The success of the new Range Rover Sport is incredible, while it is certainly propelling Land Rover forward, (according to another post it accounts for 40% of total sales by volume), it must be killing the standard Range Rover. Sure there is a market for a 4x4 Limousine, and the Range Rover fills that niche admirably. But the considerably more stylish RRS which has 98% of the space and practicality as the standard RR probably makes the this model redundant.

It makes me wonder whether there is room for two Range Rover models at the top of the tree? I would be surprised if the numbers add up in terms of costs versus profits. Instead of Land Rover developing two models, I wonder if they will develop just one replacement but allocate a larger budget to it.

I really would like to see no loss of on-road or off-road performance, but I would like to see a huge reduction in weight. If they can bring it down to as near 2 metric tonnes as possible, then they will have done a good job. I'd like to see much more aluminium used and i'd like to see a hybrid. In asking for a hybrid, i'd welcome a car that was below the new threshold level of Co2 emissions if only to raise a massive V-sign to Gordon Brown/ Ken Livingstone and the anti-SUV brigade.

What does everyone else think or want?

Tailpipe, the sales of RRS have done no harm to the sales of RR, many of the people on this forum have never owned a Land Rover product before and are conquest sales from BMW, Porsche and VW. The Range Rover is seen as a status symbol and due to the poor reputation of the P38A version, although a popular car, the Range Rover did not really appeal to the owners of powerful sports saloons, it appealed to mainly existing RR owners. Sport however has proved to be a winner because it is the right size and has appealed to a much younger age group than RR. I came to RRS from an RR and have not regretted it for one moment, but I have neighbours who had owned many Range Rovers over the years from the original right through to the Mk3/L322 and while mightily impresssed with Sport decided that they wanted the more limo like RR rather than the smaller more firmly sprung Sport.

I would not like to see any changes to either model, both are really excellent at what they do. Have you also noticed that not one maker of up market/luxury SUV's has a 7 seat model in it's range, you have to drop down a sector to D3/XC90 to cart your family around! No, I'm quite happy if they left both cars alone............ a bit of slimming and trimming of excess weight wouldn't go amiss but then if you lost the weight the ride would probably suffer. 2020 Pangea Green 1st Edition D240 New Defender 110 is here and loving it
2018 Melting Silver Mini Countryman PHEV - soon to be replaced
2015MY Corris Grey SDv6 HSE Dynamic, the best car I have ever owned, totally reliable only a cou0le of rattles in 3 years, now no longer in my care
Also in my garage is a 1996 TDi300 Defender 90 County HT made into a fake CSW

Last edited by Tim in Scotland on Sat Mar 25 2006 6:07pm. Edited 1 time in total

I'm with Tim here. The Range Rover & RRS are after 2 different markets. Personally i wouldn't touch the Range Rover. It's just too big. To me the RRS meets all my requirements except performance. I think the RRS need to distance itself further from it's bigger brother. It need to lose a little weight & gain some BHP. it looks great & obviously has great off-road performance. For me it was a toss up between the Cayenne S & the RRS, in the end I compromised the performance for the looks. If Porsche improved the Cayenne's looks, much as I think the RRS is great I may go there next time without a bit more grunt from the RRS HSE TD6 (Java Black/Ivory)
911GT3 (Guards Red, carbon interior)
ElanSE (BRG)
Panamera Turbo S
Boxster S

Hi Tim,

Sorry to disagree, but both Mercedes-Benz and Audi have launched 7-seater SUVs. Merc offers the standard ML-Class but also the new GL-Class, which is bigger and longer. The Volkswagen and Porsche have the Touareg and Cayenne while Audi, also on the same chassis, has the 7-seater Q7. The next generation X5 from BMW will be larger and have 7 seats.

The Volvo XC-90 has done very well, precisely for this reason. It means you don't need to buy one of those awful Chrysler Minivans if you've got lots of kids and a Granny living at home. it's a niche LR can't afford to ignore.

Having written the post, I feel it is almost certain that Land-Rover will have to offer a Range Rover variant with 7 seats at some point. The problem is that serious off-road ability and 7 seats is likely to add both weight and cost to RR models.

