View Single Post
Old 05-28-2006, 12:54 PM   #8 (permalink)
cawimmer430
Contributor
 
cawimmer430's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mühldorf am Inn, Germany
Posts: 6,249
Thanks: 2,362
Thanked 1,733 Times in 829 Posts
cawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond reputecawimmer430 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: First Drive:Car & Driver on the ML63

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andaluz
That's a good observation Cawimmer.

And I entirely agree.

What's the point of a fast SUV that doesn't go off-road?

Take the Ford F-150 SVT Lightning for example.

It can accelarate from 0 to 60 Mph in 6s. That's not bad at all for a Pick-up truck. Thing is though, the Lightning is only available as normal RWD (2WD).

So what's the point of buying a fast truck, that doesn't handle as a sportscar and it yet doesn't have the off road ability that a truck must have?

Happily however, Land Rover thought on that and while the Range Rover Sport still is a mud plugger, still feels nimble and agile as a sport saloon.

Think the Range Rover Sport as a BMW M5 on high-hell shoes.

Exactly. If I was in the market for a performance SUV, I'd still expect it to be able to go offroad. The RR Sport and the Cayenne I guess are still biased towards speed, rather than what their SUV prinicple was meant to do, but I agree that they seem to be significantly more capable than the X5 4.8is or the ML63 AMG when it comes to offroading.
cawimmer430 is offline   Reply With Quote