Hang on a minute...is this a review or a cut and paste job?
Can someone explain how it is possible to admit in the first part of the article that no off-roading or otherwise challenging driving was done and then to write later that the car "is even better suited to more challenging terrains"?
Range Rovers are lovely land yachts, but they left their off-roading credentials behind years ago. If I'm pulling a trailer up a wet muddy hill, I want a Land Rover Defender or a Jeep Wrangler. If I'm (ahem) "advising a foreign government" in somewhere hot and sandy I want a Toyota Land Cruiser. If I want my ears to work after 30 minutes on tarmac, I want a Range Rover.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
