RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a history of going through cars about once a year. I leased a SCV6 back in 2016 and got rid of it because the infotainment system drove me nuts. I came back once they updated the infotainment when I found a perfectly spec'd ~1.5 year old 2017 at a nearby dealer. I went RRS SCV6 --> 4Runner --> Cayenne GTS --> RRS SCV8 ATB.

I've owned the 2017 RRS ATB SCV8 for close to two years now and I must say it's the most well-rounded vehicle on the road. The only thing I've considered swapping it for is another RRS.

Design: beautiful inside and out. The inside is particularly under-appreciated for how minimal yet functional it is.
Performance: quick and sounds great. Even the SCV6 I had a few years ago held its own well.
Handling: in Dynamic mode it handles better than it should for an SUV this large.
Comfort: I've done 6+ hour drives without any discomfort. The cooled seats are the cherry on top.
Capability: it's been on all of the trails (not fire roads, but actual off-road trails) my old 5th Gen 4Runner has been on and handled them with ease. It's great on snowy/icy roads especially with the KO2s I put on it.
Fuel capacity/driving range: another underrated feature is the large 27.5 gallon tank, which is a must when you've got the SCV8. So many SUVs on the road today (e.g. Cayenne, 4Runner) have small tanks at ~23 gallons or less. Being able to drive 400+ miles on a single tank on road trips or when going to the mountains is great.

The only thing I'd want improved is for it to get a bit better fuel economy (rumored twin-turbo V8 from BMW will do this) for even longer driving range and time between fill-ups.
 

·
Registered
2013-2015 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
364 Posts
Perfectly summed up, echoes my thoughts on the RRS.

Improvements I'd like to see: increase in off-road height by fitting bigger airbags, a front bull bar to replace the factory plastic bumper, and a way to add an additional fuel tank for overlanding range.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Perfectly summed up, echoes my thoughts on the RRS.

Improvements I'd like to see: increase in off-road height by fitting bigger airbags, a front bull bar to replace the factory plastic bumper, and a way to add an additional fuel tank for overlanding range.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
I'd appreciate higher off-road height as well. An additional tank would be great, but hard to see where they'd fit it.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that my RRS has been fairly reliable as well. I'm sitting at a bit under 42k miles without having to do anything other than regular maintenance (16k service interval is great!). My 4Runner was in the shop on average once per month for the ~18 months I owned it. Who would have thought I'd go from a Toyota to a RRS for reliability reasons :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Oh man I forgot one of my biggest gripes from the Cayenne GTS, which the RRS handles flawlessly: auto start/stop.

In the Cayenne it would cut the engine around 3mph as you were applying the brakes. Now imagine you weren't actually coming to a stop and hit 3mph, engine cuts off, then you hit the gas to speed up. It would try to quickly turn the engine over and start going which was a jerky mess. Drove me absolutely insane.

The RRS handles auto start/stop perfectly--so well that I never turn the feature off. You can come to a stop with your foot gently on the brake and it leaves the engine on. If you press it a little harder it will turn the engine off. It's designed so well that it took me a long time to realize I had learned how to modulate it subconsciously.
 

·
Registered
2013-2015 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
364 Posts
I'd appreciate higher off-road height as well. An additional tank would be great, but hard to see where they'd fit it.
for the extra off-road height, I use my GAP IID tool to bump up the height. But it would be nice to have extra 'hardware' height
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Totally agree with all this. Start/stop is first system I’ve experienced where I don’t need to turn it off. Regarding v8 fuel economy- for 2018 they raised it to 17/22 which is identical to the x5 50i. Not sure what they actually changed though. Anyway I’d be a bit weary of bmw v8s- they’ve yet to make one without some type of fatal flaw.
 

·
Registered
2006 Range Rover Sport 2016 Mercedes S550 4MATIC
Joined
·
123 Posts
Something to pound on:
1) I believe one can also order Cayenne with an extended fuel tank without paying extra.
2) In my previous daily commute, there was a long downhill after a stop sign. It's a very quiet area. I used to alternately drive a BMW X5, RRS, and Cayenne. I put the gear in neutral and let the car roll down the hill. At the bottom of the hill, I recorded the speed of the car. Cayenne was the fastest, X5 came to the 2nd place and RRS was the slowest. Does that indicate the mechanical/drivetrain system of RRS is the least efficient one?
 

·
Registered
2013-2015 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
364 Posts
RRS is probably heavier as well?

