NAV8 vs SCV6 Comparison

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.

crash1121

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Posts
91
Reaction score
66
Location
Telluride, CO
We have had two and still own one 2013 LR4 HSE, one sold was the HSE LUX and loved them both. Difference as far as rough road capability was in that the LUX had the HD package with the locker rear, tow pack and the full size spare. I was so glad to have the aluminum V8 as it has excellent low end power and acceleration, something that I just do not see in the SCV6. Plus, at trade in time, the V8's are bringing close to original sales price in this market, albeit low mileage ones are at the top. I sold the LUX for almost what I paid for it a year later and with about 5 or 6K miles on it as I recall.

Great vehicle and tough as nails. Shrugs off the snow, sand and dirt and keeps moving like as bull. Only down side may be the lower fuel mileage on the V8 but I gladly sacrifice that for the brute power.

Just my opinion.
I appreciate your insight, and that's pretty much the sort of answer I wanted to hear. I've definitely been surprised to see what these V8s are selling for. Loaded, low-mileage '13s are selling for the same price as loaded '14s, and very close to even some '15s—pretty wild!

I guess I've been rather easily persuaded to go with the V8, so I'm sold. Pretty much all of the HD package cars available now are black with the black pack. They look great, but that color probably wouldn't fare too well out on the trails... Corris with the black pack is my dream color combo, but very rare on '13s. I'll likely not find my dream color, but other colors I like are Fuji & Causeway, all with the black package. Wish me luck on the search, and I look forward to picking up and getting underway with some modifications on the new beast soon!
 
Last edited:

5Dpatrick

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
15
Reaction score
0
I had the same issue before I made my purchase. I looked for over a year for a MY13 properly equipped and colored and so forth. I decided to bite the bullet and ordered a MY15 LUX. I have had that vehicle for a year now, and the SCV6 has been powerful enough for every task. It moved me from Houston to Colorado towing a fully loaded trailer without strain. I have loaded 7 adults into it and headed over Independence pass (12,000Ft) also without issue. My camping trips have only been with 2 adults, but with full gear, and the low end torque is more than sufficient.
 

crash1121

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Posts
91
Reaction score
66
Location
Telluride, CO
I had the same issue before I made my purchase. I looked for over a year for a MY13 properly equipped and colored and so forth. I decided to bite the bullet and ordered a MY15 LUX. I have had that vehicle for a year now, and the SCV6 has been powerful enough for every task. It moved me from Houston to Colorado towing a fully loaded trailer without strain. I have loaded 7 adults into it and headed over Independence pass (12,000Ft) also without issue. My camping trips have only been with 2 adults, but with full gear, and the low end torque is more than sufficient.

Thanks for posting.

I've still been looking for the right MY13—it's been quite a long while now! I've missed two opportunities to purchase low-mile, clean, loaded, & CPO'd MY14 LR4s in my favorite color combo, simply because I've been sold on the V8... I considered revisiting the SCV6, but since I've already waited this long I'm thinking I'll just try to remain persistent and patient. :stupid:

Here's one I've been tempted to get, BUT it is black (least ideal color), and their asking price is—I think—too high for one that isn't a LUX/fully-loaded:
http://www.landroverthousandoaks.co...over-LR4-a8cdd0590a0e0ae73625ab4b533da31e.htm
 
Last edited:

5Dpatrick

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
15
Reaction score
0
Stick to your guns, but after I made the decision to go with the 2015, I have been driving one instead of shopping for one. Good luck with your search. I do remember that the HD units sell fast once they are listed, be ready
 

JotaDe

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Posts
239
Reaction score
8
IMO don't put the SCV6 vs V8 factor so high on your priority list.
If you're unable to get the exact config you want in the V8 then just buy a new SCV6.

I've heard maybe 1 or 2 people who were disappointed with the SCV6, and even in those cases they had driven the V8 previously and just weren't comfortable with the change. I also don't recall a specific instance of someone saying the SCV6 isn't good enough. The most common complaint is why change from a V8 when the gas saving is so minimal (which makes sense to me).

For me, I got exactly what I wanted and would've had to settle on at least 1-2 features just to find a V8. And even then I have no idea about the history of that car.
 

Surfrider77

Full Access Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Posts
900
Reaction score
127
Eh, you do have measurably less HP / TQ for basically negligible fuel savings (2mpg difference combined cycle) and you pay more MSRP over the 2013 and earlier trucks. It would be a matter of principle to me.

