Land Rovers have always gone their own way – often literally. While off-roading demands a low center of gravity and muddy trails would seem to warrant hose-out interiors and body-on-frame-construction, the British automaker has long contented itself building tippy-looking unibody boxes with tall greenhouses and opulent cabins – the anti-Humvee, as it were. Further, in recent iterations, they’ve packed their products with immense electronic systems, air suspensions, dial-a-topography Terrain Response controller, and so on… the very sort of complexity that ought to be enough to send English sports car enthusiasts running back to their therapists’ offices.

And yet, the formula has always worked – vehicles like the Range Rover and Discovery (now LR3) have somehow managed to earn both Kalahari-traversing credentials and valet stand privileges. Other companies have attempted the leather-lined off-roader thing before (Lamborghini, Lexus, Hummer, Porsche, and LaForza come to mind), but while some have added the trappings of luxury to their SUVs, exactly no one has been as successful in marrying their vehicles to the notion of aristocracy – the sort of “Lord and Master of All That I Survey” quality that has remained Solihull’s historic preserve. In short, Land Rovers have always been a gloriously and uniquely British contradiction on wheels – a fact that goes some way toward explaining why your author remains more than a little conflicted when it comes to this LR2.

A Contrarian Spirit

Admittedly, with more and more buyers flocking to the softroader pool, it made a good degree of sense for Land Rover to take a second crack at the market – even after the lackluster Freelander failed to find Stateside homes. Still, despite the solid concept of bringing a dose of the company’s values, styling and heritage to bear on the segment, there’s no getting around that the genre’s developing conventions are at odds with traditional Land Rover tenets – most of which the LR2 doggedly seeks to uphold. Allow us to explain.

These days, more and more such vehicles are coming to market with a lower ride height, minimal off-road ability, and wider, more voluptuous bodies that have the occupants sit lower in the chassis to subconsciously reinforce feelings of security and safety. Perhaps predictably, the LR2 hasn’t even waited for the crossover handbook’s ink to dry before throwing it out the window and into the mud.

On the styling front, our tester deployed a raft of premium touches – complex-element bi-Xenon adaptive headlamps (part of the $1,050 Lighting Package), clamshell hood, side vents, massive 19-inch alloys (in a new pattern for 2009), and in the case of our tester, impressively lustrous Rimini Red paint. Ultimately, however, the LR2′s rectilinear stance and slab sides strike at least some of us as gussied-up paint-by-numbers SUV bodyshell – not a unique form. This author would argue that the LR2 looks smallish and a bit like a lux variant of a more prosaic vehicle (say, Ford Escape?), and its jutting Leno-like mandible of a front bumper does it no favors. Somehow, the LR2 ultimately fails to cash-in on the Sub-Zero minimalist aesthetic advanced by the Green Oval’s other models. However, it does offer more traditionally rugged, upright SUV looks than its increasingly wagon-like foes – and that strikes us as a valuable (if niche) position worth saving.

Despite its somewhat gangly appearance, the LR2 is actually wider than its chief competitors (think: BMW X3, Audi Q5, Mercedes-Benz GLK, and Volvo XC60), yet it is also taller, has the shortest overall length and employs a markedly shorter wheelbase – all of which conspire to give it a comparatively tippy-toes look. This sensation is reinforced inside by the vehicle’s dining room chair seating and low beltline. That “on, not in” feeling is pure Land Rover, though, and it’s done for a reason – the formal driving position allows for a markedly better view of the vehicle’s corners and immediate surroundings than any of its competitors – an important factor when tiptoeing around boulders and threading down narrow two-tracks. Sadly, unlike many Range Rover and Discovery owners we know, we have trouble envisioning the average LR2 driver subjecting their vehicle to much more than the occasional curb hop or gravel road, so this strategy may be of limited merit, – even if it is necessary to stay on [brand] message.

