stilover

At the end of the day, if someone wants to buy a RR, then why berate him ??? Most of us could be seen as complete Chavy Tw@t's for driving Subaru's.

As members of the UK, we have choice. Choice in what we eat, drink, drive, etc.
Personaly, if my numbers came up, one of the first car's I'd buy is a RR sport. Why ?? Because I like them, and It would be my choice to buy one.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

My boss is a Land Rover enthusiast and really into off-roading, and he has a Range Rover. It's undeniably comfy and well equipped, and I'm not aware that he's had any major problems with it. It's 3 years old.

That said, it's also (obviously) very big and heavy and returns about 22mpg - and for all that bulk, I can't actually see that it offers much more useful interior space than a conventional estate. I'm sure it's great if you want to go off road and if you need to transport the whole family and their camping gear when you do so - but otherwise I just don't see any need to put up with the compromises in weight, thirst, handling and image.

Scoob+Bike=Fun

22mpg! it isnt that bad, about on par with most high end vehicles

I have a Merc ML 500, economy wise, it's about on par with one of my friends Clio 172, far better than a Supra Turbo I recently had

I admit I didnt need the extra weight, and wont take it off road (not with 22's on anyway!) , but bought it because i wanted to see what it was like to live with one. The handling is fantastic for what it is, you dont buy one for it, but this one has suprised me, although, the steering is a bit vague.
perofrmance is amazing for a big car, about on par with most current hot hatches (i.e the 172 , CTR etc) and the sound...well...

as for the image, well I dont care what everyone thinks, there will be good and bad opinions to whatever you drive.

opinions on a postcard.......




If you want a RR, get one!!! and enjoy it!

Adam.

AudiLover

Define what a high end vehicle is because 5 series Beemers will do 45MPG easy depending on the engine.


Your having a laugh arent you. You surely cant be serious. Talks about being dilusional, not even X5 drivers would claim this and the X5 is alot better than the MK1 ML.

Especially with 22's fitted I wonder how your ride must be like now compared to when stock.

Scoob+Bike=Fun

45mpg.....yeah in a diesel. High end petrol engined cars, sorry i must be more specific. examples could well be s4, s6, 740i, Range Rover....... like I said, it's on par with a Clio 172, about the same as the scoob, and certainly better than the integrale. Looking at an M5 next, expecting fuel economy to be similar that of the ML

And like i said, fantastic for WHAT IT IS, it's no rally car, I was expecting it to be like the last Range rover.


I take it you haven't driven one? straight line performace is excellent for a big barge, certainly amazed an Evo 5 driver the other week and a young lad in a CTR on the way back from Donnington last sunday.

Dave Thornton

Bluie - I was interested in your comment that a RR 4.4 V8 is cheaper to run than an Evo FQ330. You said that fuel consumption was similar and the Evo uses more expensive fuel. And I'm sure the insurance will be more for the Evo. But what about servicing? Although the Evo will visit the garage twice as often (or more), are the costs really that much more overall? As soon as the warranty is up, you're in for £1500 a year or some potentially very expensive bills, whereas in the Evo you could be servicing at a specialist and actually reducing your costs. Are you taking depreciation into account?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious!

For info, this is my way of working out running costs on a £15,000 2004 car that I don't yet own:
Fuel (annual miles/mpg x cost per litre x 4.545) - approx £2400
Insurance - approx £700
Depreciation (mileage related and age related) - approx £3000
Tyres - approx £400
Servicing - approx £600
Recovery - £60
Road tax - £180
Cost of the money (6% p.a. on £15000 value at beginning of year) - £900

So my costs per year would be £8240. Work out all costs this way and you'll never buy another brand new car again - a two year old car changed every year makes a lot of sense.

How does the Range Rover stack up this way?

Bluie

On the fuel Optimax was about 10p more per litre or about 10%
Consumption is slightly higher in the RR about 10%
Depreciation was £500 pm on the EVO and would still be at that rate.
I fortunately paid less that 50% of the original price for my RR and got a very good deal, could in fact sell it for more than I paid.
Servicing, even though the RR is more per service it only needs one for approx every 3 in the EVO
The warranty is my choice but would also pay for one on the EVO if it did not have one, albeit I doubt it would be £1500
Insurance £825 EVO £450 RR
Tyres on the EVO were £100 per corner and lasted 10k, on the RR they are £200 but last 20k, so even cost
Road tax would be the same
Recovery is within the warranty.

So over all I still reckon the RR is cheaper to run and do not forget it was a £65k car new as oppossed to £31k.

Horses for courses, I think my days of Jap performance cars are over, having started with a Terzo then a UK Skyline R34GTR and finally the EVO, great times had but moving on.