Range Rover vs Range Rover Sport

[Ken_Code]

Boleros said:

We have one of each, a 2016 RRS 3.0 AB and a 2017 Vogue SE FFRR 4.4. Both are great, RRS actually feels a lot quicker despite the smaller engine but has less boot space. FFRR is longer but otherwise they are the same size. Higher centre console and window line in the RRS give the feeling of sportiness and sitting in rather than on but is still a comfortable place to be. Would get around 35mpg and 30mpg respectively. Fat seems to get through more oil changes than I'd like but I do them myself to save labour charges.

FFRR is far more comfortable on a journey but the RRS is still a nice place to be own a long journey. Bigger windows on the fat let more light in (no surprise) and make it feel light and airy. Seating position and design lend itself to a relaxing drive rather than blatting it around. There are times when I drive the The Fat that I think it's stupid having so much car but it is so good at what it does, carting crap around and long European journeys that I would find it hard to replace. The 4x4 stuff gets used occasionally but is the primary use.

If anything we find The Fat more usable on a long continental journey simply because of the space. We have two spaniels that go everywhere with us so a double cage takes up the back. The lower tailgate is a useful thing to administer an animal after a walk and the taller rear bench allows us to get more dog crap in there because wife. The RRS could fill up quite quickly.

I’m struggling at the moment about whether to switch my Spirt Autobiography for a newer (around 2018-20) big one. Mine’s the 5.0, as would the new one likely to be.

It’s mainly for the longer drives, including 300 miles up and down the country loaded up once a month.

[Origin Unknown]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Wouldn't be my engine choice, so I can't really offer a comment.

Thanks, is that because it widely accepted as a naff engine, wrong engine for the car or just not your choice? All this helpful BTW

[Origin Unknown]

Boleros said:

We have one of each, a 2016 RRS 3.0 AB and a 2017 Vogue SE FFRR 4.4. Both are great, RRS actually feels a lot quicker despite the smaller engine but has less boot space. FFRR is longer but otherwise they are the same size. Higher centre console and window line in the RRS give the feeling of sportiness and sitting in rather than on but is still a comfortable place to be. Would get around 35mpg and 30mpg respectively. Fat seems to get through more oil changes than I'd like but I do them myself to save labour charges.

FFRR is far more comfortable on a journey but the RRS is still a nice place to be own a long journey. Bigger windows on the fat let more light in (no surprise) and make it feel light and airy. Seating position and design lend itself to a relaxing drive rather than blatting it around. There are times when I drive the The Fat that I think it's stupid having so much car but it is so good at what it does, carting crap around and long European journeys that I would find it hard to replace. The 4x4 stuff gets used occasionally but is the primary use.

If anything we find The Fat more usable on a long continental journey simply because of the space. We have two spaniels that go everywhere with us so a double cage takes up the back. The lower tailgate is a useful thing to administer an animal after a walk and the taller rear bench allows us to get more dog crap in there because wife. The RRS could fill up quite quickly.

Super helpful. I have a similar use case, we do driving holidays every year, visit family in Switzerland, and then either holiday south of France or the lakes in Italy. Two kids plus one (was two, lost one of our collies recently ) doggo in a crate. Both kids are teens and tall so need to space + none travel light.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

Origin Unknown said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Wouldn't be my engine choice, so I can't really offer a comment.

Thanks, is that because it widely accepted as a naff engine, wrong engine for the car or just not your choice? All this helpful BTW

A Range Rover (for me) is a V8. I have a V8 petrol and a V8 diesel.

I wouldn't have a 2.0 hybrid in anything bigger than a Corolla estate.

So, yeah, personal choice. I know nothing about the engine, good or bad.

[Boleros]

Origin Unknown said:

Super helpful. I have a similar use case, we do driving holidays every year, visit family in Switzerland, and then either holiday south of France or the lakes in Italy. Two kids plus one (was two, lost one of our collies recently ) doggo in a crate. Both kids are teens and tall so need to space + none travel light.

Then I would say the FFRR is a better choice for the type of use that you intend. We've taken the RRS to Croatia and it was genuinely great but when we took The Fat, it was a step up again. I actually think the rear in the Sport is marginally cramped in comparison but we're talking degrees of difference really. Overall, I find it a much more relaxing place to be on a continental haul.

We took The Fat to Italy last year (Perugia) and it was just effortless, for every living thing. One of the reasons we bought Land Rovers was because we often found that whenever we got to our destination there was always a track of some description that needed a bit more car to navigate. The last time I took my 3 Series to Scotland I dislodged the splitter and trashed a sill. Italy didn't disappoint, the last 2kms were a rutted track that the FFRR smashed out with ease. Probably a bit overkill but at least I didn't bend or snap anything.

Sorry to hear about your Collie

[Kerniki]

Boleros said:

Origin Unknown said:

Super helpful. I have a similar use case, we do driving holidays every year, visit family in Switzerland, and then either holiday south of France or the lakes in Italy. Two kids plus one (was two, lost one of our collies recently ) doggo in a crate. Both kids are teens and tall so need to space + none travel light.

Then I would say the FFRR is a better choice for the type of use that you intend. We've taken the RRS to Croatia and it was genuinely great but when we took The Fat, it was a step up again. I actually think the rear in the Sport is marginally cramped in comparison but we're talking degrees of difference really. Overall, I find it a much more relaxing place to be on a continental haul.

We took The Fat to Italy last year (Perugia) and it was just effortless, for every living thing. One of the reasons we bought Land Rovers was because we often found that whenever we got to our destination there was always a track of some description that needed a bit more car to navigate. The last time I took my 3 Series to Scotland I dislodged the splitter and trashed a sill. Italy didn't disappoint, the last 2kms were a rutted track that the FFRR smashed out with ease. Probably a bit overkill but at least I didn't bend or snap anything.

Sorry to hear about your Collie

Good point, same for us with the dogs and the other main reason (inc. towing) that we picked the FF, they (the dogs) have more room and can sit up better, also the split tailgate is worth a mention..

We leave our 405 parked on drive & use it as a kennel, ramp attached to the lower tailgate, they come and go as they please and with a 10” thick cushion the extra height of the 405 is really handy and also the extra depth the tailgate creates, folded down, is really beneficial to them, air suspension drop from rear helps reduce the platform angle to, if the oem ramp, theres an installed hook in tyres well that secures as well.

[Deranged Rover]

Origin Unknown said:

Looking to go back to an SUV and I like the look for the facelift L405. How to choose between the Sport and the FF? In real world practical terms, what are the differences?

The decision is easy if you want an "SUV", as only one of them fits this description.

A Range Rover is not an SUV.

[Ken_Code]

Deranged Rover said:

The decision is easy if you want an "SUV", as only one of them fits this description.

A Range Rover is not an SUV.

Of course it is.

It’s (primarily) a road car with a raised shape and driving position and a big boot.

[Deranged Rover]

Ken_Code said:

Of course it is.

It’s (primarily) a road car with a raised shape and driving position and a big boot.

You've just described a Range Rover Sport, which is an SUV. A Range Rover is a luxury 4x4.

My theory is proven by my local car wash, who charge me £15 ("4x4") to wash my Range Rover rather than £12 ("SUV/MPV")!

[Boleros]

Deranged Rover said:

You've just described a Range Rover Sport, which is an SUV. A Range Rover is a luxury 4x4.

My theory is proven by my local car wash, who charge me £15 ("4x4") to wash my Range Rover rather than £12 ("SUV/MPV")!