+1. Also, the V6 seems to suit most lifestyles a little better. What percentage of our time is spent cruising down the highway with one or two other passengers and no weight towing? The V6 would be more efficient and cost-effective than my V8 (if I approached it in a practical way). I still love my V8 though.
NAV8 vs SCV6 Comparison
- Thread starter epiclr4
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
+1. Also, the V6 seems to suit most lifestyles a little better. What percentage of our time is spent cruising down the highway with one or two other passengers and no weight towing? The V6 would be more efficient and cost-effective than my V8 (if I approached it in a practical way). I still love my V8 though.
Quijote
Full Access Member
I live in a very hilly area. Low end torque (off idle) is a nice feature
I ended up pulling the trigger on a Causeway Grey HSE - all the more reason to see what EM options are available. I'll post up whatever info I come across.
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
Couldn't agree more. The engine feels a different one when in S mode. When I am late to work in the morning I use S mode with nice engine braking as a plus.
One thing I have noticed though is when cruising on the freeway in normal D mode at moderate speeds, if I want to pass a vehicle quickly etc and shift to S mode, the downshift is two extreme (maybe too lower of gear change than really is needed). This is even if I let off the gas before switching to S mode. The RPMs just shoot up to a really high number and feels a bit scary in terms engine wear. A first couple of times it happened I thought there was something wrong with the mapping. My LR3, when switched to S mode in similar conditions, used to downshift nicely (maybe just one gear change) and then I would just step on the gas if I needed further assistance from the transmission.
Last edited:
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
As far as performance on the highway, I felt the same when I moved from my LR3 to LR4 V8 a year and a half ago. I was expecting my LR4 V8 to be a lot more responsive with more gut at highway passing, but that wasn't the case. Honestly, I feel that when I stepped on it in my LR3 at highway speeds, it really pulled with power with a feeling of constant increase in speed, so much so that I would have to ease off on the gas to let it up shift again and calm down a bit.
I remember the only one time I felt that the power wasn't enough on the highway (in my LR3) is when this one night I was driving to vegas on 15 and I was climbing up on a slight grade and wanted to go faster than 90 mph so pressed the pedal a bit more to get more speed and was surprised to find out that there was no more room left under the gas pedal. LR3 was struggling a bit go above 90 mph. I could have been on higher elevation stretch at the time. The car wasn't even fully loaded, it was just me and a carry on and bunch of other usual stuff in the car.
Last edited:
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
Agree with the more room aspect but really, personally I hate that knob. Its not a cadillac. I have driven loaner evoque and Jags with this knob. It just sucks. With the shifter lever, its much easer and quicker to switch to S mode and/or downshift to call in more power. It also feels sportier to do it that way. Also easier to switch back to D quickly.
I also like to rest my hand on the gear shifter while driving.
I guess just a matter of personal taste.
Last edited:
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
Glad to know that there isn't a huge difference.
I had my LR3 for six years. One thing that I felt was a huge improvement when I got into my LR4 was the engine performance when the vehicle is loaded with passengers. With five adults, my LR3 felt weaker specially off the start or pulling up the entry ramps to the freeways.
When I drove my LR4 with five passengers for the first time I was pleasantly surprised that engine didn't feel stressed at all, not even a bit. With feeling of complete effortlessness, the V8 pulled up the freeway ramps as there was no load inside. As a matter of fact the whole vehicle felt much better and more smooth to drive when loaded. It felt more stable and bit more settled on the freeway, sort of like what my LR3 used to feel on the freeway, in terms of the stability, with its softer suspension setup and heavier steering weight compared to LR4's firmer suspension feel and lighter steering.
magnumforc
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Posts
- 103
- Reaction score
- 12
Ahh, just waiting for Gear Vendors or some other outfit to come up with a split case deal so you can have a good overdrive on the 2013 and down V8 LR4. Cruise all day at 1200 RPM and almost sip fuel. They did it for other vehicles but would guess the LR doesn't sell enough units to make it worthwhile to build a unit for us.
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
So if the general consensus is that a NA engine loses about 3 percent of its power for every 1000 ft of elevation, vs a FI engine that loses only about 1.5 percent (half) for the same 1000 ft, then the SCV6 wins hands down at an elevation of say 7000 ft.
Using the above formula the following will be the final horsepower left for each engine at 7000 ft:
NAV8: 375 hp (at sea level) minus 21 percent of it (78.75 horses) = 296.25 horses
SCV6: 340 hp (at sea level) minus 1.5 percent of it (35.7 horses) = 304.3 horses
And of course the difference would be higher (say at 8000 ft or more) in favor of the SCV6.
So with that math, the range rover (or sport) with its 510 hp SCV8 motor does pretty well at 7000 ft for still having more than 450 horsepower at that elevation.
I wonder whats the loss percentage of torque at elevation.
Using the above formula the following will be the final horsepower left for each engine at 7000 ft:
NAV8: 375 hp (at sea level) minus 21 percent of it (78.75 horses) = 296.25 horses
SCV6: 340 hp (at sea level) minus 1.5 percent of it (35.7 horses) = 304.3 horses
And of course the difference would be higher (say at 8000 ft or more) in favor of the SCV6.
So with that math, the range rover (or sport) with its 510 hp SCV8 motor does pretty well at 7000 ft for still having more than 450 horsepower at that elevation.
I wonder whats the loss percentage of torque at elevation.
