Land Rover diesel hybrid dreams

Thanks.
Compare Side-by-Side
The porsche diesel gets 24 mpg combined. I would expect this range rover sport hybrid diesel to get around 27 mpg combined in the US, versus 20mpg of the gasoline 6 cylinder model. That is much better than the 2013s, but tata seemed to drastically improve everything with a lighter body and better transmission. Probably why with US numbers tata hasn't decided to bring the hybrid diesel here. Jeep, Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, and VW are all bringing their diesels in luxury SUVs here, and you would think that would make sense too. Rover's do not have a good reputation in the US for reliable electronics, and the hybrid might not make sense.

Which brings up enigma of the Range Rover. Like the Hummer, Escalade, and Lexus Lx it is a serious off road vehicle that with its luxury demographic, very few take off road. If it was used as an off road vehicle the aluminum uni body makes no sense, nor does the hybrid drive train. But for its demographic chugging fuel has become a liability, and people are not going to worry about ease of repair in far away places. These Lux - utes have a bad connotation of making no sense in my part of the US where people do go off road. Take a 4-runner or a jeep or similiar vehicle that are bullet proof and not hard to repair. That may be why you see the negative comments.

I have to ask, how much of british luxury is still in the Range Rover after its stints with BMW, Ford, and now tata? Do people in England still think of it as a british brand?

lol. This beast weighs over 5000 lbs, a 3L turbo diesel is the lowest horsepower engine they offer. Toyota does not go 4cyl in the hihy, I can't image a small engine in the much more expensive and heavier range rover.

 

As I said its the nedc test which makes all cars look better than epa tests. In the real world though this might do about as well as a lexus RXh as long as the driver did not drive very fast on the highway. This is much better than the 2013 range rovers.

 

You're all whining why? If it cuts CO2 by 25% then who gives a crap about the mileage, considering that the people who will buy a new Land Rover are NOT concerned about the gas mileage as much as the luxury/capability features. If Ford still owned Land Rover then you'd probably just see them get some underpowered EcoBoost engines that nobody would buy. Thank God Tata is letting the Brit engineers call more shots on design. Sometimes a great idea doesn't get full credit at face value. If Land Rover can cut the CO2 by a quarter while maintaining the off-road capabilities, then they've already made a big accomplishment.

 

I certainly wasn't whining.
If Land Rover doesn't think the stigma of buying such a gas guzzler is hurting sales, why did they go through such lengths to improve fuel economy.
Compare Side-by-Side
It was only 14mpg in the US in the 2013my, in the new 2014my model a 20mpg option is available.

I certainly don't think Ford is more british than tata You did answer my question, you still think the thing is british after going through German, American, and Indian ownership.

Ford did have a diesel in the Range Rover. Tata kept the similar choice of engines as ford. The ford purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover were obviously mistakes. BMW did the major changes to the truck. It was also not a good fit for bmw. The major change tata has made versus Ford, is the new range rover is now aluminum unibody, versus steel body on frame. You better believe that that does hurt off-road capabilities. Does it matter? These cars are not purchased to go off road. The owners aren't worried about getting it back on the road in a remote location, or the damage caused by driving over rocks and into trees. Its probably a good move for the demographic.

Making it a hybrid also would hurt off road capability, unless other changes were made. How are you going to get something fixed in the middle of nowhere.

Lucky for Range Rover the target market doesn't go off road. If they did then they would have kept the body on frame steel, but made some of the changes Jeep/Mercedes did on their common platform to improve fuel economy.

 

So Tata brought it full circle. Land Rovers and early full-frame Range Rovers had an aluminum body, albeit the frame was steel. The company was started after WWII to build a vehicle inspired by the US jeep that could serve for road use and as a tractor for British farmers during reconstruction. The first series Land Rover came standard with a power connection to run land splitters, plows, threshers, and other farm equipment.

Steel was in short supply during the post war years. Aluminum was abundant with the crashed, and now unneeded war planes. So it was used for the Rover body.