Bright, But Boring

With the exception of the annoyingly contrived starting process (insert oversized fob into hidden slot below gauge binnacle, push in until it clicks, then reach up to push the separate engine start/stop button), just about everything in the interior is on the up-and-up ergonomically, with large buttons, simple layouts, and good switchgear feel. Better yet, the low, elbow-on-the-sills beltline and matching décolleté instrument panel combine with the standard twin-element sunroof to flood the interior with sunlight, lending it an open and airy sensation. Despite the abbreviated overall length and the titchy wheelbase, there’s plenty of room inside, again, thanks to the upright seating. And yet… the LR2′s interior has a bit too much starch in its collar for our tastes.

The dashboard itself is a style-free zone, some plastics are substandard, and worse still, the center stack is badly dated, with a too-small yestertech navigation touchscreen (part of the $3,500 Technology Package) set distractingly low in the dash, to say nothing of the separate 320-watt Alpine audio controls that lurk even further down (and whose old-fashioned display is prone to washing out in the aforementioned floods of sunlight). Still, points must be awarded for the beautiful and aromatic almond leather/nutmeg carpet combination (also new for 2009), easy-to-read instruments, and heated windscreen (part of the $700 Cold Climate Package). And although we chide Land Rover for its aging in-dash technologies, we’re quite pleased that they have yet to adopt an overly complex all-in-one GUI controller like their rivals at Audi, BMW and Benz.

Road Scholar? Well…

Despite casting the smallest shadow among its peers, the unibody LR2 is actually the heftiest customer of the compact premium class, toting around some 4,250 pounds (competitors generally ring up in the 4,000-4,200 pound range), a number that doesn’t bode well for the 3.2-liter inline-six, which only brings 230 horsepower (@ 6,300 rpm) to the party. That’s substantially fewer ponies than the LR2′s aforementioned adversaries, most of which corral upwards of 260 hp.

At least the Volvo-sourced 24-valver’s 234 pound-feet of torque (@ 3200 rpm) is in the hunt, albeit a bit higher up in the revband, though we wish the kickdowns from the Aisin-Warner six-speed transmissions happened a bit more smoothly and quickly. The latter’s sport mode helps somewhat, but blistering progress just isn’t on the menu – our rear-end accelerometers peg 60 mph as well north of 9 seconds (LR claims 8.4 seconds, but we’re not buying), while many of the LR2′s tarmac-oriented classmates will do the deed in under 7 clicks (and most will make more attractive noises while doing so). Because drivers will often find themselves dipping deep into the 3.2′s meager reserves, fuel economy fails to excite as well, with EPA figures of 15 mpg city and 22 highway (17 mpg combined), though we could only muster 15.2 per gallon of premium fuel in mostly highway driving.

Speaking of highway driving, you can expect lots of minor course-corrections on the superslab, especially when it’s windy. The quick steering rack (2.6-turns lock-to-lock) feels at odds with the rest of the LR2′s abilities, so as a consequence, it feels a bit wayward and unsettled – a sensation that’s magnified by the tallish seating position. There’s a good amount of pitch and yaw from the long-travel suspension as well, although confidence-inspiring, linear braking performance help assuage any dynamic fears.

The Dirty Iconoclast’s Payoff

But hang on – things can’t be all bad, can they? Hardly. While we didn’t take our HSE off-roading during its week with us in Michigan, we must confess to having prior knowledge of the LR2′s extensive off-road capabilities, having tested the model’s pluck at Biltmore Estate’s Land Rover Experience last year in Asheville, North Carolina. After traversing a muddy and slick forest and field course that included log bridges, side tilts, and teeth-gnashing, root strewn descents in the LR3 and big daddy Range Rover, we went back and did much of the course over again in the LR2, finding that it was more than up to the task.

In fact, things were much more exciting while off-roading in the baby Brit, largely because one didn’t feel as invincible. Lacking a proper low-range, momentum conservation became of paramount concern, making judicious two-footed juggling of the brake and throttle pedals increasingly important. With 8.3 inches of ground clearance (markedly less than the other air-suspended LRs, yet greater than any of its competitors), we had to pay close attention, but the LR2′s nippy best-in-class turning circle helped us negotiate narrow trails and tight tree stands that would hang-up larger vehicles, and the vehicle’s unusually erect driving position and excellent sightlines paid big dividends here, as did the long-travel suspension, which helped minimize head-toss and general skittishness that firmer road-oriented setups generally bring. Even the tight wheelbase helps with breakover angle.

