2014 LR4 on Landrover.com

[mbw]

Is the front more rounded than previously? Might just be the new styling, but it almost looks more rounded on the front.

 

[mattwallace24]

I shared your optimism until I test drove the RRS with the SCV6. It just didn't feel like enough to me after having owned a 2010 and expecting more. I'm now a proud owner of a 2013.

Looks like I'll also be joining the 2013 club. Have a new Santorini Black HSE (with black design package) on hold for me for pickup early next week.

I've gone back and forth between the 2013 and waiting for the 2014. Part of my final decision came down to timing as my local dealership told me today they "believed" they could possibly place orders later this month for a 2014 LR4, but wouldn't expect delivery until March at the earliest. I'm out of my Mercedes GL450 lease in December, so the timing became problematic.

For me the model year was a toss-up. Yes I'd like better fuel efficiency, but would it be at the cost of power? Yes I'd like a better sound system (if the new Meridian system is better), but I HATE that they moved the USB/iPhone port to the glove box (I hate this in my current Mercedes).

Just glad to have found the exact LR4 I was looking for locally on short notice.

 

[AxelR]

Just saw this video on YouTube (European engine).

http://youtu.be/xY6daqvs5Zk

 

[zenphx]

Excellent video. Thanks for posting it. I noticed they showed both the SDV6 and SCV6 badge. I wasn't sure the SCV6 would be available in Europe; but looks like it is. I'm looking forward to a road test review for the MY2014 with the SCV6.
I think only the diesels will be available in Great Britain.

 

[Sebaperez]

US and UK mgp and CO2

There is a mgp differential between the US and UK model on the petrol version, do you know what explains it ??

Technical Specifications
3.0L V6 Diesel(UK/Euro) 3.0L V6 S/C Petrol (Euro) 3.0L V6 S/C Petrol (US)
Engine type 3.0L SDV6Diesel 3.0L SCV6Petrol 3.0L SCV6Petrol
Power PS/rpm 256PS@4000 340PS@6500 340PS@6500
Torque Nm/rpm 600@2000 450@3500-5000 450@3500-5000
0-62mph (0-100km/h) secs 9.3 8.1 8.1
Max speed mph (km/h) 112 (180) 121 (195) 121 (195)
CO2 g/km 213 269 328*
Combined mpg (L/100k) 35.3 (8.0) 24.6 (11.5) 20.0* (14.1)*
Kerb weight kg 2570 2565 2565

 

[AxelR]

1 US mpg = 1.2 UK mpg
Imperial gallon does not equal US gallon

On top of it, the numbers are not based on the same evaluation.

Do a quick online search for more details...

PS: that red little icon was added by typing too fast on iPhone

 

[bash535i]

I don't mind FI either. I have a Turbo. The difference is that in a performance car you tend to keep the revs on boil and are seldom below (modern) boost of ~2000. ON a luxury, automatic car, the car spends plenty of time at 1200-1800rpm, which is below the boost and at that point you may as well not have the TC or SC. You are just driving a round with a 3.0L engine. Torque WAY low in the rpm range (i.e. off the line leisurely) will be noticeably more with the 5.0L V8. Less so under full throttle under boost, but it will sound worse and still be down some on power.

Quijote,

You are dead on. You and I are thinking the same thing here. If you see my "rant" about the v6 in the thread "I love my truck, but I hate my truck...what to do?", I basically described what I see as the downfall of the supercharged V-6. I had not previously read your reason on why the V-6 is inferior, but the two are so similar, that I've got to think your experience with forced induction is the same as mine.

 

[Sebaperez]

Friends;

Sorry my confusion; and clear on the imperial gallon vs the US gallon; but the difference also appears on consumption expressed in liters per 100 kms also, and the Euro SC model uses 11.5 lts vs 14.1; more than 20% differential.
could it be that the engines are "configured" differently ?? what´s the cause ??

3.0L V6 S/C Petrol (Euro) 3.0L V6 S/C Petrol (US)
Engine type 3.0L SCV6Petrol 3.0L SCV6Petrol
Combined mpg (L/100k) 24.6 (11.5) 20.0* (14.1)*

 

[umbertob]

The main reason is that different standards are being used in Europe vs the US to calculate those fuel economy figures. The current EPA fuel economy evaluation method that must be used by manufacturers selling cars in the US is actually a far more accurate gauge of "real world" fuel economy than the European test cycle figures... Those asterisks after the US figures are probably pointing to a footnote that says "EPA estimates", or something similar, to explain the difference. Also, US bound cars use different mandated emission control devices to reduce pollution, often at the expense of fuel economy compared to Euro spec cars with identical engines.

 

[Sebaperez]

Humberto,

thank you very much for your prompt reply.
No, the asterisks only reffer to as "provisional numbers"
http://newsroom.jaguarlandrover.com/en-in/land-rover/news/2013/08/lr_discovery_2014my_030913/

If the case that the US specs cars car is more "environment friendly" at the expense of fuel economy, figures show the contrary, with 22% more CO2 g/km.

Reason why i am insisting on the issue is because fuel is extremly expensive where i am from, and i will have to import the LR4 directly from the US; so i would love to know what should i "disconect" to make my LR4 Euro efficient (diesel is not an option, the import of diesel vehicles is prohibited in here).

Thanks
Sebastian