Comments on: Spotted: A V12-powered Range Rover?

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:53:32 +0000

RaneMaine-that attitude is what’s wrong with this country today

jayj: where do you live? In (far) southern cali, a range rover is frequently a mommy-wagon — a betrayal of the rig’s heritage

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:34:23 +0000

Wow… another gas guzzler hits the streets.

Has anyone thought of bringing a law suit against automakers for producing these wasteful monsters?

By: carbonsigma

carbonsigma — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:00:05 +0000

kgrimes, I was thinking the same. And that Audi Q7 6.0 TDI Quattro is coming.

By: bigp

bigp — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:45:35 +0000

its realy the supercharged 5.0v8 not an v12

By: Syrax

Syrax — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:17:45 +0000

I have a RR Supercharged 06. Although I liked the 02-06 front end better, I’m linking the new one now. As the reliability goes, never got a problem but a faulty fog light replaced in 15mins at no cost. Ford or Tata, I’ll be getting another one in a few years.

By: qhaak

qhaak — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:20:55 +0000

This is pathetic journalism. Of course it ain’t no V12, it’s the long rumored and repeatedly spied new V8 5.0. With RR likely turning to aluminum technology (similar to Jaguar) a supercharged V8 should do the job just fine!

By: tzu13

tzu13 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:53:49 +0000

Stinky, I believe Audi already has plans for a V12 Q7. It’s called the Coastline or something like that…

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:51:44 +0000

jackjim- How many people run their kids around in one of these?

I mean, I’m totally positive there’s a few families in these, but enough with the stereotypes…

Stinky- They do make a Dodge Ram with the Viper engine (unless you meant by oh wait, that is badass, that they already produced it). Dodge RT10.

Commodore- It’s already making steady, high profit margins. I think they’d get out more profit margins from 2 billion dollars in sales with maybe a 10% profit, then 200 million dollars at 50% profit. Don’t quote me on this, but I think Land Rovers are only second or very close to Porsches, which make the most profit for any automanufacturer.

By: Stinky007

Stinky007 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:39:22 +0000

Cool, on one hand everybody is bragging about how “green” their cars are, on the other hand they’re putting DB9 engines is SUVs…
What next, a Cayenne V10 with the Carrera GT engine!? Or maybe an Audi Q7 with the Murcielago engine!
…over the ocean… Or a Dodge Ram with the Viper engine … oh wait, that is badass! :p

By: Commodore

Commodore — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:33:14 +0000

Inline6 – you are pretty ignorant. What you don’t take into consideration here is how much it takes to manufacture these cars. If you haven’t heard, there is a lot bigger PROFIT MARGIN on things like SUVs, trucks, and luxury vehicles because they are made for say $40000 in materials and labor and sold for $80000. So that is a $40000 gain. Compare that to a car that costs $15000 to produce and is sold for $20000 so that is a $5000 gain or 8 times less.

So selling 10,000 units at 200,000 might be better than selling 20,000 units at 85,000 depending on PROFIT MARGIN which you did not include in your comment. You simply multiplied the cost of the vehicles and that’s it. And your assumption that only 1,000 units will see is also pretty ignorant. I would say 10,000 even if it is a higher price. After all, twice the price, half the sales makes perfect sense

By: LaCaLover

LaCaLover — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:12:11 +0000

Stunning Interiors

By: Need more oil for GM

Need more oil for GM — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:54:30 +0000

Bigger, more expensive and even less reliable (if it could even be any worse). Yeah, that’s what I want. A Chevy Tahoe or GMC Yukon could do 99% of what this pile of garbage can do and those won’t look like a cheap jacked-up econobox doing it. Plus why settle for trashy European crap when GM has a stellar reputation for quality and reliability? What a waste of money.

By: inline6

inline6 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:52:02 +0000

The Range Rover is the marque’s second best-selling vehicle. No way they trade the 20,000 annual unit sales of the RR for 1,000.

20,000 units x $85,000 = $1.7 billion

1,000 units x $200,000 = $200 million.

Hm…where’s the greater profit potential?

By: kgrimes

kgrimes — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:12:18 +0000

since when is quad exhaust and a new front bumper a sign of a v12?

By: xkr

xkr — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:09:36 +0000

The US is one of Land Rovers biggest markets, get you facts strait mayer_ray_nagin, I am certain this Range Rover will do just fine.

By: shaver

shaver — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:05:35 +0000

Laforza wann-a-be

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:58:54 +0000

Range Rovers are good off-road, but you can really find a more sensible choice for shuffling the brats around

By: enthusiast89

enthusiast89 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:54:44 +0000

I think the high performance range rover will use the new 5.0 superharged V8 from the XF-R rather than a V12 though, which Rover/Jaguar doesn’t have. Maybe tata is bankrolling the development of a V12?

By: enthusiast89

enthusiast89 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:52:47 +0000

I beg to differ. Rovers are pretty awesome, crazy off road yet luxurious and elegant; they are sort of the the bentleys of SUVs, and as such I think some buyers would be willing to drop the extra coin for a super exclusive Range Rover. It would be interesting how they make the transition to charging 200 grand from the current sub-100k offerings, though

By: mayer_ray_nagin

mayer_ray_nagin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:45:57 +0000

What a waste. This will sell about 20 units per year in the USA.

Rovers are pathetic.