LR4 Favorite Year?

toddjb122 said:

If I were to buy a used LR4, is there a particular year folks like that has a better engine or reliability?

I'm in the camp of wanting a truck with more offroad capability and less glitz, if that makes a difference on models I search for.

Also, is the gas mileage really worse on the LR4 than it is on my LR3? Or did they just lower the MPG due to revised reporting requirements. I'll still see up to 20 highway on a good day. Around town for me is likely 14-15, though.

Be open to any tips. The new Discovery just isn't doing it for me and I can't think of another make of car that I'd like as much as my LR3. Thanks in advance for any advice!

Click to expand...

We have two 2013's and in my opinion it is the best year for the LR4. The fuel economy, as all have stated, is not good but the torque and power delivery is solid and immediately available. Excellent for off-roading and towing and a great performer on the highway as well. We have not had any repairs as of this time, excluding routine maintenance and oil changes so we are very happy. I think I would have to pry my wife's LR4 away from her and promise her a Bentley if I wanted to swap it in! LOL

leadoverdistance said:

I am curious if anyone has had experience with the V8 versus the V6 at real altitude.

I spend most of my time driving in the Rockys. Altitude is typically 7 000 feet and above. Logic would dictate that a forced induction should yield more performance at that altitude?

I am very interested to hear what owners say about this.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I live at 5,000 feet and drive up to 8,000 feet to go skiing regularly. While I haven't driven the V-8 at this altitude, i have driven my SCV6 LR4 at sea level and up to 9,000 feet. I also compare it to my 320 hp NA V6 Infiniti g35xS at altitude vs sea-level. The infiniti is almost a ton lighter than the LR4 with similar HP numbers. The difference at altitude is staggering on the NA infiniti when compared to the supercharged V6 of the landy. I can for sure tell the performance difference at altitude on the landy, but it is no where near the amount of loss of the infiniti.

The SCV6 landy is surprisingly peppy at altitude for a nearly 3 ton beast. My altitude was part of the reason I chose to skip the V8. I may never drive a V8 on purpose, because right now I am just fine with the power of the SCV6.

leadoverdistance said:

I am curious if anyone has had experience with the V8 versus the V6 at real altitude.

I spend most of my time driving in the Rockys. Altitude is typically 7 000 feet and above. Logic would dictate that a forced induction should yield more performance at that altitude?

I am very interested to hear what owners say about this.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I believe this was asked once before and the feedback was that both engines (V8 & SCV6) do well.

Quijote said:

I believe this was asked once before and the feedback was that both engines (V8 & SCV6) do well.

Click to expand...

I wish there were numbers... it would be easier to find a later Lr4

Something to consider ..... PV=nRT

An engine is basically an air pump.

Compressing air above ambient results in a corresponding increase in temp.

Land Rover uses a Roots-type supercharger. It does raise the engine air temps. Intercoolers can mitigate the effects but a supercharged engine is under more stress to attain its rated power output.

So not only have you reduced cylinder count from 8 to 6, you have increased overall thermal dissipation requirements and stress over the V8.

Land Rover at one time offered a supercharged V8 for the RRC. There were reliability issues. I'm sure they learned from that experience but PV=nRT still applies.

I tow a camping trailer at altitude and prefer a V8 over a SCV6. I'm already asking the engine to work harder. I don't need higher thermal management temps.

mpinco said:

Something to consider ..... PV=nRT

An engine is basically an air pump.

Compressing air above ambient results in a corresponding increase in temp.

Land Rover uses a Roots-type supercharger. It does raise the engine air temps. Intercoolers can mitigate the effects but a supercharged engine is under more stress to attain its rated power output.

So not only have you reduced cylinder count from 8 to 6, you have increased overall thermal dissipation requirements and stress over the V8.

Land Rover at one time offered a supercharged V8 for the RRC. There were reliability issues. I'm sure they learned from that experience but PV=nRT still applies.

