IL Track Tested: 2010 Range Rover Supercharged

This engine is seriously underrated. We've recently spent some dynoing one for a Range Rover aftermarket company (there aren't many, so you can probably figure it out). Completely stock, despite the slushbox and AWD drivetrain losses, it's putting down more power on the dyno than a Corvette Z06, or even a manual transmission Cadillac CTS-V. I'd say its over 550 hp easily at the crank, and the trap speed this one put down (on a hot day no less) suggests that the one we dyno'd is not an outlier.

I need something for trips to Tahoe. This will do. Black please.

cool car. and it finally breaks the $100k mark.

Silly thing. At least it isn't trying to be the world's largest sports car. But boy, those are some impressive straight line numbers. I'm even impressed by the braking.

You think so church? I wouldn't doubt it. What a monster.

I can understand a conservative ESC on a large vehicle with the kind of speed this one has. Physics and human nature being what they are, an owner overcooking a corner and rolling this beast would likely be a real risk.

That said, Porsche manages to find a middle ground on its equally fast and heavy SUV, so there is no reason that Rover couldn't do better here.

Well, considering last year it had only 400hp. This year at least it makes some case for it being so expensive and for what you would expect of something supercharged.
Nonetheless, ain`t enough. Its quite slow compared to its $100k peers, its a poor handler and barely has any grip considering his slalom and skidpad numbers and what the competitors do.
In the Land Rover family, I`d rather have the sport, which is a bit lighter and has more sporty looks.

But in the end, I`d rather have none. Probably I would test drive an X6M or a Cayenne Turbo before this bricks.
X5M, 0-60 in 4.5 secs, 1/4 mile in 12.8 at 108.5 mph. Per InsideLine.
YEAH, now you are talking!!!

Resale Value: $20K in about a year.

bankerdanny says:

"I can understand a conservative ESC on a large vehicle with the kind of speed this one has. Physics and human nature being what they are, an owner overcooking a corner and rolling this beast would likely be a real risk.

That said, Porsche manages to find a middle ground on its equally fast and heavy SUV, so there is no reason that Rover couldn't do better here."

The Porsche has a lower stance, therefore a lower center of gravitiy.

cr_driver says:

"Well, considering last year it had only 400hp. This year at least it makes some case for it being so expensive and for what you would expect of something supercharged.
Nonetheless, ain`t enough. Its quite slow compared to its $100k peers, its a poor handler and barely has any grip considering his slalom and skidpad numbers and what the competitors do.
In the Land Rover family, I`d rather have the sport, which is a bit lighter and has more sporty looks."

But in the end, I`d rather have none. Probably I would test drive an X6M or a Cayenne Turbo before this bricks.
X5M, 0-60 in 4.5 secs, 1/4 mile in 12.8 at 108.5 mph. Per InsideLine.
YEAH, now you are talking!!!"

Yeah, but the Porsche and BMW will be stranded as soon as you pull it off concrete and or asphalt.

@Cardesigner82,

"Yeah, but the Porsche and BMW will be stranded as soon as you pull it off concrete and or asphalt"

More so Land Rover, reliability has never been its strong suit. It will get you there (4WD), but good luck getting back.

I wonder how well it could get you anywhere off road with those tires.

ripsidetc says:

"More so Land Rover, reliability has never been its strong suit. It will get you there (4WD), but good luck getting back."

Are you talking its off-road capabilities or door handles needing replacement, sun visors falling off, etc? If you need help answering, I don't think its the off-road capabilities. Lol. Good look "getting there" let alone coming back in the X5 or Cayenne.

I think you men "reins", not "reigns".

Those are some pretty impressive numbers. 0-60 5.5 for this big behemoth is incredible.

"Nonetheless, ain`t enough. Its quite slow compared to its $100k peers, its a poor handler and barely has any grip considering his slalom and skidpad numbers and what the competitors do."

The interior of a Range Rover is almost Bentley-like in its appointments. None of its competitors come close in that regard, which is what the RR is going for. It's not going after handling or performance like a Cayenne Turbo or an X6 M and certainly doesn't pretend to. It is a cruiser and that's more than respectable given its unmatched interior. The RR Sport might give you a bit better performance numbers but it also has a substantially cheaper interior.

I agree bimmerjay. The Rangie is really sumptuous inside, and it feels better appointed and more spacious than either the Cayenne Turbo or the X6M (in fairness, I'm sure the X5M is better than the X6M, but I haven't spent any time in one of those).

