Hi folks,

Thought I'd take a few moments of your time to see if you might share all of the good, but more importantly the bad with a supercharged Range Rover Sport? Course, I'll be reading the posts here too.

I've been driving Porsche's for a long time now, and write this as my baby sits quietly in the garage. Marrying late in life, with adolescent son and wife, some changes have to be considered. So, they have me considering the value of an SUV. Problem is, coming from a P-Car, I like a vehicle that handles nicely, quality workmanship, is fun to drive (I am a pro-active driver) well as you now know appreciate some decent power under the hood. It will be used for bicycling, CC skiing, hunting, fishing and hauling kids to soccer match's periodically.... but, mostly for my trips to the gym and golf courses all over.<g>

I will be driving both the RR versions this weekend. Your insight is greatly appreciated. <g>

 

I would ask why not look at the Porsche Cayenne Turbo if your a Porsche man. $500 less (not like its much) and 50 more HP.

 

That is vehicle came in number 10 last year as one of the new top 10 4wheel drive vehicles, Hell the Torque cmae in like number 3 I think.
Adressing what he wants to use it for, I would suggest a Sport with 18" ties, he will get more bang for the buck.
Mike

 

LOL, never fails <shakehead> Why ask such a question? Have you priced the Turbo, <g> I have; it's considerably more then the RR Sport with a Supercharger, averaging around 95k+ depending on extras. Besides, I don't see any greater value in the turbo.

If your familiar with turbos', then you know they are worthless under 60-70mph, which is why I have a Carrera 2, not a turbo.

 

i am a P-car guy as well and am considering a full size Rover. If you want speed and handling, I would suggest the Cayanne as well. The S version is quite sporty, you don't need the turbo.