Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.
Land Rover has put a new motor in the 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged. As before, the force-fed V8 is shared with the Jaguar line, but with 5.0 liters of displacement, it's much more in step with the motivational needs of a nearly 3-ton SUV than the old 4.2-liter engine. Horsepower swells from a mere 390 to a whopping 510, while torque climbs from 410 to 461.
These are big numbers, so we couldn't resist the opportunity to compare the 2010 Land Rover Range Rover Sport Supercharged to the current reigning performance champ in the SUV kingdom, the 2010 BMW X5 M. Keep in mind this isn't a straight-up comparison. The vehicles weren't tested on the same day, and they have different personalities. The BMW is set up to give you maximum performance on the street, whereas the Land Rover is still aiming for some nebulous middle ground. Sure, it comes with a potent engine and summer tires, but it's still lugging around enough off-road hardware for a weekend run from Paris to Dakar. So this comparison is just for fun, OK?
For those keeping score, the 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged has a $74,195 base price with destination. Our tester had rear-seat entertainment ($2,500), adaptive cruise control ($2,000), upgraded wheels ($1,000), extended leather ($1,000), a 360-degree camera ($800), a locking rear differential ($500) and HD radio ($350).
Range Rover Sport S/C X5 M
0-30 (sec): 2.0 1.8
0-45 (sec): 3.5 3.1
0-60 (sec): 5.2 4.5
0-75 (sec): 7.5 6.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 104.1 12.8 @ 108.5
0-60 w/ 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9 4.2
30-0 (ft): 31 29
60-0 (ft): 123 116
Skid pad lateral accel (g): 0.76 0.91
Slalom 61.1 63.5
Vehicle: 2010 Land Rover Range Rover Sport Supercharged
Odometer: 1,743
Date: 11/10/09
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $82,345
Specifications:
Drive Type: Permanent four-wheel drive with 2-speed transfer case, and locking center and rear differentials
Transmission Type: 6-speed automatic with sport and manual modes with steering wheel-mounted paddles
Engine Type: Supercharged 90-degree V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4999.7/ 305.1
Redline (rpm): 6,800
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 510 @ 6,000-6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 461 @ 2,500-5,500
Brake Type (front): 15.0-inch ventilated disc with 6-piston fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 14.4-inch ventilated disc with single-piston sliding calipers
Steering System: Variable-ratio, hydraulic-assist power rack-and-pinion steering
Suspension Type (front): Independent, double-wishbone, air springs, adaptive dampers
Suspension Type (rear): Independent, double-wishbone, air springs, adaptive dampers
Tire Size (front): 275/40R20
Tire Size (rear): 275/40R20
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Latitude Diamaris
Tire Type: Asymmetrical, directional summer tires
Wheel size: 20 X 9.5
Wheel material (front/rear): Aluminum
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 5,853
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.0
0 - 45 (sec): 3.5
0 - 60 (sec): 5.2
0 - 75 (sec): 7.5
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 104.1
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9
30 - 0 (ft): 31
60 - 0 (ft): 123
Braking Rating: Very Good
Slalom (mph): 61.1 (59.5 stability control on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.76 (0.73 stability control on)
Handling Rating: Average
Db @ Idle: 48.8
Db @ Full Throttle: 72.3
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 59.2
Acceleration Comments: This new motor is damned powerful and an enormous improvement over the last Range Rover Sport S/C. Smooth, torque and happy to rev. Upshifts are both smooth and fast.
Braking Comments: Impressive power, excellent fade resistance (best stop on 5th run) and pretty decent feel. Expected more forward pitch.
Handling Comments: Skidpad: Turning the stability control off only widens the envelope slightly, but noticeably allows the Range Rover Sport to use all available grip. Steering is a little heavy and isolated but appropriately so. Slalom: Trial and error to guess the stability control system's threshold, but still more allowance (and capability) than I expected. Doesn't abuse the tires or feel like it's going to tip over. The "Sport" designation means something more this time around.
