Aus 4x4 magazine has just hit the shelves and the 5 fourbys in the running included:

Discovery 4
Toyota Prado GXL
Mitsubishi Pajero GLS (last years winner)
Range Rover Sport
Toyota Prado Kakadu

Surprise surprise the Disco came out in front but the RRS came fourth which made me ask WTF?

When you look back into the detail for the scoring though it's very subjective. The areas that the RRS was scored low included"
1) Value
2) Built Tough
3) Bushability

Let's take them one by one.

1) Value

The main reason given for scoring the RRS lower is that the Disco at 30k less has everything the sport has plus 7 seats, more storage space and better practicality for outback usage.

While it notes that the disco doesn't have the style or on-road dynamics of the RRS it doesn't value these at all.

Ummmn - hello... anyone home in there? I don't know about others but most cars spend the majority of their time on the blacktop, not the dirt. This is a huge consideration and if you've driven them all like I have last year when I went through the exercise of test driving everything before I made a decision, you soon realise that nothing comes close to the RRS for road handling in this field. Both Pajero and Prado still drive and handle like a truck whereas the RRS is as close to a car as any 4x4 will ever get.

I do about 50,000kms a year on the road and want to enjoy that every bit as much as the of-road experience.
I don't want to assume anything here, but from the comments in the article and looking at the panel, it could easily be inferred that there is an underlying bias against the RRS simply because it is in the luxury category and they're all about off-road and don't really think the RRS is the sort of car that should be used for extreme stuff.

Anyway - back to the style issue and perceptions of value.

For most people style has one of the most important correlations to value. There are a million examples of products that can charge more because they look better. And nome more so than the car industry.

Go and ask 100 people if they could choose any car of the five, which they would choose and you'd get a great picture of how much style influences a persons value metrics.

I can't tell you how many people comment positively on the RRS since I bought it. It has a wow factor. Don't know how often that's going to happen with any of the other contenders. I have a friend who is using it for their wedding car next weekend - can't see that happening with the Prado or Pajero which are both as ugly as a hat full of arseholes.

What is interesting to note here is the magazines own selection of pictures from the testing that were chosen as feature images for all of the pages.

The testing included one of Australia's top off-road photographers so there are some great shots throughout.

Funny enough, it's the RRS that features on almost every page in the forefront of the picture.

The top banner/masthead for the article on every page has the RRS in the front.

The RRS is the feature car on the intro page.

The RRS mags get the feature on the next page

The feature photo on the value page has the RRS at the front of an evening shot and you can barely even recognise the other cars in the fading darkness of the background.

The RRS and Disco share the limelight on the 'Built Tough' section and the summary page.

Working in this arena I know how the publishing and magazine business works and the designers generally choose the best looking pics to help sell the mag.

Funny how the RRS get's the lions share.

In fact there is no consideration of styling whatsoever in this supposed unbiased valuation of Australia's best 4x4.

There's also no consideration of re-sale value in this equation which should surely be a factor.

See what you get for a Pajero in 3-5 years.


2) Built Tough

The RRS scores 4 points less than the D4 which makes no sense given that they are built on the same platform.

Would be interesting to see the details behind this.


3) Bushability

This is where the bias really shows with the RRS scoring 8 points lower (13) than the disco (21)

The main factor cited was the low profile tyres on 19 inch rims and the lack of aftermarket accessories which they feel needs to be added to overcome any of it's deficiencies. While they don't classify what deficiencies they mean, I would argue that the beauty of the RRS is that it's the complete package and that other than a snorkel and racks, it doesn't really need anything else. In fact, that's one of it's greatest strengths.

The other factor cited was the small fuel capacity which is easily overcome by carrying extra fuel.

The summary of the article really highlights the bias against the RRS clearly.

"A superb and luxurious car, the Sport focuses perhaps a little too much on on-road manners despite sharing the excellent Terrain Response system with the D4. Sure it does its job very well, but its job is off to one end of our definition of what a 4x4 should do and that worked against it.

Time and again they actually go out of their way to rave about the sport acknowledging the high desire factor.

It sounds though like their bias stems from an underlying opinion that they don't think the RRS was really made for off-road and was too expensive to punt around the bush. This is surely a personal opinion.

They could argue that they are targeting this towards the majority of their readers or even the mainstream population, but if they want to run an objective awards, they should do just that and refrain from imposing their own personal backgrounds, experiences and values onto their readers and objectively assess the cars. 'Black Betty' Java Black RRS 07 TDV6

Here we have another prime example of the bias against RRS. LRO magazine (who claim to be well informed LR specialists) rate the RRS as being 3 out of 5 for offroad ability whilst they rate the Disco as 5 star. They put the RRS in a lower offroad ability class than every other landrover product ever - except the Freelander 1. So all old Discos, every non sport Range Rover ever built and all Series LR's are scored as being better offroad than a RRS. What utter . Defys every test, every scientific analysis, every real life experience - but yet it still holds true that no one (other than a RRS owner) can believe that a vehicle can look so good and still actually be highly effective in the real world. LRO should hang their head in shame - as should AUS 4x4 mag. RRS TDv8 HSE Rimini
Disco 4 TDv6 HSE Ipanema
Defender 90, 200tdi CSW

Let em get on with it, we know the truth, it will be our litle secret

Experts know nothing, some said the Sinclair C5 would never catch on purple people eater

There are no good days, just some days that are not as bad as others!


Gone RR 4.0 P38 Autobiography MY99 Red ( money pit)
Gone RRS MY06 2.7TDV6 HSE Rimini Red
Gone RRS MY10 3.0TDV6 HSE Bali Blue with lots of bits (never grew to love it)
Here Now - 3.6 TDV8 FFRR OVERFINCH Stornoway Grey - loving it x
My work car Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDci Zetec auto Estate in Silver

Can't say the guys at AUS 4x4 are slouches in responding.

