In 2001, Land Rover parachuted their not-so-cute ute across the pond. The Freelander landed with a splat. Gas was cheap and XXL SUV's dominated the landscape. What's more (or less), the 174 horse Freelander was technologically quaint, reliability challenged and forgot to show up for its federal crash test. And so Land Rover has redeployed the second-generation Freelander, the forgettably-named LR2, into the American market. This time, sales of big SUVs are in the toilet, there's a burgeoning compact SUV market and Land Rover's traditional entryway, the LR3 (nee Discovery), now costs a lofty $45k+.
To lure entry level prestige SUV buyers, Landy's pen people have conjured-up a Range Rover mini me. While the LR2's exterior continues the brand's venerable it's-hip-to-be- square clamshell bonnet brief, the LR2's designers finessed corners and smoothed edges to create a rugged yet svelte look. Chunky details abound: big wheel arches, solid headlamps and those gills. And its balanced proportions avoid the on stilts persona that blights so many of today's small SUV's (e.g. Acura's RDX). The LR2 could well be the best looking SUV on the road today.
The LR2's light and airy cabin adheres to and extends the Land Rover brand's luxury-in-the-wilderness design theme. Yes, its plasticky leather seats are up market simulacra, and the fit and finish is distinctly so-so. But the LR2's interior successfully straddles the line between mountain and mall. For example, the monolithic center stack provides all the off-road functionality Landy owners will never use, complete with a “set it and forget it” terrain selector and no-brainer bread crumb sat navery. It's festooned with enough e-gizmos– activated by grippy knobs and big ass buttons– to ford streams, descend slopes and withstand the endless rigors of parking lot traffic jams.
Although the LR2 is a utility player, M, L, and XL friends consigned to the [second row] bench will not be well pleased. Unless you fold the seats forward, the LR2’s cargo hole won’t stow enough gear for a softball team, never mind a Saharan sojourn. And the reasoning behind the LR2’s gimmicktastic insert-the-fob start-stop button is lost in the mists of BMW. The sooner it’s banished to the land of Altezza lights and chrome gas caps, the better.
The LR2's 3.2-liter inline six is good for 230 horses. On paper, that's not a lot of power for a vehicle weighing two-and-a-quarter tons. But the I6 generates plenty of low down grunt (234 ft.-lbs. of torque @ 3,200 rpm), the six speed autobox is a seamless cog swapper and the engine is as smooth as the Queen's ermine robes. The LR2 builds power with such seductive ease that you don't mind hanging around waiting for 60mph to arrive (from rest, nine seconds).
Even on optional 18 inchers, the LR2's fully independent suspension dismisses impacts from nasty pavement and giant boulders potholes. If you can cope with body roll, the LR2 will maintain reasonably tenacious grip during brisk cornering. Just as the interior’s splashed with Eau de Landy, the driving experience melds the best of the car and truck worlds. The LR2 is as easy to maneuver as a car, but still gives the driver truck-like heft and solidity. Even better, the LR2 helmsmanship imparts a premium feel, delivering the same laissez faire feel found in the rest of Rover's lineup.
The LR2 caters to more adventurous drivers with the aforementioned four-position Terrain Response™ doo-hickey, which works with various electronic controls– including a modified version of Volvo’s Haldex all-wheel drive system and Gradient Release Control (which helps the vehicle descend steep hills without driver skill/intervention). Still, determined off-roaders will cross this one off their list; the LR2 is shod with city slicks (235/60VR18 all-season tires) and doesn't have any low range gears.
Environmentally sensitive and fuel conscious buyers will also give the LR2 a pass. Like all its stable mates, the LR2 guzzles petrol punch; its official gas mileage is an egregious 16mpg in the city and 23mpg on the highway. That's slightly better than the big bro LR3's equally astounding (and not in a good way) fuel economy. But the LR3 can [almost] justify its prodigious thirst with its no-trails-barred off-road prowess. (Americans miss out on the diesel option that twists up tons of torque and gets 30+ mpg.) Reliability-oriented buyers will clock Land Rover's well-earned reputation for mechanical malfeasance and pull back their ten foot poles in horror.
Land Rover may be hemorrhaging Ford’s money (for now), but it does channel traditional British automotive spirit. The LR2 is not particularly fast, uses too much gas, cramps passengers and can’t match a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited off-road. Land Rover reliability may have improved in recent years, but it’s gone from “worst by a mile” to “worst.” The LR2 will be utterly crushed in sales by Asian, German, and even American competition. And yet it’s an utterly charming machine: a genuine Land Rover.
