RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
2010-2012 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
670 Posts
What's the source?

I hope is not, cause it's uglier that borrowed luggage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Its a photoshop. You can see its not even based on the new 2010 RRS by the styling cues that give away that the picture is based on an 06-09.
 

·
Premium Member
2006-2009 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
5,175 Posts
JetPilot said:
That picture is old.

This is more recent ...

2014 Range Rover Sport
[attachment=0:i7bkjvkl]2014 RANGE ROVER SPORT.jpg[/attachment:i7bkjvkl]
Oh good, looks like there's still plenty of stuff I can color code on the new one. :thumb:

Anybody here know if the 2014 headlights will fit in the 2010?
 

·
Registered
2010-2012 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
670 Posts
gooseyloosey said:
JetPilot said:
That picture is old.

This is more recent ...

2014 Range Rover Sport
[attachment=0:3qu5kcub]2014 RANGE ROVER SPORT.jpg[/attachment:3qu5kcub]
Oh good, looks like there's still plenty of stuff I can color code on the new one. :thumb:

Anybody here know if the 2014 headlights will fit in the 2010?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: good one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
rafa said:
gooseyloosey said:
JetPilot said:
That picture is old.

This is more recent ...

2014 Range Rover Sport
[attachment=0:1y3vqhsq]2014 RANGE ROVER SPORT.jpg[/attachment:1y3vqhsq]
Oh good, looks like there's still plenty of stuff I can color code on the new one. :thumb:

Anybody here know if the 2014 headlights will fit in the 2010?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: good one

We’ve been through this … with enough duct tape and grinder you could fit the headlights from a 1996 Chevy Impala if you wanted :dance:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
mlarco52 said:
now i am second guessing getting a 2010 if its going to be replaced in the next few years...
The idea is that if the new one comes out as a 2014 (in mid 2013) you would not buy it in the first year so that takes you to 2015 (4 to 5 years away).

If, like me, you like to buy on the year of the “refresh” then you would be looking at arount 2018 so I would definitely consider getting one now (especially with financing rates this low). Buying past early 2011 would not make a lot of sense.
 

·
SUPER MODERATOR
2006-2009 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
4,468 Posts
I have to confess I"ve never understood this mentality of waiting for a new refresh to come out unless you're within 1 year of the new model. If you like the current vehicle and plan to enjoy it for several years, why not buy it instead of delaying the "pleasure".
 

·
Registered
2010-2012 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
670 Posts
I agree, but I must admit that had I known the 2010 was going to have such cool interior i would have gone that route. So I kick my [email protected]# a little, not hard, but I kick it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Yep. I would have waited as well. I liked the pics above, but I just dont think I can wait that long. Didnt someone post that vehicles past 2012 or 13 have to have better gas mileage? What is that going to do to our 12 mpg engines???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
PJPR01 said:
I have to confess I"ve never understood this mentality of waiting for a new refresh to come out unless you're within 1 year of the new model. If you like the current vehicle and plan to enjoy it for several years, why not buy it instead of delaying the "pleasure".
There are a lot of factors including the condition / practicality of your existing vehicle, etc. In the refresh year you have a vehicle with most of the bugs worked out and a few very handy new options in the package plus minor change to the appearance that help the car look less dated as time goes on.

There will always be a little second guessing and slight remorse when new stuff comes out but in the middle of the cycle helps soften the pain and sets up the perfect time line for when you buy the next generation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
kstatenupe said:
Yep. I would have waited as well. I liked the pics above, but I just dont think I can wait that long. Didnt someone post that vehicles past 2012 or 13 have to have better gas mileage? What is that going to do to our 12 mpg engines???
The British Government has given Land Rover tens of millions of dollars to develop new fuel efficient vehicles (like the LRX).
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/11/uk-offers-27-million-to-land-rover-to-build-lrx/

All next generation vehicles will have to meet tougher millage and emission standards.

