. Just pointing out as above there is now a very credible alternative, that does a much better job than the RRS .

In line the last post, I regularly see over 40s MPG on a run. The same run in RRS used to see 22-23 MPG. When you throw in the on going reliability issues with the RRs it’s a no brainer.

Good for you

But thanks, I think I'll stick with the RRS '08 RRS TDV8
I converted my diesel RRS to run on an environmentally friendly mixture of caribou fat and baby seals oil

redfive1 wrote:

In summery, the Porsche is approx 40-50%% better on MPG. Has 95% of the performance of the 4.2sc RRS . Handles like a 911. The whole car feel as through it has been carved out of sold piece of rock. Its moved the SUV game on, over to you RR

Yeah but it looks like a Cayenne.....which is why I bought another RRS after nearly falling for the Cayenne......

I can not not argue with you on the point of looks.........RRS hands down very time. Althrough the PC is a big improvemenet on the old version.

[quote="redfive1"]. Just pointing out as above there is now a very credible alternative, that does a much better job than the RRS .
Dont think so , just goes about things the porsche way.  SVR 2018 in Santorini Black.

The Cayenne is a great drive, but there is a reason why I said no to the cayenne and paid more for the RRS

Seems some are better than others. Pistonheads took a 3.0ltr to germany and averaged 29mpg. They also had nothing but praise for this engine.  SVR 2018 in Santorini Black.

dric0327 wrote:

I have drove a Cayenne and used to own a 911 when I lived in the USA and there is no way that the Cayenne handles anywhere near the 911 - fact ! They are light years apart. I love my RRS and bought it because I don't want a 911 anymore, I want something that goes anywhere at anytime in any weather and looks better than anything else that pretends to do the same. The TDV6 is a good engine and is very unfairly slagged off, if I had the option of a 4.4tdv8 I wouldn't buy it, it would be overkill for me, that's why it's great that we are all different.

Firebird. My next door neighbour has the Cayenne Turbo (latest version) and in the snow a few weeks ago he got stuck and stuck again (I towed him out twice). It's fast but cost him £88k and isn't really a 4x4 if it can't do what itshould do. So they are making a Cayenne that performs like a 911 and the compromise is it's rubbish off road and in snow. In my I
Opinion I just don't see the point of building a 4x4 off roader and then making it handle like a sports car but destroying what it was made for. I may just be traditional !

And it's pig ugly to boot 2016 MY16.5 HSE, 21" Rims, Waitamo Grey, Cirrus Leather, Extended Leather, Meridian sound

i ain't no dizzy rascal

dric0327 wrote:

Firebird. My next door neighbour has the Cayenne Turbo (latest version) and in the snow a few weeks ago he got stuck and stuck again (I towed him out twice). It's fast but cost him £88k and isn't really a 4x4 if it can't do what itshould do. So they are making a Cayenne that performs like a 911 and the compromise is it's rubbish off road and in snow. In my I
Opinion I just don't see the point of building a 4x4 off roader and then making it handle like a sports car but destroying what it was made for. I may just be traditional !

And it's pig ugly to boot

recent weekend activity took me on a round trip approx 800 kM with a good mix of road types and gradients.
average fuel consumption 9.3 litre/100km (@31 MPG).
However, round town trips during the week do get down to about 23 MPG though.

happy enough with 30 MPG all considering.

I was the originator of this forum topic and would like to add some updated information.

Firstly if you want to talk cayenne or whatever it is , please start another post....

I have contacted Land Rover directly and also spoken to consumer direct.

The Law states that if a product does not meet the advertised spec then the company is in breach of contract
and your are entitled to a full refund. the time limit for requesting such is well quite a few years. Though the contract is with your dealer and not Land Rover. So that's the legal bit, you can always get your money back though i somehow doubt it would be easy.

As for Land Rover, well this was amazing, they state the fuel consumption figures are based on a rolling road test and not a real world road test. they also state all the nonsense of having electric seats on etc will effect fuel consumption. they also state that the figures quoted are not really achievable. Pretty amazing stuff eh, I doubt the customer rep whom wrote that nonsense will be in a job much longer should land rover take a peep in here.

I have also been fortuneate to have had some correspondance from inside Land rover (off the record) . I was informed the 'rolling road tests' are nonsense and the vehicles are tested in real world situations. also the stated fuel figures are achievable. also that there have been issues with 'air flow sensors' that will normally go un noticed but the symptons are poor fuel consumption. Food for thought .

I was also advised on a techy note that other than altering the 4x4 system the various modes in the command system also re-map the engine performance.

With this information i decided to run a test.

I have always driven my vehicle in the 'normal mode' its now covered 2000 miles and never bettered 26mpg according to the computer. my own fuel tank tests suggest this to be 22mpg.

I therefore drove a 2hour test drive in one direction in 'normal mode' as i have always done, as per usual the car reported 26mpg. I then switched the command dial to 'dynamic' and drove the 2 hours home on the same journey. The car achieved 32.5mpg.

The question now is WHY!

in theory the dynamic mode is mapped as a sport drive mode and other than stifferning the suspension will cause the gears to change at higher revs than normal mode. all this would under correct operation cause worse fuel figures.

Why is it the case Land Rover that this is not so.

As a test for all parties interested in following this thread i urge you to switch to 'dynamic' mode and report back your results.

I don't have dynamic mode on mine. i'll test in 'Sport' mode but my guess is it will be worse not better.

This thread does make me smile when it appears  2014 5.0SC AB

Gone 5.0 SC

On a strange note, for some reason this week my '10 sport has been achieving better mpg than ever.

I drive a MY10TDV6 and realistically have been getting between 26 - 28 but this week, over 2 fills, I've been seeing 30 - 31 mpg.

My driving style hasn't changed that much, but mpg has dramatically increased.... Dint know why but not complaining! MY10 HSE 3.0 TDV6 : Santorini Black : Ebony Interior w/Anigre wood : Privacy Glass (total) : Sunroof : Sidesteps : Hybrid TV : Detachable Tow Kit : Spare Wheel Cover : 22" Dished Supersports