57 Comments on “Land Rover LR2 Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
16mpg city/23mpg highway + $4 gallon + poor reliability = flop
This is a 2008 model, so it uses the EPA’s new system for calculating fuel economy. Under the 2007 system the numbers would have been at least 18/24.
I’ve been trying to find the time to drive one of these. I was much less impressed by this same engine in the Volvo XC90, but the Swede does weigh another 300 pounds.
For pricing and price comparisons of the Land Rover LR2:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/LR2.php
I wish Land Rover would get out of this “Luxury SUV” racket and go back to building stuff like the Defender 90. I worked with a guy that had an ancient Land Rover, every dent was a source of pride.
Why must the Jeep Wrangler be the only true 4×4 that people are actually willing to take off-road?
A back-to-basics, slab sided, spartan Land Rover would be a welcome sight.
I soo agree with Blumozer here. I love the Defender, and you still see lots of them in parts of the Caribean. However, where I live in Suburban Jersey, you see lots of Range rovers, LR3s, and soon LR2s. They’re the “perfect vehicle” for spoiled kids and stay-at-home moms, even with high fuel prices.
16 MPG??? Six-Teen? One-Six?
For a vehicle the size of a Honda CR-V? And over two tons? That costs nearly $40K?
Oh, THIS will be a big success…
Ford: make PAG go away. This review says it all.
Please.
Funny, this is the car that shares the LR2’s platform, along with the I-6. Don’t know if the AWD drivetrain is shared, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
And here’s another platform cousin.
Another phone booth on wheels – with likely low reliability (the LR3 is a JOKE!) and poor fuel economy. Who wouldn’t want one?
IIRC, Land Rover stopped selling the Defender in the US because they were unwilling/unable to add in safety features like airbags, crumple zones, etc.
It looks exactly like a blinged-up last generation Escape. Very well written, Justin.
I reckon the LR2 will steal sales from the LR3, and that’s about it.
A clean diesel would have saved the day.
Reliability (and fit and finish) be damned. If they sell a diesel Defender I’m all over it.
Although it looks like a tarted up last-gen Escape, isn’t it really a tarted up NEXT-gen Escape?
This is a beautiful vehicle, and the first one in its class with looks that are not strangely bizarre. The Acura RDX sounded great on paper, until it showed up on stilts with a schoze out to there, and the BMW X3 is *still* poorly proportioned, being wait too narrow for its other dimensions (and having peculiar design elements).
Michael Karesh points out something very important: this is a 2008 vehicle with the new EPA mpg calculations… (I’m afraid this confusion will be happening more and more with these new calcs — I was against them since we only use these data for comparison).
In any case, back to the point at hand: the LR2 won’t do too badly in the marketplace.
I actually like this vehicle alot. It’s the right size for me, proportioned well, and styled nicely. I’d love more grunt from the engine for that kind of $, but hate to imagine what that would do for economy. But given their deplorable reliability ratings, I’m going to have to wait for someone else to test the waters.
I’m with Spaceweasel. I sat in one of these at the NY show and I though it was perfect for its class. The Acura is ugly and has old-school turbo lag. The X3 is hideous and useless on the inside.
But it’s about 10G over what it should be. LR needs to realize it has grossly overestimated the value of its brand.
blunozer–absolutely.
I was watching Dirty Jobs the other day and Mike Rowe was in South Africa at a monkey rehabilitation house. They had an ancient Landy pickup truck with a bumper sticker that said, “I’d rather push my Landy than drive a Cruiser.” Anyway, what happened to their basic bad-ass off-roader? Do they still make the Defender?
(The same can be said for plenty of other luxury brands that used to make simple, interesting, simple, fun, simple cars but are now in the business of inventing electronic gadgets that sometimes work–BMW and VW, to name a couple)
Robert, any idea why they don’t have a clean diesel over here?
Why so few diesels? Cheap gas and EPA regulations.
A diesel motor costs more to manufacture than a gas motor so most car companies shied away when gas was $1.25/gallon. (I don’t really buy the argument that a lack of diesels is caused by bad experiences in the 70’s and 80’s.)