Had this waiting for me when I arrived at the office this morning.

Some interesting considerations in their reply.

While they haven't addressed the concerns raised about the styling, the desirability, or the consideration of re-sale as part of the value proposition, the do cover most of the other issues raised.

Will leave it to others to determine whether or not they agree with the judges call on the performance VS the D4.

I've made a positive reply directly to Mick thanking him for the prompt reply and for taking the time to go into detail.

Quote:

From Mick Matheson - Editor

G’day Jamie,

Bias against the Sport? Struth, we went into 4X4 Of The Year with arguably a bias towards it. That’s the beauty of our scoring system and award criteria – their basis in objectivity helps overcome any bias, and then when you add a number of argumentative, stoic judges, subjective views are usually identified and over-ruled.

You’re dead right about the on-road aspects of the Sport. I think you’ll find we agree, if you read our report more carefully. But the harsher suspension does reduce the comfort and performance off-road, and that is an important issue for us, as it should be. We are not Wheels, we are not a soft-roader magazine, and we are not ashamed of favouring off-road characteristics over on-road ones. Hence our comment about “our definition of what a 4x4 should do“ – at least you have to admit we made it clear where we stood.

Your other criticisms go no further to persuading me that we got it wrong. For example, you can also carry extra fuel in the other vehicles, too, so should we treat them differently in that regard? And four points less than the D4 in Built Tough? That means four out of seven judges scored it one point lower in their individual scores, hardly what you’d call a massive show of bias. Eight points lower in Bushability? Maybe six judges ranked it one less than the D4, and the toughest dropped it two points back, but again, it’s a small difference when you consider there were a handful of factors in this criterion that worked against the Sport in comparison with the D4. (I’m not going to dig through the archives to find the scoring sheets and see exactly how each judged scored this.)

You’re happy with the limited range of accessories you can get for your Sport, but the majority of off-roaders want a more fully equipped 4X4, regardless of brand, a fact we know from reader surveys and other research.

The Sport still scored well, it’s just that others scored better. Remember that it was fourth among what we considered the five most worthy 4X4s of the year; the fact that it was included is a great comment on our high regard for it.

Frankly, you’re being over-sensitive to our comments. We like the Sport and rate it highly but we stand by our comments and our scoring.

Cheers,
Mick
PS, feel free to post this on the forum, but understand that I don’t have time to get involved in an on-line discussion on the subject, especially as we’re just a week out from deadline on the next issue.
PPS, how are the Coopers going?

Mick Matheson
Editor, 4X4 Australia

Ph +61 (0)2 8268 4683
GPO Box 4088
Sydney, NSW, 2001

Do they realise that mechanically, there is very little difference between a D3/4 and RRS? With the same tyres, their off-road capability is exactly the same - in fact the slightly shorter wheelbase of the RRS and lower weight might give it an advantage. The longrange fuel tanks for a D3 can also be made to fit.

The Range Rover Sport is dimensionally closest to the original Range Rover classic. That design is considered as automotive art, and every offroader knows that it is simply an awesome offroad vehicle.

Why the RRS therefore doesn't automatically gain the same reputation is probably due to the name. A "sport" doesn't sound like an offroad machine.

Maybe if it were called something like Range Rover Dakar which could invoke thoughts that the vehicle is an offroader, then the perception will change. But with massive brakes requiring huge wheels and name called "Sport" I think Range Rover's creators are not going to bother with the minute number of people who do actually take them offroad.

The footy stars, real estate agents, celibrities, private school parents are the target audience, who probably won't plan to use the vehicle anywhere near its offroad potential.

Nevermind, when these things are affordable in 7-10 years, I'll buy one and put it to good use!  1999 Discovery II V8 auto

an RRS, off-road? capability? oh no i wouldn't know anything about that.....  ============
2010 TDV8 HSE - ooo laa laaaaaaaaa
2007 TDV8 HSE - superb car and very reliable
============
2012 - dearly departed, sadly missed.. to return in late 2013 with a new TDV8!

So if you had the choice to pull up outside the pub for a days hunting with the horse box on the back, I wouldn't want to be seen in a Toyota or a pajero. People would think I've gone crazy or I'm going to attack the pub car park with extra Tarmac ....or even lucky Heather for your ma!
But what other car on the list would you be able to go off roading with but still be able to go out into the city a night to the swankiest of restaurants in. . . Toyota? Nope pajero? Ha don't make me laugh.
Maybe they have been on the Fosters too long, or were rushing home to watch the repeat of Scott and Charlene tying the knot. who knows. 

I have to say that if the RRS & D4 were the same price it would be no question, however having converted to a Disco I am starting to see what the fuss is all about.
The Disco's are lots cheaper to buy and seem to do everything the sport ever did, ok so not quite so quick in the corners but I have not tried the Disco with 20" wheels fitted so can't really comment further to see how they would compare.
The load space of the Disco is far better than the Sport and I feel more comfortable driving for some reason, not sure if I felt claustrabhobic (?sp) in the Sport with its centre console design.

Don't get me wrong, I do miss the Sport from time to time but the Disco seems a better all-round car.

Sorry

Daz  2017 4.4 Autobiography FFRR - love this car
Gone - VW T5 Transporter
Long gone - 2009 Disco
Long gone but never out of my thoughts - 2008 TDV8 HST

they don't look great.... ============
2010 TDV8 HSE - ooo laa laaaaaaaaa
2007 TDV8 HSE - superb car and very reliable
============
2012 - dearly departed, sadly missed.. to return in late 2013 with a new TDV8!

Quote:

LRO magazine (who claim to be well informed LR specialists)