2003 4.6is vs Range Rover Sport supercharged

[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.

[R8DX5]

Originally Posted by LeMansX5

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

I stand corrected.

Carry on...

[X5audi]

Originally Posted by kevnmurphy

I think the Range is a little faster, but I don't think they hold their value over time (like 5+years) as well as a 4.6 or 4.8 would. If you look on the road, you don't see many RR 4.6HSE models (1996 - 2002). I think RR has really lost their touch with reliability over the last decade. They are very luxurious, and great looking, but I just don't think they go off road like they used to, or hold up over time. From what I have heard, they kind of hit the wall at 60,000 miles.
In the overall comparison, I would think the 4.6is would be better in most.

Sorry, but I simply must correct you.

The Range Rover Sport Supercharged is no quicker than a Toyota Highlander V6. The X5 4.6is was over a second quicker while it was still on sale.

The Range Rover has never been reliable. But it's still the best high-end off-roader money can buy in the US.

[X5audi]

Originally Posted by X5audi

The Range Rover Sport Supercharged is no quicker than a Toyota Highlander V6. The X5 4.6is was over a second quicker while it was still on sale.

Oh, I just realized something! The RRS-S suffers from curb weight syndrome. It is a disease found mostly in SUVs such as this, or the Cayenne. Its effects include aggressively-tuned exhaust notes that make it sound and feel like you're going fast... but in reality, you just can't pass that 525i next to you.

Curiously, although the X5 is just about as heavy as the Cayenne S, it is exempt from the syndrome. It feels like it's going fast (4.8i)... because it is.

[X5audi]

Originally Posted by TWALK

I wanted to pick up an Audi A4, but after reading about quite a few reliability issues with the year and model I was considering, I consulted my mechanic, and he also agreed that he could not tell me to get into that car in good conscience.

I must know when this was. I have had a trouble-free A6 ('00 2.7T, five-year lease), a Certified Pre-Owned A4 bought for my son that only had one minor problem ('98 1.8T, sold in early 2006), an S4 Cabriolet with no problems (two and a half years, and counting) and finally (deep breath!) an '06 A3 2.0T bought to replace the A4 as a winter car--no real problems. The only thing I've noticed is that sometimes, it is slow to start, because we leave it outside on brick pavers all day and sometimes I won't be driving it for a prolonged period. This is especially apparent in cold weather... but it always starts.

Audi and BMW have moved way up in CR lately. They each a half-dozen or so "recommended" vehicles. Both the Audi A6 and BMW 5 Series are officially more reliable than the Lexus GS.

[jst2878]

Originally Posted by kevnmurphy

I think the Range is a little faster, but I don't think they hold their value over time (like 5+years) as well as a 4.6 or 4.8 would. If you look on the road, you don't see many RR 4.6HSE models (1996 - 2002). I think RR has really lost their touch with reliability over the last decade. They are very luxurious, and great looking, but I just don't think they go off road like they used to, or hold up over time. From what I have heard, they kind of hit the wall at 60,000 miles.
In the overall comparison, I would think the 4.6is would be better in most.

I think it is a little bit faster! r u serious?!! My 4.4 is fair competition for a RR sport. You have been misinformed by the wrong people my naive friend

[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

[jst2878]

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.

Come on from one Bmw lover to the next, you definitely did not race a twin turbo porsche. You shouldn't insult the company of porsche without looking and racing the best truck they make. and the S is not the one

[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..