With its Terrain Response Control (Driver-selectable modes: General/Snow/Sand/Mud & Ruts) and Hill Descent Control keeping an eye on everything from the four-wheel ventilated disc brakes (12.5-inch units in front, 12.0-inch out back) to our throttle position and the Haldex all-wheel drive system’s machinations, our LR2 scrambled up, over, and down obstacles that would’ve left its contemporaries quite literally gutted. Along the way, we heard lots of skid-plate scraping and some distressingly loud noises emanating from the HDC, but the LR2 prevailed unscathed in enough tough situations that its rivals look terrified of drizzle by comparison. If you live in a particularly hostile climate, this performance alone may be all the justification you need to pay a visit your local Land Rover Center.

A Question of Value(s)

To be fair, the LR2 isn’t exactly a new vehicle. While it has only been on the U.S. market since 2007, it went on sale earlier in Europe, and the GLK, Q5, are all more recent efforts, not to mention larger, more overtly road-focused outliers like the Lexus RX350 and Infiniti EX35. Critically, at a base price of $36,100 ($35,375 MSRP + $775 in destination charges), the LR2 undercuts many of its rivals, particularly when one visits the frankly extortionate option lists on some of its German rivals. Our full-house tester was $41,400 all-in, and a comparable X3 would run upwards of $48,000, although the Bimmer’s superior maintenance program and resale value blunt the value disparity.

For its part, Land Rover has just unveiled its massively updated 2010 Range Rover, Range Rover Sport, and LR3 lines, all models that have, to one extent or another, historically shared some of the LR2′s deficiencies (elderly interiors, underwhelming power). While we have yet to drive these new models, what we have seen suggests that Land Rover is serious about rectifying the bald spots in their product line. We hope that the LR2 is afforded the same treatment – and soon.

But enough with the conditionalizing. In the end, the LR2 is a willfully different product, and it is likely to stay that way, if only because it must. In order to stay true to Land Rover’s core values and brand essence, the LR2 had to prioritize off-road ability, segment expectations be damned. Call our tester a tenuous balancing act, call it inherently conflicted, call it a singularly unique constellation of skills, call it what you will – the ramifications of this vehicle’s design brief, both positive and negative, are felt in virtually every aspect of its being. Whether Land Rover’s engineers have made the right decisions in shaping the LR2 is a question of the buyer’s priorities. But one thing is for sure: If we ever had any doubts that the LR2 is a proper Range Rover, well, those days are gone.

This article was taken from: Autoblog

We now have available Melvill and Moon seat covers for all Land rovers. Please visit our online shop for more information and to purchase a set today.

melvill-moon-trade-leaflet

Here’s a sport utility vehicle that’s a whole lot more “sport” than “utility.”

Just as capable off the road as on, the 2006 Range Rover Sport has four-wheel drive with low-range gearing for such duties as rock-climbing. With either a normally aspirated 300-horsepower, 4.4-liter V-8 engine or a supercharged, 390-horsepower, 4.2-liter V-8, the Range Rover Sport is all new for 2006.
Not that the 2006 Range Rover Sport supercharged model isn’t suitable for utility purposes; it actually offers more utility than most other midsize SUVs. But with a supercharged 390-horsepower V-8 engine under the hood, the emphasis truly is on the sport side of the equation.

Even though it’s a rather heavy vehicle, the powerful engine pushes this vehicle along quite impressively, leaving perhaps one question in the mind of a generally inquiring person: Does one really need a sport utility vehicle with this much zip?
Apparently some consumers think so, because Land Rover Centre of San Antonio can’t keep the supercharged Sport model in stock, manager James Godkin said this week.