VW has been selling diesels here for decades except for a little lapse in the early 90’s. Before gas got pricey they had a hard time giving them away. Now they fetch a mint.
Emmissions: There’s all new regs for the ‘08 model year that are VERY hard to meet. VW is currently out of the market again for this reason. Mercedes has an all new diesel powertrain that meets the regs, but of course expensive.
You’ll see a flood of diesel cars the next few years. 30-40% improvement in efficiency is now way too hard to pass up in light of everything else. When Honda, Nissan, and Toyota pony up you know things are changing. (Of course when the Big 2.5657888 are asked about their diesel plans they don’t have much to say.)
I agree that we’ll see a lot of new diesels in the next few years. The timing is perfect for it with increasing fuel costs and the green trend. I just hope they are all clean. There’s nothing worse than going for a drive and getting behind a diesel. God, they stink, and the fumes linger for way too long… Honda will be coming out with a diesel soon, which could really be instrumental in opening more of the mainstream to the idea.
Another yuppie SUV, just what America needs. I have an old Land Rover that you cant kill. Its a military style one with a military interior. Very bare bones, dented to snot and it runs forever. That was the Land Rover of past and what their reputation rides on. Current Land Rovers have NOTHING to do with these vehicles. They are glorified gas guzzling tanks for fat yuppies whose closest offroading experience will be the day it goes up on their lawn.
The gas mileage is not so good. Just what are they thinking about?
I happened to watch a recent episode of Motor Week last night, in which they reviewed this vehicle. They were pretty impressed with the little beastie. As for mileage, is it just me or is having similar vehicles with a 10 to 15% difference EPA City a non factor, even at $3.00/gal. I’ll drive a penelty box for twice the mileage but for that (3 or 4 mpg)amount of improvement I’ll stay put. So…………why the frick-n-frack don’t we get a diesel option with ANY of these vehicles? I would pay 40 large for a cute-ute with some reasonable off road credentials and 30+ mpg. But for this kind of mileage, I’d suffer along in my old iron.
Take away the name plate and would anyone consider this car for a second??? I can get a RAV4 V6 for a fraction of the cost of the LR2 and get a lighter weight vehicle and more hp. Oh, and better reliability as well.
Does anyone think its a little confusing mixing Range Rover and Land Rover design cues too? which brand is it?
It looks like a Saturn Vue from the side, at twice the price, worse fuel milage, porrer reliability.. can Ford dump these into fleet sales?
The LR2 is vastly overpriced. Right now you can get a Honda Pilot 4WD for around $24K. Is this vehicle worth the extra $10K? I think not.
I really love LR3. Ofcourse couldnt afford it. But hey few years from now, if it is available cheap on used market, then who knows?… I would like to cop me a british green LR3 with Beige interior and black dash. That’d be awesome.
But my question to LR people is this… If LR is so rugged and tough, then why did it get a bad rep for unreliability. Shouldnt tough as nails SUV be reliable. Otherwise, its an oxymoron.
A couple of comments -
In terms of it being overpriced compared to other mainstream vehicles, like the Pilot or RAV4. It is. But it does, at the very least, impart a more upscale feel (seriously) in both the interior and in driving it. The LR2 has bags of X-factor and character. The inline 6 engine is also quite nice and brought a smile to my face.
Now does this justify a price of $35,000 (it can be 35k out the door, as it comes fully loaded at the base price)? Well, you decide. Obviously most shoppers will say no, they would prefer to have something else. But at least you’d be the only person on the block with one.
It is, in a sense, a real car person’s car. Yes, many objective factors say it’s a bad buy. It is. But it’s fun, and if you really like cars, you might like the LR2. I like older Alfas and French cars – real pieces of crap. But they’re intriguing. Same with the LR2.
In 2-3 years, after the inevitable freefall depreciation, you could probably pick up a lightly used LR2 for a song. At $15,000, with 25k miles, it’d be a very compelling option, for me.
Oh and Michael Karesh -
I think the 3.2 liter I6 will be most impressive in more car-ish applications. The XC90 is clearly too much for it to handle. I’d imagine it’s pretty decent in the S80. But the next generation S60 is where I expect it to really shine.