Vehicle: 2010 BMW X5 M
Odometer: 1,702
Date: 9/15/09
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $89,875
Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed automatic with sport and manual modes with steering wheel-mounted paddles
Engine Type: Twin, twin-scroll turbocharged direct-injected 90-degree V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4395/268
Redline (rpm): 7,000
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 555 @ 6000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 501 @ 1500
Brake Type (front): 15.6-inch ventilated disc with 4-piston fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 15.2-in ventilated disc with 2-piston sliding calipers
Steering System: Speed-proportional, driver-selectable hydraulic-assist rack-and-pinion power steering
Suspension Type (front): Independent, double-wishbone, coil spring, driver-adjustable variable dampers, self-adjusting active anti-roll bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent, multi-link, self-leveling air springs, driver adjustable variable dampers, self-adjusting active anti-roll bar
Tire Size (front): 275/40R20 106W (38 psi)
Tire Size (rear): 315/35R20 110W (38 psi)
Tire Brand: Bridgestone
Tire Model: Dueler H/P Sport
Tire Type: High-performance asymmetrical, summer run-flat
Wheel size: 20 X 10 front - 20 X 11 rear
Wheel material (front/rear): aluminum
Curb Weight As Tested (lb): 5,332
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 3.1
0 - 60 (sec): 4.5
0 - 75 (sec): 6.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.8 @ 108.5
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.2
30 - 0 (ft): 29
60 - 0 (ft): 116
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 63.5
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.91
Handling Rating: Excellent
Db @ Idle: 42.2
Db @ Full Throttle: 77.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 61.5
Acceleration Comments: Even in default Drive (no M options selected), this lump is a rocket. The engine itself lacks any sort of audible personality, but it provides thrust like some sort of turbine propulsion unit. After selecting the M-mode and utilizing the launch control, it knocked more than a half-second off the 0-60 time and the upshifts were noticeably quicker and "belched" louder, as well. And seriously? This locomotive runs a 12-second quarter mile? I'm utterly amazed with how fast this thing is.
Braking Comments: While the distances aren't particularly short in a vacuum, they are remarkable for a 5,300-lb SUV. The fade resistance, too, is beyond impressive with the shortest stop arriving on the 6th run. A little more forward pitch than I had expected with all the real-time suspension hardware/software, but I'll cut it some slack, I guess.
Handling Comments: Skidpad: M-dynamic Mode (MDM) produced only a slightly better result (0.91g vs. 0.90 g), however, it was far more controlled requiring far less steering and throttle manipulation to maintain a smooth and fast arc. Steering weight is a little excessive here, but otherwise perfectly tuned for feel and assist levels. Grip is astonishing. Slalom: Two things limited the X5 M's slalom results: the DSC is NOT fully defeatable and the tremendous wind blast/contrails the vehicle creates topple otherwise untouched cones with regularity. The problems started when I purposely drove wide of the cones (to avoid blowing them down), effectively squaring off the turn which then awakens the DSC. Still, the connection between driver's palms and the tires' contact patches, the prodigious grip levels, and the obviously clever active AWD make the X5 M uncommonly (incongruously) nimble and capable.
fuhteng says:
09:19 PM, 11/30/09
Wow. Both vehicles are amazing pieces of work, but that X5 M is almost beyond belief.
notabigdeal says:
09:29 PM, 11/30/09
If the M didn't show better street performance I would be very disappointed. A Range Rover has its place and a M Suv has "a" place (?). Oh MY God WHy does M have an SUV.
bimmerjay says:
12:51 AM, 12/ 1/09
The X5 M owned the RR Sport but I bet the result would be quite the other way around off-road.
joefrompa says:
04:47 AM, 12/ 1/09
I'm floored by the BMW. A sub-13 second quarter mile in a >5000 pound stock SUV? In other words, engineers are deeming this thing capable of warranty for 100k (CPO). Freaking amazing.
And I think the new M5 is going to get this engine....
I don't have any drool left. It's all gone.
What amazes me even more about this whole thing is that BMW "entered" the gasoline turbocharging scene (after a very, very long hiatus) in late 2006. And everyone they've launched in the U.S. has just been a mind-bendingly awesome engine.
Maybe it's just a matter of having more money to dump into their engines than others, I don't know. Blows me away.
bodyblue says:
05:15 AM, 12/ 1/09
I think they are both amazing in their sillness. Who needs a SUV that can turn a 13 sec 1/4 mile? I hope they make a lot of money on the handfull they will sell.
syt_shadow says:
05:41 AM, 12/ 1/09
joefrompa:
BMW is pretty well known for engine building quality. The funny thing is that when you build engines correctly, even when a game changer comes along (diesel, turbos, etc) you continue to build the best engines.
In the US you don't get the 335d in proper form, but here it gets 272 hp out of 3 liters, significantly higher specific output than any other competing engine.
Their various gasoline/turbo and diesels are routinely some of the best engines available. Just look at the amount of Engine of the Year awards they get.
Another interesting example is the old M3's engine. With a 3.2 it gets 343 in European trim. It took Porsche 9 years and 3.6 liters to get the same output, and of course that engine is only available in a 100.000€ car versus the 75.000€ of the M3.
They really do some pretty impressive engineering. Others though do "better interiors"...
Cheers
syt_shadow says:
05:45 AM, 12/ 1/09
Regarding the sense of a SUV that turns out less than 13 sec quaters, it makes sense.
Whether it should have an M badge is another subject altogether. I don't think it should but well.
