true, but they annoy me less than the HUGE door gills on the L405. Plus, as a general thing the sport and L405 have the same chassis, the same interior (bar the slidey compartments, gearknob and air vents) and costs £20k less, so some would call it a no brainer?

ebajema wrote:

I agree with Trommel on this, the L405 is all about being upmarket and the "family van" image does not go with that. I agree, wealthy people have families and sometimes more than two kids as well but still I can see the reasoning for not giving the L405 the seven seats and I am very sure it will not hurt the sales one bit.

On the original question, I have to answer with a question, what makes a FFRR a FFRR ?? I personally feel that it is very much is determined by JLR and our FullFat term. It is a bit like milk. It all comes from the same source, looks pretty much the same, "tastes" pretty much the same but there is that small difference that you can see/taste and measure.

So although the new Sport got a LOT better IMHO and contrary to the previous version (pending a test drive in one), I would say it is now definitely a car I would buy. If I had the budget for a FFRR, I would get one (at the moment I would still prefer a late L322 because of the looks by the way), I would go that way and if the budget wouldn't allow the 405, I would go sport (provided that was in the budget of course ).

Does that make sense ??

The new Sport is so much more like that FFRR in design and construction, where the old one was a Disco with different body and interior. I think the Sport "graduated" from SSRR to AFFRR (Almost Full Fat RR)

Why can't you buy a seven-seater Flying Spur? Or a seven-seater Ghost?

Would every car with the "Executive Class" (how awesomely vulgar) seating also have an extra pair in the boot? Because from my observations around town, a lot of L405s only have two seats in the back.

The car's position in the market has changed, its rivals are different and there are other in-house options to fill any gap. Are you buying a Sport?

Trommel wrote:

Why can't you buy a seven-seater Flying Spur? Or a seven-seater Ghost?

Would every car with the "Executive Class" (how awesomely vulgar) seating also have an extra pair in the boot? Because from my observations around town, a lot of L405s only have two seats in the back.

The car's position in the market has changed, its rivals are different and there are other in-house options to fill any gap. Are you buying a Sport?

but imo the range rover is, or at least was, different to those two cars. people buy it so that they have a luxurious car with a practical side to it, or at least that was the case with the L322... I think those executive class seats are nuts too, maybe I just don't understand the customer base anymore: who buys an L405?! You can't even fold them down into the floor; seems mad to me. I'm not buying a Sport no, advising a relative. It just seems to me that the sport is now the default choice, as I'm struggling to find ways in which the L405 is superior for the considerable additional outlay.

oh, and 7 seater ghost, that would be a sight to behold

I will just call it NSSRR as having sat in one and poked and proded everything in a few varients you can tell they are Pre Pod models with bugs and they are RR in the sense that the batteries dont last long But the SC i can see being very very quick, and even the TDV6 is quicker than the old 4.2sc!

Some of the interior didnt feel upmarket to me and i think LR could easily and cheaply improve it but its more family oriented where as the L405 is less rabble family friendly if you get what i mean  FFRR MY06 facelift With TDV8 Alloys Zeros/ATR's
Mantec Sump Guard, Rigid Load liner, MY10 BT upgrade.

First time I have seen the new sport and I have to say as someone who wasn't a fan of the old sport - this one I like (still would like a split tailgate).

Very interesting indeed..... "On first name terms with my local Dealer......now."

'61 Plate 5.0SC Autobiography - in Black ——— Gone
'53 plate 4.4V8 Vogue Bonatti Grey inside and out. ----- Gone

kingpleb wrote:

I will just call it NSSRR as having sat in one and poked and proded everything in a few varients you can tell they are Pre Pod models with bugs and they are RR in the sense that the batteries dont last long But the SC i can see being very very quick, and even the TDV6 is quicker than the old 4.2sc!

Some of the interior didnt feel upmarket to me and i think LR could easily and cheaply improve it but its more family oriented where as the L405 is less rabble family friendly if you get what i mean

I'm feeling in a minority here. I like the look of the new FFRR. Mind you, the local dealer's car, (the only one I've seen 'in the metal') is white. It looks good and the clean white lessens the bling. Mind you, my 2008 will soon be coming up on its first birthday with me, do I'm in no hurry to change anything!

I also think that getting 7 seats into a FFRR AND make them halfway decent to sit in, is quite a task. It may mean compromises that just don't suit the "position" of the car in the market. I mean if you can't have two decent seats in the back then it will seriously detract from the "image" of the car.

I had the pleasure of sitting in the rear seats of our Landcruiser last Sunday, and my daughter (who is only about 1.50 tall at the moment) was fine but for me (1.89 tall) my knees and nostrils were in close proximity and so where my head and the roof liner. The third row of a D4 is a bit more comfortable I seem to remember.

So my point being I don't think the FFRR can be made into a "proper" 7 seater without some major concessions that will affect the car. Just imagine if they'd have to create a proper seating position in the back, that could impact the design of the, drive train, suspension, fuel tank etc. etc. So I can understand it.

As for the Sport, it may be acceptable to have "less than perfect" seating position in the third row because of its market position. MY 2010 5.0 SC Galway green and sand interior!!
Have the Faultmate MSV2 Extreme to be tinkering with the settings etc. !!

I don't get the fascination with 7 seats. Why not 8, or 9 or more? It's silly because this has only arisen because other cars can offer more seats.

In the 70's, if you needed more than 5 seats you bought a minibus or a Land Rover 109.

I have no problem with 4 / 5 seats. I also have no wish to have a car with 7 seats. Or 8. Or 9. And if I did, I wouldn't use them, so why take up valuable (and more usable) boot space (oh, and weight... and cost) with stuff you just don't need?

For me, the FFRR appeals because it DOESN'T have 7 seats. And it's far more practical and useable to me because of it.  Si. <This is my name.

I eat rat poison.

A man ain't truly been insulted until he stands buck naked in front of a woman and she didn't even notice. Or care.

Its simple really if you want a comfortable family Land Rover with 7-seats you get the Disco 3/4 it has a design that allows adults to use the 6th & 7th seat in reasonable comfort. Why do we need 7 seats in other models designed for other purposes?

+1 Gaellio 2019 D5 HSE Lux SDV6 Indus
55 D3 SE
98 MX5 1.8 RS
gone 17 older variants of FFRR

^ Don't call me Gae

If I were in a position to buy a new 405, it would be the 4 seater.....f the rabble.....they can take the bus!!!
But since the 405 4-seater tdv8 over here will be over Aus $260k, my old car will have to do!!!
Bob