_1_1

[R8DX5]

Originally Posted by LeMansX5

http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Ve...ontextLink_1_1

I stand corrected.

Carry on...

[Aimster]

I think a 4.4 can smoke a supercharged range rover.

Range Rover is not that fast. Just cost a lot for whatever reason.

[krazee]

I have a 4.8is and my buddy has the RR, I have dusted him numerous times, even my fiance has dusted him. The Bimmer just sits alot better on the road, and holds stronger. Not to say the RR is not a nice truck, but performance wise there is no comparison, not for anything but I would also have to venture and say it depends on the drive sometimes as well. IMO.

I have also dusted the Cayenne for fun, there just not a real porshe and that's a shame because they are really nice cars. They look cheesy on the inside as well...but that's my opinion.

[TWALK]

Originally Posted by krazee

I have a 4.8is and my buddy has the RR, I have dusted him numerous times, even my fiance has dusted him. The Bimmer just sits alot better on the road, and holds stronger. Not to say the RR is not a nice truck, but performance wise there is no comparison, not for anything but I would also have to venture and say it depends on the drive sometimes as well. IMO.

I have also dusted the Cayenne for fun, there just not a real porshe and that's a shame because they are really nice cars. They look cheesy on the inside as well...but that's my opinion.

I'm assuming it wasn't a Cayenne Turbo?


Porsche Cayenne Turbo-
Top Speed 266.0 kph / 165.3 mph
0 - 62 mph5.6 seconds
0 - 100 mph12.9 seconds


BMW X5 4.8is
Top Speed246.1 kph / 152.9 mph
0 - 62 mph6.1 seconds
0-100 mph N/A

[krazee]

Originally Posted by TWALK

I'm assuming it wasn't a Cayenne Turbo?


Porsche Cayenne Turbo-
Top Speed 266.0 kph / 165.3 mph
0 - 62 mph5.6 seconds
0 - 100 mph12.9 seconds


BMW X5 4.8is
Top Speed246.1 kph / 152.9 mph
0 - 62 mph6.1 seconds
0-100 mph N/A

No I believe it wasn't a turbo. It was a regular Cayenne, maybe that's why I dusted him..

[SeattleYates]

Originally Posted by TWALK

Porsche Cayenne Turbo-
Top Speed 266.0 kph / 165.3 mph
0 - 62 mph5.6 seconds
0 - 100 mph12.9 seconds

BMW X5 4.8is
Top Speed246.1 kph / 152.9 mph
0 - 62 mph6.1 seconds
0-100 mph N/A

I've driven a Cayenne Turbo, and I would have to agree that - because of the turbo - it is quicker than any stock X5. However, I added the Dinan S3 package (which includes supercharger) to my 2003 4.6is (see http://www.xoutpost.com/x5-e53-forum/...an-s3-wow.html ), and have clocked myself 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, which I believe is faster than any stock SUV except the Cayenne Turbo S. Range Rovers aren't even in the competition at that level.