I think you're absolutely right when you say that the RRS has introduced new people to the brand. But it has also brought people back to it. We owned both original Range Rover and the second series model. We loved them. The latest Range Rover, developed by BMW, although very elegant, was just too big and about ten grand more than we wanted to pay. Having just tried the RRS, I have to say it is much truer to the orginal than the latest standard Range Rover IMHO. The orginal Range Rover was about good year-round off-road and on-road ability, not a status symbol. Similarly, the new RRS just gets the job done and a lot less opulent, thank god.

There's a simple solution to the problem - stick the RRS Grill and Badge on the HSE D3 - problem over! I don't know how anyone can say the higher spec D3's are not in the same market as the RRS  Steve N | 21MY Defender (on order) | 08MY Discovery 3 (history) | 06MY Discovery 3 (ancient history)

I think you answered your own question there.

If you want 7 seats you go for a disco, with the Q7 and XC90 etc in the same class

Then you get the RRS for people who dont want to pay for a RR and maybe dont want the image you get with such an expensive car - same class as Cayenne and Touareg.

Then you get the RR, - V expensive to buy new, same class as high end Cayenne and upcoming merc G wagen.

Where you said that you wanted a RR but didnt want the image or to pay the price, thats where the RRS comes in to fill in the gap in the market.

for the people who want the best of both worlds the classes do overlap. High end D3s will overlap mid range RRS, High end RRS will overlap RR, and RR autobiography will be the flagship

Car manufacturers do have market analysists that sit around watching this kind of thing all year round.

Tailpipe wrote:

The problem is that serious off-road ability and 7 seats is likely to add both weight and cost to RR models.

My friend takes her RR vogue offroad very regularly and it is excellent. The chief of Lancashire Police did too at the last Waterloo cup and stuffed it in a dyke

For me when I buy a car with RR on the front it will be the full fat version. The RRS is a great car and has attracteda lot of new owners to the marque, but you are a fickle bunch, you can be gone just as quick! RR to me says opulence, sure the 1970 slogan said you can hose it inside and out, but now luxury is what it is about and IMO it is a lot more classy inside, although it doesn't drive as well as the D3 or RRS.

Except for the SC I do still feel that the RRS is a bit like an Escort with go faster stripes, its not a fast car it is a 4X4, maybe the TDV8 will help to lift it into the sporty league.

Pelyma wrote:

The chief of Lancashire Police did too at the last Waterloo cup and stuffed it in a dyke .

Bet that made her eyes water  Runner up - 2009 Best Avatar Award
Joint runner up - 2009 Outstanding Contribution Award
WINNER - 2008 ‘Best Thread’ Award – Beautiful Women Of The World
Runner Up - 2008 Comedian Of The Year Award
Runner Up - 2008’s Funniest Incident

06 RRS TDV6 HSE, Java/Ebony, PTI, Running Boards, Privacy, S/C Grille/Vents, Stormers, Tasmods - GONE - (

 Arctic Frost TDV6 SE. Aspen Leather, Cherry Wood, Privacy Glass, PTI, Tow Pack, Mudflaps, Tasmods, a new Fuelflap, a RRSport.co.uk umbrella in the boot & a RRSport.co.uk sticker on the rear glass.
__________________

Some people accuse me of thinking the world revolves around me, but I'm not stupid . . . I know it revolves around the sun. Which shines out of my @rse!!!

A recent chat with a guy from within Ford inspired the poll I posted. I have also synthesised other recent comments gleaned from various insiders, including LR people, various media stories and my own professional market knowledge. The following description of the next Range Rover is probably about 95% correct. Here goes:

> The next generation Range Rover will offer 7 seats (the extra two will be an optional extra and fold flush with the rear flooring).

> The next generation Range Rover Sport will have the same 5-seat configuration as it does now.

> Both Range Rover and Range Rover Sport will share a more similar family look. The Range Rover will look a little "edgier" (sic) than it does now. The Range Rover Sport will is likely to look even more focussed than it does now.