 

The main R&D facilities and factories are still in Britain. It's like when Daimler owned Chrysler or how Fiat pretty much owns Chrysler now. The Germans would cry if they were blamed for the Intrepid or the PT Cruiser.

 

lol.....



compare a 2200kg ( ~5000lbs ) landrover with a 3.0 liter ice to a fiat 500 at !900kg and 0.9 liter ice.

wieght to ice ratio is?

small ice with a turbo and charger for low ref power combined with a higher power ev motor you can get a smaller ice in that landrover for sure!!
i mean common! a mercedes sprinter ( or dodge sprinter over there ) got a 2.2 liter 4 cyl CDI with 140hp and you can put 3500+ KG in total no propts sp wy would a landrover 2200kg not be able to move with that?

your all so used to BIG ICE over there.... and you dont need it!
just because gas was cheap back in the day....

 

I have a friend who has a diesel Range Rover V8 and he loves it as it gets 30 mpg UK on a run (and that usually means over 90 mph). He had a petrol V8 before and that would do about 16 or 18 mpg at the same speeds.

If the car was driven easy I'm sure the petrol would do about 24 mpg UK and the diesel about 35 mpg UK and more if you tried.

I have said many times I'm not a diesel fan, but you should really hire a Range Rover diesel V8 if you get Europe way ever and check out the economy. Not great compared to a car, but amazing compared to an SUV.

 

dont really get your point!! its normal for a diesel to a petrol to have higher mpg. nothing special about that.
the exhaust output on the other hand is ;-)

 

It's sad but so true. It's all about size in America in general. That's why even when diesels have been introduced they have gone for the biggest engine, rather than the best. It's all brute force instead of economy, rather than using a little ingenuity (like you have to when petrol costs $8 a gallon) and getting similar power but much better economy. Prime example is the Toyota IQ which HAD to have the biggest engine (1.3) in the US versions, which isn't as economical as the 1.0 and only 3/10's of a second faster.

And if the Americans don't believe it, why do their cars not sell anywhere other than where petrol is cheap?

Perhaps it's a culture thing? The large McDonalds meal in Europe is the small one in America, and their large meals offer things like 1 litre (30 fl oz) of coke in ONE meal. Who the heck drinks a litre of coke with a meal?

 

It was aimed at Bob, an American. He probably hasn't driven a modern V8 diesel and the significant difference in economy it gives in such a large SUV.

 

Imperial gallons?

 

i think bob is more then aware of that
not based on personal experience but i geuss in numbers/statistics ;-)

 

For sure.

 

UK Range Rover diesel specs;

The performance SUV - All-New Range Rover Vogue | Land Rover UK

Fuel Economy LR-TDV6 3.0 Litre Diesel Engine
Urban mpg (L/100km) 33.2 (8.5)
Extra urban mpg (L/100km) 40.4 (7.0)
Combined mpg (L/100km)
37.7 (7.5)

 

OMG i did 7l/100km in a 3,8 liter v6 petrol... automatic.... that was combined at the gasstation

 

The Range Rover doesn't have the emission requirements of those American models. That's a fuel economy plus for it. The NEDC is a much easier test cycle than the EPA. The SUV can probably make more use of EV mode and gliding. So the 38mpg is probably possible with that test.
New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw a really bad example of a 'black smoker' a few weeks ago. They are mostly asshats that think burning excess fuel is cool. It's shame because it gives all diesels a bad name. The new ones are going to be as clean a gasoline vehicle, and now someone won't consider one, that might work well for them, because of the reputation from these modded diesels.

These people aren't limited to diesels for fuel wasting. Next time you see a 'riced out' car with the coffee can exhaust, try to inspect the rear bumper. Any soot build up around the exhaust means they are running as rich as those black smokers. Some might even produce smoke. The smaller particulates they produce are possibly worse for people's health.

 

You got that info where?

It might be a point or two out but can easily be adjusted. Where do you think the US VW and Audi cars are made that do comply?