Got owned by 2010 RR Sport SC!!

[bmwman3241]

Originally Posted by ard

1. Maybe fix your signature?????

2. You paid $150,000 non-refundable? So why bother canceling? Take delivery of the car and sell it for $10... you'd be $10 ahead.

I fixed my signature!! Happy!?

I have no need to buy the car and sell it for $10 lol
I could probably push for a refund, but I don't mind having credit with BMW as I will still get an X5M (Trade In) and also probably a X6 Hybrid for my mom.

I guess I didn't expect it to be that fast, but I was comparing it to the X5, not the M so it makes sense.

Anyways this thread was to compare the X5, Range Rover, and X5M. Not about what I am going to buy and my decisions.

[bmwman3241]

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

OK I'm confused here...how did you know it was a 2010 model when the new ones only have minor changes from the previous 390 hp supercharged version?

And...it was a 1/4 mile ahead of you after you covered 1/4 mile plus a 1 second pause...are you sure 'bout that? You're basically saying the RR Sport SC covers 1/2 mile in under 16 seconds...it doesn't. That would make it faster than a Bugatti Veyon...it isn't. It has a lot of power but it's heavy at 5900 lbs...I think the last test I saw listed it at 13.7 in the 1/4, so a tad slower than an E46 M3, but no slouch. Definitely a bit quicker than the 4.8 but it shouldn't leave you for dead.

Umm I know my cars. You could instantly tell the difference after seeing a 2010 once... Not that hard

I will be sure to get out and measure next time I race. Maybe it wasn't quarter mile but by the time I did reach quarter mile, the Range Rover was gone. Whether it was a quarter mile ahead, 1 mile, 10 miles IDC. It was ahead by quite a bit.
Maybe it had a Bugatti engine.. never know whats under the hood of these Dubai cars...

[ALPHA]

Although there is no comparison in between 2009 and 2010 model I think I prefer the 2009 front with the three layers than the 2010 with the two layers.... The 2009 looks more aggressive... on the other I am not used to seeing the 2010 model ...

[bmwman3241]

Originally Posted by ALPHA

Although there is no comparison in between 2009 and 2010 model I think I prefer the 2009 front with the three layers than the 2010 with the two layers.... The 2009 looks more aggressive... on the other I am not used to seeing the 2010 model ...

That is the sport model which has 2 layers for 2010. The classic is still with 3 layers so is therefore better than ever.
The sport autobiography (limited edition) on the other hand is looking nice.

The 2010 are selling like crazy. There is a 4 month back order here, and people are all upgrading to the new 2010.

I like the new interior colors..

[ALPHA]

Yes I know... but we are talking about the sport model here not the classic...

As a total I prefer by far the 2010 but as a front I still like more the 2009 model!

[bmwman3241]

Originally Posted by ALPHA

Yes I know... but we are talking about the sport model here not the classic...

As a total I prefer by far the 2010 but as a front I still like more the 2009 model!

Ohh, well I am interested in the Classic not the sport.

[StanF18]

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

OK I'm confused here...how did you know it was a 2010 model when the new ones only have minor changes from the previous 390 hp supercharged version?

And...it was a 1/4 mile ahead of you after you covered 1/4 mile plus a 1 second pause...are you sure 'bout that? You're basically saying the RR Sport SC covers 1/2 mile in under 16 seconds...it doesn't. That would make it faster than a Bugatti Veyon...it isn't. It has a lot of power but it's heavy at 5900 lbs...I think the last test I saw listed it at 13.7 in the 1/4, so a tad slower than an E46 M3, but no slouch. Definitely a bit quicker than the 4.8 but it shouldn't leave you for dead.

No need to be confused Tahoe. Just look at this 'Car and Driver' link from their recent super-SUV comparo.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...c5c9b30d35.pdf

As you can see from this test, the 2010 RR Sport SC completely destroys the E70 BMW X5 4.8i (160 hp advantage, 5.1 sec to 60mph vs. the 4.8i's 6.4 sec to 60 mph according to BMW). But not to despair: the X5///M in turn completely destroys the 2010 RR Sport SC. 0-60 in 4.0 seconds flat and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds. Not to mention it totally destroys the RR SC in the skid-pad. So the latest Bimmer is still on top in the SUV race!

[BGM]

Originally Posted by StanF18

No need to be confused Tahoe. Just look at this 'Car and Driver' link from their recent super-SUV comparo.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...c5c9b30d35.pdf

As you can see from this test, the 2010 RR Sport SC completely destroys the E70 BMW X5 4.8i (160 hp advantage, 5.1 sec to 60mph vs. the 4.8i's 6.4 sec to 60 mph according to BMW). But not to despair: the X5///M in turn completely destroys the 2010 RR Sport SC. 0-60 in 4.0 seconds flat and 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds. Not to mention it totally destroys the RR SC in the skid-pad. So the latest Bimmer is still on top in the SUV race!

Yeah I don't think you can really compare the current 4.8 to the RR Sport SC. First, there's about a $20K price difference and with the (hopefully) new TTV8 coming that will close the gap on performance--X5 will be a much better value.

[bmwman3241]

One of my schoolmates who lives near me was leaving for school at the same time, and since we were both late we were speeding. X6 5.0 may be ahead in a stretch, but isn't beating me (X5 4.8) through traffic..

[CarsRmyVICE]

Cool pics bmwman looks like a bit of old fashion fun dubai style! The pictures you posted of the black on red RR autobiography are stunning. I always loved red on the inside! Given your stated driving conditions I would be very tempted to go with the RR. And btw if you really got owned bad maybe the guy was packing some engine mods, which would not be a shocker in dubai haha Good for you on being smart enough at 20 to realize you arent ready for an exotic just because you have the means. Take it slow and work your way up its more fun that way!