My Dad recently bought a 2011 Range Rover Sport as a gift to himself for his anniversary. I've been fortunate enough to spend quite a bit of time with the car so I thought I should post up my overall impressions. He has been driving an M-Sport xdrive35d for the past 2 years (which he has now passed on to my Mom) and has complained its harsh ride and stiff set-up on numerous occasions - I guess as you grow older you care less about performance and more about comfort - so the RR was the obvious step up.
I'm sure they're quite a few out there who are deliberating between the two. I will try and give as much of an unbiased opinion about the RR as possible, however, given that we've driven BMWs for the past 20+ years my views may be slightly swayed. I am personally an advocate for cars that are performance-oriented and tend to shun anything with the slightest amount of body roll.
Spec - RR: Powerplant is a 3.0l twin turbo V6 with an output of 180kw/600NM mated to a six-speed automatic. It weighs well over 2tonnes (2.5 to be exact) so the 0-100 time of 8.8 seconds is not anything to brag about, but break-neck speeds is not what this car was made for - well at least not in the diesel guise.
Spec - X5: I'm sure most of are familiar with the with the N57 engines as they've become very popular of the past decade, deservedly so. The 35d has a 3.0l twin turbo with an ouput of 210kw/580NM. Weighing in at 2.1tonnes, it's 0-100 times of 7 seconds is fairly brisk, and coming from an Auto E46 328i it's quite impressive too. This particular X5 is fitted with an M-Sport kit.
[img]![photo IMG_1338_zpsb24c7ed9.jpg]()
[/img]
Styling - RR
I've always been a fan of the Range Rover Sport's boxy/sloped shape since it was first introduced in 2005. This Range Rover is a Facelift which features slight changes to the exterior and a reworked interior (which puts the X5 plasticky interface to shame IMO). It's a classy, bold, up-market SUV which wouldn't look out of place parked next to a Rolls Royce. After the new RR and RRS were introduced - however - this shape has started to look a bit dated. Score: 7/10
Styling - X5
I personally prefer aggressive looking cars and the E70 has menacing plastered all over it, albeit slightly toned down from the E53. Looks really do depend on which package you choose IMO. I'm not a fan of the M-Sport's toned down look, for the most part it looks like normal colour coded X5. If it was up to me I would go for the Dynamic package with the Aero kit. Score: 6/10
Looks are subjective!
Dynamic Package:
[img]![photo media_zpsfe8894f1.jpg]()
[/img]
Drive - RRS
The first few kms driving the Range Rover were unpleasant. The steering was overly light, there was copious amounts of body roll and the seating position just didn't feel right. Again, other's opinions may differ and I think driver experiences will for the most part be subjective. My Mom described it best as she said she felt like the RR was easier to drive and manoevre, but she felt like she was sitting on top of the car (or so to speak) whereas it feels like youre cucooned in the X5. We took a long family trip in the RR and from a passenger's point of view it's definitely more comfortable than the X5, there was also less road noise and there's more space in the cabin. The 6-speed gearbox is also well-suited to the engine and it feels faster than the specs suggest. There's also less diesel clatter from the RR than there is from the X5. Score: 6/10
Drive - X5
The X5 has been described by many reviewers as feeling like a saloon car on steroids, which it does. It's tight, taught and tactile for its size and you can and throw it around a corner and it will beg you to keep going. This, for me, is the selling point for the X5, It's sporty traits are class leading (bar the Cayenne). The only issues I had with the X5 were the teeth jarring ride and the FAT HEAVY steering wheel which is inconvenient when you're trying to work around tight spaces. The other issue I found was the gearbox; when pushing hard it would rev more than necessary. The powerband begins to die out above 3500rpm but it willingly revs up to 5000rpm, when I'm trying to accelerate quickly I usually put it in manual mode so I can shift early. This was corrected with the xdrive40d and the new 8-speed ZF. Score: 7.5/10
Extras - RR
The facelift RR comes with quite a long list of standard features. This particular RR has a reverse camera, keyless go, TFT screen, auto dim headlights and Harman Kardon. Score: 8/10
Extras - X5
Knowing BMW, they expect you to pay for desired added extras. The only notable extra on this X5 is the M-Sport kit, otherwise it's pretty bone stock. The sound system is horrendous, I can't believe BMW have the nerve to shove sub-standard systems in cars worth upwards of 600k when new. I also find it annoying having to put the key into the slot before starting (no keyless go), almost defeats the purpose of having the card a key. Score: 4/10
[img]![photo IMG_0991_zps7b9ee3b0.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_20321_zps33457ea8.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_20341_zps8cc22aac.jpg]()
[/img]
Running Costs - RR
I've always assumed Range Rovers are thirsty, no matter whether you go for diesel or petrol. I was suprised to see that I was getting 11.5l/100kms on the combined cycle with mostly town driving. We've only had the car for about 4months now, but we've already had a series of minor issues. We found that the break discs were worn out (weird for a car with only 20,000kms), been a number of occassions when the air suspension chooses not to function (once this breaks it will be costly), we've had to replace the electric motor for the front passenger side window aswell. The RR needs more attention than what we're used to.