The idea is pretty fantastic, especially with the consumption levels of the X5/X6M. Here it's rated better than the M5, so the thousands of people who bought that can also afford to pay for this thing's gas.
Remember that although an M3 is much more involving, some people like having a single vehicle to do many things instead of 30 different ones.
As a single vehicle this thing looks very interesting!
fuhteng says:
07:33 AM, 12/ 1/09
hey blue, most of the cars this site reviews are silly. A stock Corvette with 505 hp (and it isn't even the top model?). Or a $200,000+ Ferrari I will never see? That doesn't make them any less fun. Same thing for these two monsters. Silly, but fun.
roadburner says:
08:14 AM, 12/ 1/09
"hey blue, most of the cars this site reviews are silly. A stock Corvette with 505 hp (and it isn't even the top model?). Or a $200,000+ Ferrari I will never see? That doesn't make them any less fun. Same thing for these two monsters. Silly, but fun."
Exactly. If we could only buy vehicles that we actually "need" most of us would be sentenced to 100 bhp fwd sedans(shudder).
bodyblue says:
09:07 AM, 12/ 1/09
Silly but fun is a good way to describe cars in this class I guess. Also useless but fun.
bankerdanny says:
09:47 AM, 12/ 1/09
The M is probably the better car, but I would rather have the Rover, even if it still had the less powerful motor. In real world driving the extra speed of the M wouldn't come into play that often, and I really like the look of the Range Rover.
e34bmwlover says:
10:51 AM, 12/ 1/09
HP 404 error file not found. SUV and a Sports car don't match. Please try again.
I think both of those cars utterly pointless. They might be an amazing piece of engineering, but pointless nonetheless. Yeah, you might get to 60MPH under 5 seconds while wasting 5 gallons of gas. Yeah, you might corner as fast as normal sedan, so what? You increase the weight, you decrease the life of everything. Fuel economy, steering and suspension components, tires, brakes- they will all have reduced life and will become very expensive to replace. Think of what that hardware (AWD, 550HP, etc) can do in a sub 3500 lb car! I can't even imagine what kind of a rocket it'll be in a 1 or 3 series BMW.
Think about what engineers can do if they focused towards something more sensible. If they can make a 3 ton SUV dance like a sports car, then I'm sure they can make some brilliant lightweight fun to drive diesels.
Besides, I wouldn't be buying any of those SUVs on steroids. I would rather get a base 911 porsche, M3 sedan, RS4, S550 4matic, or E63 AMG.
roadburner says:
06:44 PM, 12/ 1/09
I prefer simplifying and adding lightness as well, but I have to say that the 2001 X5 4.6is press loaner I drove for a couple of weeks was a four star hoot to drive. If I had the disposable income I'd probably add an X5 M to the stable just for giggles- although I also kind of like the Porsche Cayenne S Transsyberia.
cr_driver says:
09:54 PM, 12/ 1/09
BMW is the king of amazing perfomance SUVs.
minibro77 says:
01:33 PM, 12/ 2/09
This was FUN! I wanna see this again with the Cayenne Turbo S. This comparo would be like putting The X-Men (Marvel Universe) Versus the Justice League (DC Universe). An ultimate Comparo and a direct comparo on the same day would be the Cherry on top of this Comparo Cake!
hondacura4 says:
06:20 PM, 12/ 2/09
That BMW is simply a beast! The M5 is supposed to a larger 4.8L twin turbo V8 with nearly 600hp. Given the acceleration numbers for this 5000+lb SUV the next M5 should be scary fast.
syt_shadow says:
02:33 AM, 12/ 3/09
It is a beast, and the next M5 is going to be stupid fast. However, no matter how fast it is I will always regret the decision to go turbo. The current V10 has such a wonderful high tech sound... it will be sorely missed.
texlandrover says:
07:25 PM, 12/ 6/09
The RR Sport is by far the better overall vehicle both in real value, real utility and real capabilities. You get out the door for $75K on a RR Sport SC, bottomline -- NO need for the options sited on the test truck. I also find it funny that the BMW is not detailed as to it's options. Is it a 'fully loaded' tester at $90K? Anyway, truly waste of money on a X5M. No place you are going to be able to take real advantage of this 'small' speed advantage. Who is dumb enough to think you can? I'll take the solid Off Road capability for that small speed disadvantage anyday. Save that harned earned extra $15K and buy a real SUV ... the 2010 RR Sport SC! If you really want a nice 'street' quick SUV for a pretty good value go with the FX50. Again, both vehicles will save you tons of money over the X5M.
sloshman says:
08:52 PM, 12/ 6/09
To me SUVs like these would be the favorites of gangsters or police for their power and size to take down targets lol