The Re-designed 2014 Range Rover Sport
- Thread starter MattScott
- Start date
I know it's tempting to judge a book by it's cover, but what makes you think it's any less capable that before. (Out side of the tire/wheel package, which plagues all 2005ish+ Rovers)
Seems to me, as long as it retains the Air suspension, low range, and Terrain Response it should do just as well as the previous Sport.
The 2014 Sport should share the same lightweight aluminum platform of the new Range Rover, so it should be considerably (800-1000 lbs?) lighter than the outgoing model and pack most of the toys of its big brother, including the new "smart" Terrain Response system, revised EAS, a new-for-2014 8-speed tranny, stop/start engine technology to save gas, etc. Hopefully, just as capable off road although it will be tough to fit small wheels over those brakes. In North America it should now come standard with a Jaguar 3-liter supercharged V6 making 340bhp/332lb.ft. as the base engine, while the 5-liter blown V8 will still be standard in S/C and Autobiography trims. No more normally aspirated 5-liter V8 on 2014s, not even as an option (that's also confirmed for the 2014 Range Rover, and rumors are the 2014 LR4 will be "downsized" to a S/C V6 engine as well, unfortunately the LR4 is still going to be morbidly obese for at least another year or two...) Still no diesels for us across the pond in 2014.
wreckdiver1321
Overlander
I never was a huge fan of the RRS. I like this even less. I liked the new Rangie from the get-go, but this looks like trash to me. Too bling, and the windows aren't near tall enough. It's just not appealing to me.
SteveMfr
Supporting Sponsor
Look at the vertical door gaps. Those aren't rockers, they're door-bottom-covers. Rock damage=new door. Same as the L405.
The thing that I have always liked about the Land Rovers is the "green house" affect.
(lots of windows, visibility, and light)
It seems they jumped on the Chrysler 300/Hummer "gangster" windows too late in the game.
Clearly a decision of style over function. (a departure from the core value).
I will say, however, I'll give the Range Rover Sport some love, as I do like a nice G4 equipped Sport!
D
(lots of windows, visibility, and light)
It seems they jumped on the Chrysler 300/Hummer "gangster" windows too late in the game.
Clearly a decision of style over function. (a departure from the core value).
I will say, however, I'll give the Range Rover Sport some love, as I do like a nice G4 equipped Sport!
D
I see what you mean. This is a little too "fancy" for me from the pictures but I will wait to reserve judgement until I see some full reviews, including off-road. Every new generation Rover that comes out seems to be criticized, yet it many ways they become more capable than ever.
While I don't disagree with you, a part of the reason for smaller windows in modern cars is crash safety and efficiency. Doors need to be bigger to house the ever increasing safety features like crash bars, and headliners are dropping to house airbags. Also, with efficiency being at, or near, the top of everyone's list reducing the sun load on a car's interior allows a smaller, lighter, and more efficient A/C system. The lower roofline and reduced frontal area help overall fuel economy too.
While consumers do make decisions based on styling - the styling is being developed and pushed by the manufactures for a reason.
I want to see more. 3/4 angle photos really are a bad shot for getting proportions. I'm curious about approach and departure.
lwg
Member
I like it. If you were to get in your way back machine and go back to 1999 you would see these same comments regarding the new Discovery II and how it's no longer a capable vehicle. I personally love all the new Land Rover's. They need to do this to continue to grow sales and remain in the US. Maybe they'll actually bring over the next Defender to satisfy the rest.
lwg
Member
lol, so true.
Snagger
Explorer
It definitely resembles the Evoque. It's not bad looking, though not to my taste, but I don't like the bulge in the bonnet or the grilles. I prefer the look of the old RRS, which was quite a pretty car. My only beef with the outgoing RRS was that it was so much kore expensive than the D3 on which it was based, while lacking the flexibility that the D£'s third row of seats and cavernous boot gave, and both vehicles' poor reliability and hugely expensive maintenance. I quite like the looks of the Evoque too, as long as it is in black, white or grey (colours don't suit it, and contrasting roofs look ****). Touble is, I could never have one as I don't fit in the seats - my rib cage and shoulders are too wide, even though I'm only 6' and 13st! I think giving the RRS the Evoque's looks might not be right, but if they can give it the Evoque's reliability and quality, it'll be a good car.