“We could sell every one we could get,” he said. “We just can’t get enough.”

So much for the theory that the spike in gasoline prices is hurting the sales of high-end SUVs. The supercharged Sport’s EPA ratings of 13 miles per gallon in the city and 18 mpg on the highway apparently aren’t much of a deterrence.

Nor is the $69,535 base price (plus $715 freight).

With a few extras tacked on, our test model’s sticker topped out at $76,150, which isn’t exactly chump change in today’s automotive market, where the average 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe transaction price is just more than $41,000.
Putting some sport into the sport utility genre — albeit for people who can afford expensive cars — is the idea behind the Range Rover Sport, an all-new model this year for British Land Rover.

With a starting price of $56,750 for a normally aspirated 4.4-liter V-8 model with 300 horsepower, this newest model makes the brand a bit more affordable. The regular Range Rover line for 2006 begins at just over $75,000 for a normally aspirated model, and rises to about $90,000 base for the supercharged version.

The Sport, then, fits in between the midsize Land Rover LR3, which begins under $40,000, and the regular Range Rover line. The LR3, introduced for 2005 to replace the aging Discovery model, and the Sport share a midsize chassis; the more expensive Range Rover is slightly larger and on a difference chassis.
The main reason for introducing the Range Rover Sport was to go after some quite popular luxury SUVs in the same price range, most notably the BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz ML500, Porsche Cayenne and Lexus LX 470.

Not having a luxury model that directly competes with the M-class and X-series has hampered Land Rover’s efforts under new owner Ford Motor Co. to bring its products into the mainstream.
Land Rover introduced the Range Rover in the United States in 1987 as the first luxury SUV.
Prices have climbed along the way, however. In the early ’90s, Range Rover prices began in the upper $30,000s. Today, that’s the price you’d pay for a high-end model of the Ford Explorer or Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Land Rover did have the Discovery II model starting at just over $35,000, but that vehicle, discontinued after 2004, was nowhere nearly as luxurious as a Range Rover, and drew a distinctly different clientele.

The Discovery’s replacement, the LR3, was built on a new platform derived but substantially different from the chassis of the current Range Rover, which was introduced in 2002. It’s based on a BMW design.
The LR3, though, was developed as the first product by Land Rover under the ownership of Ford, which bought Land Rover from BMW in June 2000.
The Sport is now the second Land Rover developed under Ford, using the platform of the LR3, not that of the BMW-inspired Range Rover model. The chassis of the LR3 was shortened to a 108-inch wheelbase from nearly 114 inches for the Range Rover Sport.

Its developers essentially took the unibody of the current Range Rover and dropped it into a separate frame to create both the LR3 and the Range Rover Sport. The addition of the frame underneath makes the vehicles much more rigid — and rugged — the company said.
Also, Land Rover has replaced the BMW engines in the more expensive Range Rover line with two V-8s developed from Jaguar, the British sports-car company also owned by Ford. And it’s versions of these two engines that also power the new Range Rover Sport.

How well Land Rover can keep the Sport model differentiated from the lower-priced LR3 and the higher-priced Range Rover, which is a completely different vehicle, might be the brand’s biggest challenge. Though the Sport has the underpinnings of the LR3, its styling is quite similar to that of the regular Range Rover.

The Sport model also represents a less-expensive way to get a Range Rover with the supercharged V-8.
The top-of-the-line Range Rover model with the 4.2-liter supercharged is rated at 400 horsepower, while the Sport model with its own version of that engine, and priced about $20,000 less, is rated at 390 horsepower.

There’s a big difference in the four-wheel-drive systems, however — a difference that actually makes the less-expensive Sport model the better off-road performer. At the heart of its off-road equipment is the same computerized “Terrain Response” system Land Rover introduced on the LR3 for 2005.

That system, which has separate settings to match the vehicle to the type of terrain such as rock, sand or snow, is not offered on the more expensive Range Rover but is standard on the Range Rover Sport.
Those who plan to take their vehicles off-road probably will want to choose either the LR3 or the Range Rover Sport for their superior capabilities. Out of the box, these vehicles have arguably the best off-road system on the market, a system that includes standard center- and optional rear-locking differentials.