In the case of the RRS, they did a great job with the engine. All they have to do is drop 800lb off the dated chassis and you’d be getting 25 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
ok...forgive my ignorance, but dont we as rover owners/weekend off-road warriors what a heavy vehicle? what would the compromise be if they had to shed a few pounds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
kstatenupe said:
ok...forgive my ignorance, but dont we as rover owners/weekend off-road warriors what a heavy vehicle? what would the compromise be if they had to shed a few pounds?
Lighter Equals

Off Road:
Less chance of bogging down in the mud
Easier to clime rocks
What’s that technical term again … “power to weight ratio”

On Road:
Faster
Better handling
Better fuel mileage
What’s that technical term again … “power to weight ratio”

Back in the day if you cut weight you usually had to sacrifice strength and rigidity in the frame. With current technology you can shed 40% of the weight and sacrifice nothing.

“Range Rover acquits itself well. A fair percentage of its extra mass can be traced to a structure that’s as stiff as a cantilever bridge, though both the BMW and the Porsche achieve comparable chassis rigidity at much lower weight” - Car & Driver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
kstatenupe wrote:eek:k...forgive my ignorance, but dont we as rover owners/weekend off-road warriors what a heavy vehicle? what would the compromise be if they had to shed a few pounds?



Lighter Equals

Off Road:
Less chance of bogging down in the mud Not Necessarily. Tanks and Humvee do pretty well in mud
Easier to clime rocks Here we have some news, Monocoque bodies are lighter, because there is no frame. But a heavy frame vehicle can take a massive rock hit and keep its wheels pointed in the correct direction. Dent a monoque and the alignment is gone. Why do we use rock sliders?
What’s that technical term again … “power to weight ratio” My 175 Kawasaki has a lower power to weight ration than the 1200 Harley but, I don't think the Harley will get too far off the blacktop.

On Road:
Faster Wind resistance vs horsepower, not weigh, dictates the top speed.
Better handling. Un-sprung weight and geometry are the deterrents to handling. A 2 ton BMW will out handle a Cube any day.
Better fuel mileage After 60 mph, wind resistance is the largest drag factor of an automobile if you mean top speed. I had a big Mercury Grand Marquis last week for my trip to Albany. That sucker got over 27 mpg at an average speed of 75 mph for the 210 mile highway trip. The only thing I can think of is the display was lying, but the gas receipts said it was true.
What’s that technical term again … “power to weight ratio”

Lighter does not equal better. Intelligent design for a specific purpose equals better. The old solid axles off road, were better than the open CV jointed units LR uses now. Land on a rock on one of those 1" shafts they call axles and see which way your wheels points. Land on that old axle housing and you had a good chance of going on. Planted my D90 on many a log without remorse.

"though both the BMW and the Porsche achieve comparable chassis rigidity at much lower weight” - Car & Driver" How many adds for LR do you see in Car and Driver? Yes monocoque, make a very rigid body until you dent it. The big Range Rover is just like the BMW, no frame. Hell they designed it. But you sacrifice survivability off road when you give away the frame. BMW and Porsche and the big Range Rover (I know some don't want to hear that) are purposed designed for ON road performance. If you go back to the mid '90's, before the Land Rover sell out, and look at their design criteria as explained in their literature, you will see that only the Defenders still adhere to it, the LR4 and RRS are half attempts, and the RR was designed by those who could care less.

I find most "NEW" is a to hide cheaper. Front wheel drive was "NEW" because it let the manufacturers build the engine drive-train as a single component and installation was quick, read cheap. But even Infinities are rear wheel drive now, MB, BMW, Jag never left.
Electronic transmision are new. But now you can select Park unless the computer lets you (see Toyota Prius).
McPherson Struts are great on the race track because they make it easy to adjust camber and caster to the specific track-tire combination. Manufacturers like them because they are cheap. But most good handling road cars went back to or stayed with unequal arm A-frame.
Even Rack and Pinion steering is a 'gimee' to cheap. The racks wear in where? In the center. So if you adjust clearance as the center wears they bind at the ends. Recalculating ball, worm type steering has as much feel and a better wear pattern. But they use rack and pinion on race cars so it must be good. News Flash, they change the rack every race and it is easy and cheap.
Don't get me started on the electric steering.

Sorry had nothing else to do after the NCAA tonight, nothing personal.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top