They are not as “unreliable” surveys might suggest. Well, actually they are quite bad. But they’re a billion times better today than they were in the 80s and 90s when they were literally unusable for everyday transportation. So bad that it was typical to see a Range Rover listing to one side because of a failed pneumatic suspension. Today its mostly electronics, trim bits and miscellaneous idiot lights flashing. Y’know, the endearing Britishness we all expect in a Range Rover. Ford can’t seem to make any money at it, but they have been very successful at vastly improving the quality of quirky PAG cars.
“And yet it’s an utterly charming machine: a genuine Land Rover.” Doesn’t this say it all and is the exact reason that this car will sell at its $35,000 price point. Afterall it attracts the same buyers as other overpriced european made autos that don’t actaully perform significantly better than their US made counterparts. In fact if the price were lowered sales might just decline for this model, because I would suspect most of the buyers of this SUV want you to know they paid in excess of $30,000 for it.
I would imagine that most people who can afford a $35k SUV really aren’t concerned about gas mileage too much, even at $4 a gallon, and it would matter even less to those trading in an older worse MPG SUV. Really, in the grand scheme of things, the $ difference between gas for an LR2 and a RAV4 for one year is probably around $300. Pocket change for someone paying $35k for a car.
I like this LR2 a lot. People will bemoan the fact that it’s not a “real” Land Rover, but I would venture that it is capable of doing 90% of what a Wrangler Unltd can do, but then also has a significantly better feature list. And like Mr Berkowitz said, some people just don’t want to drive a Toyonda even though it may make sense on paper. There are people who value uniqueness and character more than dollars and cents. I for one could put up with minor niggles simply for the fact that it is something different, something other than one of 50 million silver or gold Toyondas on the road.
Ralph SS,
MotorWeek is impressed with every vehicle they drive, without exception. This is not a discerning bunch of pistonheads.
As for the LR2, I hate SUVs in general but my only gripe is LR’s use of alphanumeric names. What’s wrong with Freelander (or Discovery, for that matter)? Crack open a dictionary, people, you might find a suitable name or two.
My definition of heaven: A three car garage on the property containing one each, new, Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land Rover. There is something (unquantifiable, of course) absolutely wonderful about British vehicles, be it the finest Aston-Martin made, or the worst first generation Austin Allegro. And the majority of this readership, like the majority of humanity, just won’t understand it.
Better to push a Brit car than be bored to tears with a Toyota. In my case, real world finances assures that the above dream will never happen. Therefore, I keep a garage full of Triumphs and BSAs.
One last thing on this… To someone in the market for a Range Rover, the mere suggestion that they should instead consider a Honda or Toyota is pure comedy. Well, maybe the Land Cruiser, before Yota uglies it up next year.
Offroad with independent suspension.
That’s all I have to say.
Sykerocker
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
/British is Beautiful
Sykerocker,
I couldn’t agree more. This LR2 is a really intriguing vehicle. Unfortunately, it won’t lead to mass market sales success for Land Rover. But for a real car freak, it’s spot on.
“A diesel motor costs more to manufacture than a gas motor so most car companies shied away when gas was $1.25/gallon.”
Does it really cost that much more? Maybe NICKNICK will chime in here since I know he knows about manufacturing costs, but aside from the fact that a Diesel engine needs to have a heaver block and stronger rods, there can’t be that much different. Sure they need more material to make the heaver block and stronger rods, but material costs can’t be the biggest cost, the biggest cost has got to be the machining and I can’t see the machining costing that much more on a diesel than a gasser.
My feeling is that the motors are very similar in manufacturing costs. I can’t think of a really good reason why (other than the stupid EPA) we don’t get small diesels over here.
The cost of selling diesel engines in the US is twofold. The first is adapting the engine to meet the US’s stricter emissions standards. This is a real task – consider that the Bluetec system, which Mercedes and VW are sharing, isn’t even 50 state legal for the first year. Unfortunately, 2 of the States with the strictest emissions standards are NY and CA, where diesel sales would be highest.
The other issue is whether the manufacturers will bring enough additional money to justify the costs of US-izing the engines, advertising them specifically, and supplying parts and training service technicians.
miked:
According to a manufacturing survey in Europe, a “clean” diesel (mmeting US tier5bin2 specs) will cost at least $2k or more than a conventional gas engine. Think stronger internals, super-high pressure injection, turbo, intercooler, and the very complex particle filtering/NOX cat/urea injection. It’s almos the same cost premium as a full-hybrid over a conventional gas engine.
