Base Range Rover Loses 2 Cylinders
February 15th, 2013 11:59 AM Share
The 2013 Range Rover may be sold out, but anyone ordering the base model or the HSE may regret getting their order in. The 5.0L naturally aspirated V8 will be replaced by the more efficient and nearly-as-powerful 3.0L supercharged V6.
At 340 horsepower and 332 lb-ft of torque, the V6 is down about 35 horsepower and 43 lb-ft of torque. The 0-60 run will take .6 seconds longer, but gas mileage will be up by 2 mpg in each category. Most importantly, the people buying this car will likely not notice or care. If they’re that status concious, they’ll get the full-bore Autobiography edition.
Published February 15th, 2013 11:58 AM
Join the conversation
4 of 29 comments
Mu buddy had a 2005 HSE back in the day and it had nice fit and finish, was crazy quick for such a big vehicle, and it rode very plushly. It was a POS in terms of reliability and he sold it within a few years primarily for that reason (absolutely dreaded entering the "warranty no mas" zone). The new, lower end, faux-posery ones only hit one of those three attributes, and are a stain on the heritage of the make. The Evoque is the scarlet letter in this vein.
Considering how these vehicles are used, what is lost by driving a Ford Flex AWD with Range Rover logos?
You know, despite all of the comments,it appears that all or most have never actually owned a Range Rover. They've all "seen" or "heard" or "had a buddy" or more probably read about them on that pure bastion of truth, the internet. I've had one of each: a '95 LWB , '00 4.0 SE, '04 HSE (still have it with 150k) and presently a 10 Sport SC. Sure, the first 2 could have been more reliable but they weren't the horror shows that everyone suggests. If you were capable of more than changing a wiper blade, most issues could be resolved without a dealer visit. Once BMW took over with the 03s and up, then Ford and now Tata with the Jag motors, they were/are no worse than most other vehicles. Is a Landcruiser more reliable? Sure, but look at it and in it. Capable and made well without question but c'mon, it's a big Camry. If you want a luxury SUV, (I'll leave alone the question of whether anyone actually needs one), and don't want something from the 80s (G-Wagen, no offense), there really isn't any other choice.
I just got back 1 hour ago from Rausch Creek, one of the premier off roading spots in the north east. Our group consisted of 2 lifted & mud tired JK rubicons, a lifted & mud tired JK Unlimited (me) and a 2006 LR3 with beefy all terrain tires. The land rover did awesome. We give our buddy a lot of grief, calling it a Cadillac, but in all seriousness, it did great and I'm sure his ride home (after the off roading ended ) was 5x more comfortable than the rest of us in our JKs. (I wouldn't trade my JK for the LR3, but I totally see the appeal of it.)