340hp / 332 tq in the newer SCV6 (16mpg combined)
375hp / 375 tq in the old 5.0L V8 (14mpg combined)

Hell, I would even argue the bigger reason for the fuel savings in the SCV6 is due to the 8 speed transmission and very little to do with the actual engine itself. They could have just fitted the V8 with the upgraded transmission.

LR are the only manufacturer in this day and age who have actually replaced an engine with crappier performance than its outgoing model.
 
Last edited:

JotaDe

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Posts
239
Reaction score
8
I don't disagree there is a difference or even where the full savings come in, but anecdotally it seems people aren't even sure if it's noticeable. Personally, I wouldn't prioritize that over model, color, and the plethora of available options when building a new one.

If engine specs are top priority then it's indeed a no brainer, go find a 2013 or earlier.
 

bash535i

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Posts
91
Reaction score
6
LR are the only manufacturer in this day and age who have actually replaced an engine with crappier performance than its outgoing model.

Actually, Mercedes did the same thing. 2014 GL450 had a twin turbo V8, exactly the same mechanically as the GL550, just with a different tune. 2015 GL450 went to a TT V-6.

I got lucky on both models, having a 2014 GL450 and 2012 LR4, both with V8s.
 

Surfrider77

Full Access Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Posts
900
Reaction score
127
Actually, Mercedes did the same thing. 2014 GL450 had a twin turbo V8, exactly the same mechanically as the GL550, just with a different tune. 2015 GL450 went to a TT V-6.

I got lucky on both models, having a 2014 GL450 and 2012 LR4, both with V8s.

From Edmunds:
"For 2015, GL450 models get a new turbocharged V6 engine that's just as powerful as the V8 it's replacing but much more fuel-efficient."

This is polar opposite of Land Rover. The new SCV6 is nearly a full 10% less powerful than the outgoing V8 and has next to no fuel savings. (lower cruising rpm with new 8 speed transmission)
 

bash535i

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Posts
91
Reaction score
6
From Edmunds:
"For 2015, GL450 models get a new turbocharged V6 engine that's just as powerful as the V8 it's replacing but much more fuel-efficient."

This is polar opposite of Land Rover. The new SCV6 is nearly a full 10% less powerful than the outgoing V8 and has next to no fuel savings. (lower cruising rpm with new 8 speed transmission)

Surfrider,

I mean this with all due respect, but reading about it and actually having one is two different things. There was more than a 10% drop in power when the GL went from a 4.7 liter twin turbo V-8, to a similarly fashioned 3 liter V-6. Maybe not in published HP, but believe me, it's missing.

Most everyone knew the V8 was underrated, Car & Driver confirmed it.

"Under the hood, where our 2013 long-termer housed a mammoth, 4.7-liter twin-turbocharged V-8, there’s now a diminutive 3.0-liter V-6. Also force-fed by a pair of turbos, it makes an identical 362 horsepower. It produces just 369 lb-ft of torque where its predecessor made 406, or 10 percent more. And the lesser amount of torque peaks a bit later, at 1800 rather than 1500 rpm."

Even with identical HP rating and with a big weight reduction, the performance suffered. C&D continues.....

"On our scales, the new version weighs 254 pounds less than did our option-laden buffalo and 111 less than the first 2013 truck. The mass reduction offsets the V-6’s torque deficit at launch, though autobahn-runners are more likely to detect the missing cylinders as speed rises. The 2015 model was three-tenths of a second slower getting to 100 mph and took 1.9 seconds longer than the long-termer to reach its 130-mph terminal velocity. Passing times—acceleration from 30–50 mph and 50–70 mph—are also longer, by 0.2 and 0.4 second, although they’re still damned quick."

MotorTrend reports the newer model to have an even great difference than Car & Driver. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/g-class/2015/

Most of us are not racing our SUVs (I'd just take my 2016 X5M if that were the case), so maximum performance isn't really the issue. The real factor is how it feels in everyday driving and in that instance, I have always felt that a big, smooth V8 is much preferred than relying on a smaller engine that has to turn more RPM and relies on more boost to get the same power. As far as mileage goes, if anyone gets wound up about a couple of miles per gallon either way should probably have just bought a more inexpensive vehicle. It's not like anything else on these vehicles are budget price, why expect a break in fuel?

Mercedes, while maybe not on paper, did almost exactly the same thing as Land Rover did. They are providing a lesser vehicle than it's predecessor, but they are both very fine vehicles in any configuration.

That's just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
36,223
Posts
217,584
Members
30,473
Latest member
OnoA
Top