Score: 6/10
Running Costs - X5
We've had the X5 for the best part of 2 years now (got it at 30,000kms, currently at 66,000kms) and it has honestly been one of the most reliable cars we've ever owned. Apart from your normal servicing it has never wanted for attention, it just keeps going and going. It's currently sitting at 11.2l/100 on the combined cycle - similiar to the RR - which is impressive given the performance and size. Only issue regarding costs is TYRES; had to replace them about 2Months ago and my word were they costly, and these are only the 285 sections at the rear as the car has 19inch rims.
Score: 8/10
Overall Score: RR - 27/40 X5 - 25.5/40
Overall - as per my personal review - the RR edges out the X5 as I feel that it's a more complete SUV. For what the RR lacks on the road it makes it up it terms of flexibility and prestige. I do feel they are different cars and that they will appeal to different types of enthusiasts. If you're looking for a car with more space than a 5 series and one which is arguably just as dynamic than the X5 would be the way to go, but if you're looking for something that does everything reasonably well then the RR would be the most suitable.
If it were my choice and I had to choose between the two I'd go for the X5, that's only because I wouldn't do anything apart from city driving, I don't care much for extra features as I won't use them much anyway, and I care more about performance than I go about luxury/comfort.
[img]![photo IMG_1209_zps69a40b35.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_15311_zpsc5f298f1.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_13891_zps284ed662.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_19571_zps82edf71a.jpg]()
[/img]
[img]![photo IMG_15441_zps6171c0e8.jpg]()
[/img]
I'm sure they're quite a few out there who are deliberating between the two. I will try and give as much of an unbiased opinion about the RR as possible, however, given that we've driven BMWs for the past 20+ years my views may be slightly swayed. I am personally an advocate for cars that are performance-oriented and tend to shun anything with the slightest amount of body roll.
Spec - RR: Powerplant is a 3.0l twin turbo V6 with an output of 180kw/600NM mated to a six-speed automatic. It weighs well over 2tonnes (2.5 to be exact) so the 0-100 time of 8.8 seconds is not anything to brag about, but break-neck speeds is not what this car was made for - well at least not in the diesel guise.
Spec - X5: I'm sure most of are familiar with the with the N57 engines as they've become very popular of the past decade, deservedly so. The 35d has a 3.0l twin turbo with an ouput of 210kw/580NM. Weighing in at 2.1tonnes, it's 0-100 times of 7 seconds is fairly brisk, and coming from an Auto E46 328i it's quite impressive too. This particular X5 is fitted with an M-Sport kit.
[img]
[/img]Styling - RR
I've always been a fan of the Range Rover Sport's boxy/sloped shape since it was first introduced in 2005. This Range Rover is a Facelift which features slight changes to the exterior and a reworked interior (which puts the X5 plasticky interface to shame IMO). It's a classy, bold, up-market SUV which wouldn't look out of place parked next to a Rolls Royce. After the new RR and RRS were introduced - however - this shape has started to look a bit dated. Score: 7/10
Styling - X5
I personally prefer aggressive looking cars and the E70 has menacing plastered all over it, albeit slightly toned down from the E53. Looks really do depend on which package you choose IMO. I'm not a fan of the M-Sport's toned down look, for the most part it looks like normal colour coded X5. If it was up to me I would go for the Dynamic package with the Aero kit. Score: 6/10
Looks are subjective!