> Both cars will incorporate more aluminium in their construction to bring weight down, especially on the Range Rover. While both models are expected to share the same basic platform, core components, transmission and a common range of engines, the RRS will be notably smaller and lighter than the Range Rover and therefore faster, more agile, and with better fuel consumption - really just as it is now.

> Because both cars will carry the Range Rover badge, both replacement cars are being developed in tandem. Given that the Discovery 3 is due for replacement before the RRS, it is also like to be based on the same core platform. All three cars should continue complement each other very well, but with a more pronounced difference in size between them. The real difference between the Disvovery and Range Rover will be luxury trim and pricing, even though they will obviosly look different.

After the new Freelander is launched in the Autumn (Paris Autoshow), expect attention to focus on the next generation Range Rover. In fact, work is likely to have already started some months ago, given that the current Range Rover dates back not to 2001 but 1999, when it was created by BMW under Wolfgang Reitzle who was then head of BMW (before, ironically, he moved to head to Ford's PAG after the Rover debacle). Suffice it to say then that the current RR is approaching the end of its lifecycle and its replacement is no more than two years away.

Land Rover is very conscious of the fact that its determination to give both the RRS and LR3 good off-road performance has resulted in cars that are heavier than they ideally should be by about 350-400 kgs. For this reason, either a brand new chassis or a dramtically re-engineered version of the current RRS/ LR3 platform is likely.

Personally, I think a brand new chassis is the most likely option because:
(a) The Range Rover is the flagship model and sets the tone for all other models in the LR range, meaning it should incorporate a state-of-the-art chassis not a hand-me-down one from lesser sibling models
(b) All LR models need to lose some weight, but if the Range Rover grows in size again, then its perfromance may suffer unacceptably due to extra weight
(c) SUVs simply can't afford to be even more profligate at the pumps than they already are. And it's probably easier to engineer a lighter chassis than a more efficient engine, (although most LR models probably need both).
(d)I think it will be difficult to pare significant weight of the current heavy RRS/ LR3 platform.
(e) The heavier weight of RR and LR3 models versus the standard 110 Defender is also an issue because it results in sub-optimal off-road performance because the RRs cars get bogged-down much more easily.

LR's future platform and engine strategies are both likely to be extremely interesting. I am looking forward to hearing more about them.

Tailpipe wrote:

...the RRS will be notably smaller and lighter than the Range Rover and therefore faster, more agile, and with better fuel consumption - really just as it is now.

You have to be kidding...economical? I will eat my hat when either of these two cars can be called economical. Plus, there is no difference really between the two, both models in similar engines perform about the same, they weigh about the same too.

Let's not kid ourselves, these are afterall Landrover vehicles, never a brand to follow the pack and use high powered more economical diesel engines, such as BMW, Audi, Mercedes, et al. L319 D4 HSE

1998 110 TUM HS FFR Hard Top XD WOLF

1982 Series 3 SWB

nobody said economical

he said "better" fuel consumption i.e. it will be better than that of the RR

Tailpipe wrote:

...After the new Freelander is launched in the Autumn (Paris Autoshow), expect attention to focus on the ....

How apt. Freelander and Focus in the same sentence. Shame you couldn't crowbar S40, V40 and Mazda3 in as well! Runner up - 2009 Best Avatar Award
Joint runner up - 2009 Outstanding Contribution Award
WINNER - 2008 ‘Best Thread’ Award – Beautiful Women Of The World
Runner Up - 2008 Comedian Of The Year Award
Runner Up - 2008’s Funniest Incident

06 RRS TDV6 HSE, Java/Ebony, PTI, Running Boards, Privacy, S/C Grille/Vents, Stormers, Tasmods - GONE - (

What we need them to make is an RRS based model, that has 2 doors, about two feet shorter, ride around on lower, firmer, suspension with the dynamic response stiffened up aswell and put the Aston Vanquish supercharged V12 in it. If we have to pay that extra £40 tax, might aswell make it worthwhile.

if a few of us show some interest they might just do it, well we can dream.

I'd buy one !!