RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Everyone.


New to this board. I have been searching for an Suv for some time now. Narrowed my search down to either X5M or the 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged(little power hungry). I really love the finish on the Range Rover but many mechanics and telling me to stay away. They're claiming that after 100k, they start to fall apart with electrical and mechanical problems. Can I get some opinions on this matter? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
what you heard is correct.............there is a timer in there so right when you hit 100,001 miles the car literally self-destructs and vanishes into dust

SEARCH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
I think youll find on this board many many people who are very happy with the reliability of their sports. There is always the rare chance of getting a lemon with any car but the 2010 sports are rare so far so we dont have a lot of info on how they are. As for previous years id say very reliable and I love my sport, by far my favorite vehicle.
 

·
LIFETIME CONTRIBUTOR
2006-2009 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
11,013 Posts
My 2006 HSE has 125K miles, still in one piece and as much fun to drive as it was 4 years ago. I think your mechanics are still thinking early 90s Land Rovers. Back then, they'd fall apart well before hitting 100K miles. :lol:

Apples and oranges, but I thought that the RRS stacked up remarkably well against the street-only BMW monster in that comparison. Thanks for posting the link avus!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Great find Avus. It's a bit misleading comparing a fully loaded rrs with a base x5-M. Comparably equipped the X5-M is about $20k more than the rrs. Price-wise the rss is about the same as the x5 4.8 comparably equipped. I drove both back-to-back (rrs s/c and x5 4.8 ) and envied the X5's steering feel and iDrive, but prefer everything else about the rrs, especially the engine/transmission.

Wow, 0-60 in 5.2 is quite a bit better than the 5.9 spec. That's cool. I expected the handling results to be better, though. Wonder what the issue is there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
JeffW said:
...I expected the handling results to be better, though. Wonder what the issue is there.
i'll venture a guess and say that the 500+ lbs difference, combined with the RRS higher center of gravity (the pic in the article has the RRS in access mode), hurt performance #s for acceleration and grip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
You see a lot of old Land Rovers In Colorado. A lot. So I have never really bought the fact that they all fall apart. You see the old Town And Counties headed up to the slopes all the time and you don't see them on the side of the road all that much.
 

·
Registered
2010-2012 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
472 Posts
The understated coolness of the RRS is what sold me. A BMW X5 (M package) or GL550 are sweet but they are not understatedly cool....pull the trigger!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top