Dynamic Package:
[img]
[/img]Drive - RRS
The first few kms driving the Range Rover were unpleasant. The steering was overly light, there was copious amounts of body roll and the seating position just didn't feel right. Again, other's opinions may differ and I think driver experiences will for the most part be subjective. My Mom described it best as she said she felt like the RR was easier to drive and manoevre, but she felt like she was sitting on top of the car (or so to speak) whereas it feels like youre cucooned in the X5. We took a long family trip in the RR and from a passenger's point of view it's definitely more comfortable than the X5, there was also less road noise and there's more space in the cabin. The 6-speed gearbox is also well-suited to the engine and it feels faster than the specs suggest. There's also less diesel clatter from the RR than there is from the X5. Score: 6/10
Drive - X5
The X5 has been described by many reviewers as feeling like a saloon car on steroids, which it does. It's tight, taught and tactile for its size and you can and throw it around a corner and it will beg you to keep going. This, for me, is the selling point for the X5, It's sporty traits are class leading (bar the Cayenne). The only issues I had with the X5 were the teeth jarring ride and the FAT HEAVY steering wheel which is inconvenient when you're trying to work around tight spaces. The other issue I found was the gearbox; when pushing hard it would rev more than necessary. The powerband begins to die out above 3500rpm but it willingly revs up to 5000rpm, when I'm trying to accelerate quickly I usually put it in manual mode so I can shift early. This was corrected with the xdrive40d and the new 8-speed ZF. Score: 7.5/10
Extras - RR
The facelift RR comes with quite a long list of standard features. This particular RR has a reverse camera, keyless go, TFT screen, auto dim headlights and Harman Kardon. Score: 8/10
Extras - X5
Knowing BMW, they expect you to pay for desired added extras. The only notable extra on this X5 is the M-Sport kit, otherwise it's pretty bone stock. The sound system is horrendous, I can't believe BMW have the nerve to shove sub-standard systems in cars worth upwards of 600k when new. I also find it annoying having to put the key into the slot before starting (no keyless go), almost defeats the purpose of having the card a key. Score: 4/10
[img]
[/img][img]
[/img][img]
[/img]Running Costs - RR
I've always assumed Range Rovers are thirsty, no matter whether you go for diesel or petrol. I was suprised to see that I was getting 11.5l/100kms on the combined cycle with mostly town driving. We've only had the car for about 4months now, but we've already had a series of minor issues. We found that the break discs were worn out (weird for a car with only 20,000kms), been a number of occassions when the air suspension chooses not to function (once this breaks it will be costly), we've had to replace the electric motor for the front passenger side window aswell. The RR needs more attention than what we're used to.
Score: 6/10
Running Costs - X5
We've had the X5 for the best part of 2 years now (got it at 30,000kms, currently at 66,000kms) and it has honestly been one of the most reliable cars we've ever owned. Apart from your normal servicing it has never wanted for attention, it just keeps going and going. It's currently sitting at 11.2l/100 on the combined cycle - similiar to the RR - which is impressive given the performance and size. Only issue regarding costs is TYRES; had to replace them about 2Months ago and my word were they costly, and these are only the 285 sections at the rear as the car has 19inch rims.
Score: 8/10
Overall Score: RR - 27/40 X5 - 25.5/40
Overall - as per my personal review - the RR edges out the X5 as I feel that it's a more complete SUV. For what the RR lacks on the road it makes it up it terms of flexibility and prestige. I do feel they are different cars and that they will appeal to different types of enthusiasts. If you're looking for a car with more space than a 5 series and one which is arguably just as dynamic than the X5 would be the way to go, but if you're looking for something that does everything reasonably well then the RR would be the most suitable.
If it were my choice and I had to choose between the two I'd go for the X5, that's only because I wouldn't do anything apart from city driving, I don't care much for extra features as I won't use them much anyway, and I care more about performance than I go about luxury/comfort.
[img]
[/img][img]
[/img][img]
[/img][img]
[/img][img]
[/img]