I didn’t see this mentioned earlier in reply to Blunozer and a few others, so apologies if it’s redundant, but Land Rover still makes the Defender 90 and 110, they just don’t sell them in the US, which is simply criminal.
Check it out: http://www.landrover.co.uk/
16mpg…wow my 5k lb. truck has a 300hp v8 and gets that kind of milage…sad.
My Disco has held up pretty well, and I’d consider one of these (though probably would rather go with an LR3) in a couple of years when the lightly used market will be offering the examples that Justin posits.
I love British cars, too. I have seven of them, and two bikes.
I don’t understand the LR fans who say the LR2 has good looks, or good proportions. It’s a box on the outside and not particularly useable on the inside. Throw in the disgusting pound/dollar exchange rate and notoriously horrid reliability — ranking consistently at the bottom of ALL global automakers — and i’ve already lost interest. This is before i’ve even looked at the pathetic fuel economy. Next, please…
I do think that they developed a good look for this model. In fact, although I despise SUV’s, I do believe Land Rover has the most handsome and interesting models in the market at the moment.
Reply sykerocker:
My definition of heaven: A three car garage on the property containing one each, new, Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land Rover. There is something (unquantifiable, of course) absolutely wonderful about British vehicles, be it the finest Aston-Martin made, or the worst first generation Austin Allegro. And the majority of this readership, like the majority of humanity, just won’t understand it.
Better to push a Brit car than be bored to tears with a Toyota. In my case, real world finances assures that the above dream will never happen. Therefore, I keep a garage full of Triumphs and BSAs.
WOW, that’s a triple garage full of Fords. From my point of view, in terms of late models, Porsche > Aston, Lexus > Jaguar, Land Cruiser > any Land Rover. And save lots of cash. Of course, yeah, I know, making the wise purchase may not seem cool to some. There is style and drama to be found in bursted hopes.
“I’d rather push my Landy than drive a Cruiser.”
That’s classic. I am getting too old to push though. I would gladly pay a premium for a defender, just not the insane premium that they go for now. Seriously, a defender with 100k goes for more than a new jeep.
YO, FORD!
Two words – DEFENDER! BRONCO!
“Offroad with independent suspension.”
Welcome to this century. If the HMMVW, Dakar racers, rally cars, and Range Rover all have independent suspension, that means something. Solid axles are no longer the be-all end-all of offroad design.
As an ex-freelander owner and current Range Rover Sport owner, here is my take: I like it a lot. If I wasn’t buying a Lotus Elise and Smart Fortwo for the wife, I would buy her this trucklet. It is a vast improvement over the old Freelander. The one we had zero problems in the 40,000 miles we had. My current Range Rover Sport has zero problems. The reliability issue of LR has gotten way out of hand. My family has a Disco with 160,000 miles. Why does Land Rover have one of the highest customer retention rate if their products are so unreliable? I don’t know. I surely upgraded from a Freelander right into a RRS. I will consider the fullsize RR as my next purchase.
I wish they have the option for ‘technical fabric’ which is found on their G4 expedition vehicles. My old Freelander had it and I love that material. It is rubbery but breathes and never gets hot or cold.
As for the LR2. I like the fact that it has an upgraded engine. I only wish it had a low-range box.
And those who say these are based of the escape have no idea what they’re talking about. The LR2 lineage traces back to as far as 1994 (long before the Honda CR-V and Rav4). This platform is based of the extend EUCD (Euro Ford Focus/Volvo) platform and has a haldex awd system. Even though my last Freelander was AWD, there were places where the electronics were better than the traditional 4X4 systems. This works great in sand and snow. I reckon this performs better in sand than my Range Rover Sport (due to weight). It can’t rock-crawl but how many owners of RDX, X3s? go to the rubicon?
Hey Land Crusher,
““I’d rather push my Landy than drive a Cruiser.””
I drive both and love both (except the horrid Fj Cruiser). I am restoring a sweet 1971 Fj40 Toyo Land Cruiser with the original i-6 and 3 speed.
I love it but I wouldn’t hesitate to trade for an old LR Series II 88 or a bronco of same vintage.
I’ve owned a Fj60 as well as FJZ80 Landcruiser. For some reason, they don’t inspire me as much as Land Rovers. Yet, I still buy them, wheel them then sell them when I get tired of them. In my lifetime, I will probably own every different models of the Toyota Land Cruiser and different models from Land Rover.