Rocky,
No, I haven't driven the 2014 LR4 with V6, but I have driven a couple of Jaguars (the XJ and XF) with the same supercharged engine over the last 12 months or so. At the time, I had no idea that they would put that engine in the LR4, but was already thinking to myself, "what a mismatch for a car like a Jaguar." To have a good amount of power, I felt like I was having to wring out the engine. That's in a vehicle weighing over 1,000 lbs less than the LR4. To be fair, I should say that in an acceleration test, a forced induction vehicle can usually compare well with a naturally aspirated vehicle having slightly more power because the forced induction may give it a broader band of power. However, we are talking full throttle acceleration. While I'm not a serious off-roader, I can't imagine that there are many people taking their LR4 off road and using full throttle or even redlining them. It's just not consistent with picking your lines, treading lightly, etc... On the other hand, the V-8 is more tractable, easier to control and linear in its power delivery. I guess it just boils down to personal preference. I suppose since that's the only choice we get in the U.S., it's a take it or leave it proposition. I wouldn't say to leave it if you are wanting an LR4, but I think Land Rover could have done better for their customers.
Oh, the comment I made about the lack of pep- I should have qualified that. Between the LR4 and the Land Cruiser, it seems like the LR4 has more pep and likes to rev a little more. Part of it could be just a throttle mapping issue because if you drive the LR4 in the snow mode, you get a similar experience in partial throttle driving. I meant no negatives towards the LC or LX570- I think it's an awesome vehicle with an impeccable history of reliability, but as you mentioned, it isn't quite as refined in regards to interior design and construction. If I could improve only 2 things on it, I would give the LC a better stereo and better leather. Neither of them are becoming of a $75,000 vehicle. The third row design on the 200 series is just a byproduct of the sturdy, solid rear axle design. I could live with that.
If you get an LR4, please come back and let us know (or PM me) how they compare after a few months of ownership. Wishing you the best.
PS...
I quoted just a few comments I picked out from a review of a 2013 Jaguar. Other comments (not listed here) gave the V6 glowing reviews.
"For the 2013 model year, Jaguar has killed off the naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V8 and fitted a supercharged 3.0-liter V6 with an eight-speed automatic in its place . That all sounds perfectly well and good, but a week behind the wheel of this British Racing Green sedan just left me missing that V8. And then some."
"The other gain for the V6 – fuel economy – looks great on paper. Jaguar reports EPA fuel economy figures of 17 miles per gallon city, 28 mpg highway and 21 mpg combined for this new XF 3.0, which represent increases of 1/5/2 mpg (city/highway/combined) versus the 5.0 V8 model.
The bad news is that, after my week of driving, my combined fuel economy number of 18.6 mpg was slightly less than the old rating. I put the XF through a pretty even mix of city and highway driving, so I was certainly expecting better. Colleagues have expressed disappointment with fuel economy here, as well, so I don't think I'm alone."