I tow a camping trailer at altitude and prefer a V8 over a SCV6. I'm already asking the engine to work harder. I don't need higher thermal management temps.

Click to expand...

I agree with the increase in temp compressing air, however the SCV6 with 2 intakes more than compensates by increasing air density thus maintaining a higher percentage of available power at altitude vs the normally aspirated V8.

My experience with forced induction is more aeronautical in nature.
I think the V8 for very heavy work will always trump a V6 in terms of torque. A forced induction engine will need to spin a little more to create power. Factors mitigating thermal stress would be cooler operating conditions, and regular synthetic oil changes.
As an air pump, the efficiency of a supercharged motor should improve with altitude, as it's power should decrease less dramatically than a normally aspirated engine. One would think there would be a crossover point where it would be better to have a forced induction engine, even if of smaller displacement.

Bit what about real life...
Which is why I wondered if someone had direct experience. A big thank you to those who contributed above!

My LR dealer here in CO is at 5.5k feet, and I test drove LR4s (on two occasions) with the SCV6 and V8, back-to-back. I was trying to decide whether to keep on waiting for the perfect '13 with HD pack and options/colors I wanted (which took forever), or buy a newer LR4... I remember expecting the SCV6 to be peppier than the V8 at a mile above sea level, but that honestly wasn't the case at all. Not that I really cared all too much, it was just an observation. My sales rep was awesome and not full of BS, and told me flat out that the V8 would be better suited toward my towing ~7k lbs above 11k feet during the summers. I already knew the answer, but it was just refreshing to hear it from him. He also told me that instead of replacing the V8 with the SCV6, he wished that LR would've just changed the transmission from the 6 to 8-speed, along with the interior/exterior updates. I totally agree, and I'd bet the V8 paired to an 8-speed would get even better mileage than the SCV6.....maybe.

On multiple occasions, I've towed almost 7k lbs with the LR4 up passes over 11k feet, and it has plenty of power. It really isn't a dog at all at higher elevations, towing or not. I spend much of my summers in Telluride, CO, where our home sits at 10k feet. The LR4 has plenty of grunt up there too. Of course at lower altitudes it feels pretty damn quick, but at elevation it really isn't a dog as you might expect. I once read a review on the V8 LR4 a while back and remember seeing that they achieved a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds, and I do believe it!

I'd also love to hear SCV6 LR4 owners who have towed heavy loads at altitude chime in.

Perseus said:

I agree with the increase in temp compressing air, however the SCV6 with 2 intakes more than compensates by increasing air density thus maintaining a higher percentage of available power at altitude vs the normally aspirated V8.

Click to expand...

The LR4 V8 also has dual intakes, so that sort of negates the intake air flow prior to a blower. I also have the 380HP Supercharged V6 Jaguar XF-S and find it to be outstanding in acceleration and performance. Oh but if JLR could get the gas mileage anywhere near the 29.8 I get on the highway with the Jag I would be all for the supercharged V6 just for the everyday economy.

oceantodd said:

Don't buy a Land Rover! They all eventually fall apart!

I recently had the crank shaft on my Discovery 4 snap in two which damaged the engine to the point that it needed replacement. It is going to cost me about $13,000 to get a refurbished engine installed. There were only 42,000 miles on the odometer. It was out of warranty and Land Rover told me tough luck, sorry. This was an obvious manufacturing defect. I have heard this is a common problem. I planned on buying a new Discovery but have changed my mind. Stay away folks!!!! #landrover #discovery4 #discoveryfail #landroverproblems #discovery #discovery4fail #landroversucks #aboveandbeyond #RangeRover #landroverdiscovery #landroverexperience #landroverseries #rangeroversport #rangeroverevoque #evoque #jaguar #f-pace

Click to expand...

Nice first post, but that hasn't happened to anyone here yet. I'm guessing there are more LR4's on the road here in the US than Malaysia. Was yours a TD6?