Hey guys,

I currently own a 2002 ML 320 which i love, the main reason i chose this vehicle over the X5 is that I need a real 4wd that can go on the beach etc. Ive decided that its time to trade it in and get a new 4wd. I have seen the all new M Class and to me it is no longer a 'truck' but has turned into an X5 wannabe. So this leaves me with the range rover sport, i love the styling, but I have four questions

One, is it good off road? I drive on soft sand 2-3 times a year and need a car that can handle it and will not bog.

two, I have read over and over again that the 4.4 V8 (which is what I am looking at) has trouble moving the car quickly due to weight, is this true?

three, i have also read that it guzzles petrol, i can understand this due to it being a large car with a v8 but with the current petrol prices it is unfortuanatley a major factor I have to take into consideration, what do you think of the apparent guzzling?

And finally, how does it compare overall to your old ML (if you owned one)?

Thanks,
bayles999

Hi Bayles999,
I am in the market for a 4wd as well and have primarily driven landcruisers in the past. i am also tossing up between the RRS and ML164. I am waiting to do a test drive in both before i make a decision. i think that the ML 320 CDI will be awesome and the engine would appear to be stronger than the RRS equivalent. Though the RRS is better value for money with the standard equipment and i prefer the rugged looks of the RRS compared with the ML.

Saying that not so sure about the buying experience with the RRS, the Mercedes people here are keen and phone me every week with updates where as the Landrover people do not appear interested and one compared the ML to a Ssayong (yeaa good sales move, lets run down the opposition as the guy i am dealing with is obviously a dickhead)

Anyway most of your questions are answered here http://www.landrover.com/au/en/Vehicles/Ra...erview.htm and here
http://www.rangeroversport.com.au/?route=__link__GraphicPromo_1

I would think that with the air suspension and traction system it would be perfect for what you want, and you have cheaper fuel in Qld!

Good luck with your decision

I have had two MLs, both diesal, when I saw the rrsport, I had a test drive, and believe me, there was no comparision withthe ML.
The interior is superb, the handling is perfect, and most of all, the alround vision is fine. With the ML I definately needed the parking sensors, but with thre rrs, they are handy, but not really necessary.
With the straight bonnet, it is so easy to estimate the front end.
I have had Mercedes since 1987, so you can imagine how much I ponderded over the change. The new ML, looks ok, but more like the chrysler people carrier, In fact MB have built there new line in Alabamha so that if it does not catch on, the line can be used for people carriers. As for use in the sand, go on a RRS experience trip and it will answer all your questions Good Luck

I too have 'upgraded' from an ML to a RR Sport - both diesels though.
The Sport would be far superior off-road and in the sand than the ML - although I have no real experience myself. The Sport even has a sand selection on the terrain response system! You should have no worries here.
I've not driven a petrol Sport, but the diesel version is known to be 'sluggish', but it is more than adequate. In fact, it is getting better by the week as the engine is wearing in. I'm sure the 4.4 V8 petrol is great to drive. The brochure says 0-62mph is 8.2 seconds - that's 3.7 seconds faster than the diesel - and the diesel seems okay at moving this big lump around. They may be heavy and you may have to push your right foot a little harder to get to the speed you want, but once there it wants to keep going. I'm sure you'll soon forget your ML once you've had a Sport for a few days. Even if it is slightly slower, you soon don't realise it. The Sport is a much more positive drive and feels so much better than the ML, you'll not notice the slightly different performance.
The fuel economy isn't good though. They are heavy, but they are lovely to drive and you feel very safe in it. That's the price you pay for driving such a vehicle. In the UK, where fuel is 96p per litre, it is a big issue - that's why diesels are more popular.
As for the comparisons with an ML - I'd NEVER go back. We don't have the new shape ML in the UK yet, but from what I've read it is an impressive vehicle. I think the comparisons between that and the Sport will be harder, but between the old shape ML and the Sport - the Sport wins in virtually every way. It's quieter, lovely driving position, handles much better, suspension is far superior, more solid, better ergonomics, better off road and safer. The quality (especially interior trim) is much better, but the overall reliability has yet to be proved - I would suspect that the ML wins here. However, the Sport seems to be the highest quality vehicle that Land Rover has produced to date.
I thought our ML was near perfect and I was very happy with it. I too didn't like the X5 as it was too car like. I prefer the upright driving position of the ML. However, the Sport surpasses the ML and is a far more superior car. We had our ML for another month after getting the Sport, while I was selling it privately. I then drove it again after driving the Sport for two weeks. The ML felt 'tinny', cheap, crude and noisy. Funny how much your views change so quickly. Matt
-------------------------------------------
RRS ownership for 1 yr, then D3 for 2 yrs. Then cut back to old bangers and working my way back up through two Peugeots in 6 months. Now got Saab 9-5 2.3t and enjoying the performance!

Matt, I can second what you say about the old ML since a couple of years ago I have also owned a 270CDI for just one year and then got rid of it.

However, in all fairness you cannot compare the old M-class with the new RRS. There are I think about 7 years between the two models which in automotive terms is a lot. The new M-class is a great car. I have driven the 3.0 liter diesel a few weeks ago, and I can tell you that you will be very positively surprised. Compared to the RRS the new Merc diesel is much faster, uses less fuel and, with the optional air suspension, has the better ride. Build qualiity and materials have improved as well and the 7 speed automatic has to be the best in the world.

Having said all that, I for my part still went for the RRS but then I am a hopeless Land Rover fan....!

In an ideal world Land Rover woukd be together with Daimler Chrysler instead of Ford and we would have Merc engines in our beloved RRS.

Roland

Roland wrote:

In an ideal world Land Rover woukd be together with Daimler Chrysler instead of Ford and we would have Merc engines in our beloved RRS.

The new ML 320CDI has even a few BHP more than the Jeep with the same basic engine. That fact combined with the 7-speed automatic in the ML makes the ML even more refined/responsive than the Jeep and allows for even better fuel economy.

The Jeep's interior is in fact "jeepish" looking (there you go, it's all in the name...) and at least in my book the ML's outside looks like one of those high-end japanese SUVs.