http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igcxc2YBpBU...u.be&a∑

Have to say for £20k less and on the same chassis this is almost looking more appealing than the L405 IMO

What do we reckon?

Ok, this is a little blasphemous here.

Some have bemoaned the lack of Low Range Gearbox on some cars, but tbh when is this feature necessary for most owners?

Maybe I'm just reflecting the tastes of my county

It's certainly a nice car

I trued to blag one today as a replacement for my poor old broken D3... Graham

____
Gone: 10MY L320 RR Sport HSE, Ipanema Sand
Gone: 20MY Jaguar iPace HSE, Silicon Silver
Gone: 17MY RR Evoque SE Tech, Loire Blue
Gone: 08MY Discovery 3 XS, Stornoway Grey
Gone: 07MY FFRR TDV8 Vogue, Stornoway Grey

Having seen a new Sport up close now, they are very nice.

I still think an L405 is the real deal, though. And £20k is a lot less when buying secondhand. 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.

ive seen one too in Loire Blue. The design is better balanced than the new fullfat IMO, and it seems equally luxurious inside. Only really makes sense as a basic model though vs a FFRR. The absence of seven seats n the FFRR just seems stupid as well... not sure whose marketing idea it was but not v sensible... wealthy folks have families too!

A luxury car is not a minibus - the Range Rover is positioned further upmarket. Makes sense to me now the range (Range?) is broader, as does the option of individual rear seats (although I would never specify them).

Slightly surprising that evo (or Metcalfe at least) don't consider the Sport "sporty" to drive in comparison with a Cayenne, given the pre-release stuff about how "dynamic" it is. Interesting to see some comparison tests.

Trommel wrote:

A luxury car is not a minibus - the Range Rover is positioned further upmarket. Makes sense to me now the range (Range?) is broader, as does the option of individual rear seats (although I would never specify them).

Slightly surprising that evo (or Metcalfe at least) don't consider the Sport "sporty" to drive in comparison with a Cayenne, given the pre-release stuff about how "dynamic" it is. Interesting to see some comparison tests.

I'm not sure that luxury and practicality can't go hand in hand, surely that's a hallmark of the Range Rover brand? So seven seats would make sense? The presence of money doesn't necessarily imply that practicality must go. Many customers have a RR in a fleet of cars, in order to have a luxurious car with a practical side to it, surely?

Yeah, seems like the Sport is once again no such thing but rather a more compact Range Rover on the FFRR platform. It currently makes more sense in my eyes. The absence of a rear split tailgate frustrates me however, as this is clearly a marketing ploy!

The Range Rover brand is now three cars, soon no doubt more - it has been pushed further upmarket, that's the way it is. If they were bothered about it being practical they might have designed some floor mats which worked. Not like the factory ever offered a seven seat option on the previous ones either.

Trommel wrote:

The Range Rover brand is now three cars, soon no doubt more - it has been pushed further upmarket, that's the way it is. If they were bothered about it being practical they might have designed some floor mats which worked. Not like the factory ever offered a seven seat option on the previous ones either.

I liked the look of the old Sport, but it always seems like a 'more expensive but less practical D3/4." Yes, I'd say the new one is a real Range Rover, but it's not a FFRR. I'm not buying new, and after a few years, the price difference between a FFRR and a SSRR is negligible - so go for the FFRR unless you HAVE to have 7 seats.

the new Sport looks better than the L405....

strangly the old sport now looks like a brick compared to the new sport whereas the fullfat looks better than the new 'tata-fat' ... - .- -.




Y. O. L. O.
.

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)  MY 2010 5.0 SC Galway green and sand interior!!
Have the Faultmate MSV2 Extreme to be tinkering with the settings etc. !!

I'm not keen on the fish gills on the 405 or the narrow back end. This sport looks much better IMHO. Tom

Current Drive
2011 4.4 TDV8 Autobiography - Santorini Black - Ivory Leather

Previous Drives
2004 Model Vogue Td6 (Touchscreen) - Java Black - Parchment Leather
1994 RR Classic 3.9 V8 Soft dash - Niagara Grey - Grey Leather
1972 Series III SWB Safari - Green (Hand Painted) - Black Plastic

Speaking of fake vents, the ones on the bonnet of the new Sport are completely spurious.