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2006 Range Rover Sport 2016 Mercedes S550 4MATIC
Joined
·
123 Posts
I think the tires/wheels for the cars were:
1) RRS: 255/50R19
2) Cayenne: 265/50R19
3) BMW X5: 255/55R18
Both Porsche and RRS have 19-inch tires while BMW had 18-inch tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Totally agree with all this. Start/stop is first system I’ve experienced where I don’t need to turn it off. Regarding v8 fuel economy- for 2018 they raised it to 17/22 which is identical to the x5 50i. Not sure what they actually changed though. Anyway I’d be a bit weary of bmw v8s- they’ve yet to make one without some type of fatal flaw.
I'm very curious what they did to increase by 3mpg in both city and highway. Any owners here have real-world numbers calculated after a fill-up to confirm?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
They remapped the terrain response and the transmission. The terrain response in normal mode is nowhere near as agile as it used to be, hence the universal availability of the "dynamic" mode.
They lowered the revs where upshifts happen as well.
There's totally no magic here, they just optimized for fuel economy. Whether the 3 mpg is true or not: my experience is that it's not.
 

·
Registered
L494 V8 SC Dynamic
Joined
·
225 Posts
It sure wont be if they put that POS BMW TTV8 in them. Five minute Google search tells all the horror stories. Sad times if they switch to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Oh man I forgot one of my biggest gripes from the Cayenne GTS, which the RRS handles flawlessly: auto start/stop.

In the Cayenne it would cut the engine around 3mph as you were applying the brakes. Now imagine you weren't actually coming to a stop and hit 3mph, engine cuts off, then you hit the gas to speed up. It would try to quickly turn the engine over and start going which was a jerky mess. Drove me absolutely insane.

The RRS handles auto start/stop perfectly--so well that I never turn the feature off. You can come to a stop with your foot gently on the brake and it leaves the engine on. If you press it a little harder it will turn the engine off. It's designed so well that it took me a long time to realize I had learned how to modulate it subconsciously.
I came from a 2014 Cayenne Turbo to the 2019 SVR and my experience is that the Cayenne felt much more involved as a drivers car which I preferred, especially with the PDCC and PTV options. Can't comment on the auto start/stop as I had it disabled, same as the SVR although I have to disable it each time I start up, which is annoying. Personally, I much preferred the Cayenne. It was faster, handled better, had a rock solid build, awesome dealer/support network and wasn't nearly as quirky as the SVR. I put over 50k miles on the Cayenne over four years before I sold it as compared to the SVR which I've only driven 6k miles in the last 16 months, so it's pretty evident that I enjoyed the Cayenne more and the Burmeister vs the Meridian Signature Surround Sound...not even close. Just my personal opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
It sure wont be if they put that POS BMW TTV8 in them. Five minute Google search tells all the horror stories. Sad times if they switch to them.
I had a 2008 M5, 2013 M5 and a 2015 M5 and the only issue I had was with the VANOS on I believe the 2008 M5 that was repaired under warranty. Personally I feel more comfortable with BMW that I do with Land Rover, but honestly, I'm not buying these vehicles for absolute reliability, with the exception of Porsche which I think are over-engineered and pretty much bulletproof.
 

·
Registered
2006 Range Rover Sport 2016 Mercedes S550 4MATIC
Joined
·
123 Posts
I came from a 2014 Cayenne Turbo to the 2019 SVR and my experience is that the Cayenne felt much more involved as a drivers car which I preferred, especially with the PDCC and PTV options. Can't comment on the auto start/stop as I had it disabled, same as the SVR although I have to disable it each time I start up, which is annoying. Personally, I much preferred the Cayenne. It was faster, handled better, had a rock solid build, awesome dealer/support network and wasn't nearly as quirky as the SVR. I put over 50k miles on the Cayenne over four years before I sold it as compared to the SVR which I've only driven 6k miles in the last 16 months, so it's pretty evident that I enjoyed the Cayenne more and the Burmeister vs the Meridian Signature Surround Sound...not even close. Just my personal opinion.
How do you feel competing a Cayenne Turbo with a Mercedes S550? The other day when I was outside Pittsburg, on the winding section of Rt 76, a Cayenne Turbo insisted on overtaking me when I was driving an S550. Eventually, traffic prevented us from doing anything stupid. How do you rate them on a race track? I feel like the high center of gravity of the Cayenne Turbo is a disadvantage. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
2006 Range Rover Sport 2016 Mercedes S550 4MATIC
Joined
·
123 Posts
From pure specs, Cayenne Turbo is faster, 4.1 seconds for 0-60, and 12.8 seconds for the quarter while 4.7 and 13.2 for S550. But the center of gravity of a Cayenne Turbo is probably 3 to 7 inches higher than that for an S550. On a winding road, it may be tough for the Cayenne.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top