For me, it also doesn't look like its trying so hard to be an SUV capable of all things (like the Cayenne). It's got incredible off road ability, is more than fast enough in a straight line, and has a more reserved, stately look. I think its amazing what BMW and Porsche have done with their SUVs, but if you can afford a $100k SUV, you can probably afford a sports car for when you want a sports car, and let the SUV be a real SUV. I guess for me, if I'm driving up a private drive to a multi-million dollar home in Palos Verdes, or the Hamptons, the Rangie would be the SUV that seems to fit best.

Church:

This is very sad if the car is underrated. The accelartion is terrible for having over 510hp. An X5/X6M with only 500 hp can hit sixty in the low to mid 4's and the lead grows on from there. Its not even close. FOr that matter a Cherokee SRT 8 will wipe this car up in acceleration and handling. This is typical of Range Rover big numbers and talking a big game and never delivering. Sport model with under .70 on the skidpad with performance tires? Is that some sort of a joke. This is a car that is all about looks inside and out. Atually the nicest looking SUV on the road in my opinion but it stops there. It does nothing specail for 100k except look nice and have an expensive price tag. The performance is very sad for the money and for the supposed 550 hp plus that church talks of.

beards
Check out the Cherokee SRT 8 and X5/X6m for incredible numbers. The performance is a joke here.

Post that before you woke up completely alpine? You might want to familiarize yourself with the real specs and the concept of power to weight.

The X6M produces in excess of 550 hp, rated. And it weighs in at between 5000 and 5200 lbs, depending on whether or not you believe BMW's published numbers or what magazines have measured. It traps about 6% faster than the Rangie.

The Range Rover weighs 800-1000 lbs more than the X6M and is rated at 10% less power. That means the X6M has a _published_ power to weight advantage of better than 25%. This should equate to a trap speed advantage of 9%. If the Rangie is making about 540-550 hp, the power to weight advantage shrinks to about 16% and should equate to a 5-6% advantage in power to weight. Considering that Edmunds does not correct for weather conditions, and the BMW was tested in 20-30 deg cooler weather, the facts suggest that the Rangie is indeed underrated and has excellent performance for its size.

"Sport model with under .70 on the skidpad with performance tires? Is that some sort of a joke."

It's NOT a "sport" model... it's simply a higher horsepower version of the standard RR. There are virtually no hardware changes to improve handling other than the bigger shoes. They are not trying to compete with the X6/X5 M or Cayenne Turbo on all-out on-road performance. This is first and foremost a luxury SUV. Compare that skidpad number with other SUVs that have similar off-road capabilities as a Range Rover - Xterra, FJ Cruiser, Wrangler, etc.

"This is a car that is all about looks inside and out. Atually the nicest looking SUV on the road in my opinion but it stops there. It does nothing specail for 100k except look nice and have an expensive price tag."

Yes it is about looks and driving like a dream along with superb off-road capability (with a tire/wheel swap, of course). Its interior is far and away better than anything in its price range. Neither the X5/X6 M nor the Cayenne Turbo are suitable for off-road use. The $100K price tag is there because of the exceptional interior appointments and the vehicle's all-terrain capabilities.

Bottom line: If you want an on-road performance SUV with a nice interior buy a Porsche or a BMW. If you want an on/off-road luxury SUV that happens to also go fast in a straight line, can tow and has over-the-top interior ambiance, buy this. The vehicles differ because the market wants these choices.

@cardesigner82:

No I am talking about engines, air suspension bladders busting, electronics, the fact that a extended warranty is thousands of dollars, I am talking about the fact that there are literally whole internet forums dedicated to the horror stories of Land Rover reliability. Sorry, I would take the Jeep GC over it any day.

Bimmerjay
NONE of these are going offroad. This car is for the rich who like to say the have a Range Rover simple as that. This will be the car all the hollywood people will be driving because its a poeur car just like most of them. Off road in a 100k Range Rver owned by most people who wont even walk in the woods c'mon. Also the Cayenne can be taken off road but like this car NEVER WILL. At least with the BMW and Porsce they are not trying to fool anyone it to beliving someone is going to take them off road so they are worth the price now. Also if they didnt change anything dramatically other than the power that it is even more overpriced than what I first thought. Like I said looks interior and exterior are the best there are but beyond that it acceleration is decent and handling well below average.