The Sport has room for just five people — there’s no third row of seating in this model or in the more expensive Range Rover line. The LR3 is the only Land Rover vehicle with a third row.

It’s not the quickest SUV on the road, even with the supercharged engine. Coupled with the standard six-speed automatic gearbox, the supercharged Sport can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 7.2 seconds.
In comparison, the Chevrolet TrailBlazer SuperSport model for 2006 comes with a 400-horsepower Corvette V-8 engine and can go from zero to 60 mph in just under six seconds. It costs about half as much as the supercharged Range Rover Sport.

Our test vehicle came with just about everything you can add to the Sport, including adaptive cruise control ($2,000), which paces the vehicle to the one in front, and warns the driver, even when not using the cruise control, if the vehicle is getting too close to another car; a rear differential lock ($500); personal telephone integration system ($400); rear-seat DVD entertainment system ($2,000); and Sirius satellite radio ($600).

Luxury features abound on this vehicle, including sport leather seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, 550-watt audio system with six-disc CD changer, ultrasonic parking assist, GPS navigation, automatic bi-xenon headlights with power washers, side-curtain air bags front and rear, and four-corner automatic-leveling air suspension with three manual settings.
But one high-tech feature that I found annoying is a system that automatically dips the side mirrors down when the transmission is shifted into reverse.

This feature has virtually no value in the real world. When I start backing up, I rely on the side mirrors to show me whether there are trees, cars or other obstacles. The last place I want to look is straight down at the pavement beside the car. A check of the Range Rover Sport’s owner’s manual showed me how to turn off this otherwise automatic feature, and that’s what I did.

(this article was taken from mysanantonio.com)

• Range Rover Sport HST most expensive yet
• £5500 for aggressive makeover
• Performance unchanged

If the standard Range Rover Sport doesn’t have enough road presence for you, this new HST version might be the answer.

Land Rover reckons this 385bhp, supercharged model is the closest thing yet to the Range Stormer concept of 2004.

The most expensive Range Rover Sport to date offered gets an aggressive makeover with open-mouthed grille, deeper air intakes, rectangular tailpipes, unique 20-inch wheels and tail spoiler.

For the extra £5500 over a standard Supercharged car, at £63,000, the HST also comes with an electric sunroof, privacy glass and polished oak trim.

Performance is unchanged in every respect over the normal car with a 0-60mph time of 7.2sec and a 140mph top speed.

(this article was taken from whatcar.com)

Falling Hard For My Long-Distance Winter Travel Companion
March 23, 2006
by Trevor Hofmann / American Auto Press

I couldn’t believe it. The middle of winter, and despite being on the West Coast, where it tends to rain more than snow come March, or anytime for that matter, Land Rover had equipped its new Range Rover Sport Supercharged with stock performance-oriented summer tires. Large in diameter and ultra low in profile, 275/40R20 at all four corners no less, the hot looking Pirelli PZero Rosso Asimmetricos wouldnt do at all. I quickly made the appropriate phone calls that resulted in plans to go to an LR dealership and have the racy rubber replaced with more suitable tires.

Why the concern? While theres always the off-chance that the heavens will open and snow will descend upon us, my worries centered around a road trip I had planned for the following day, which would take me and the Sport into Canada and then overtop one of the higher mountain passes in the area, delivering me safely to one of my clients in a town called Kamloops. I went to the dealership later that day and in about half an hour, while enjoying a relaxing moment of downtime in the well-equipped customer lounge, I was off, a new set of Continental 4X4 SportContact tires, of the same dimensions, giving me more confidence.

Being that there was no racetrack between my home and the dealership, the only opportunity I had to test out the previous set of tires was on city streets plus a few short stretches of freeway, and as far as attempting any activity that could even come close to breaking traction, a few high-speed cloverleaf-style on- and off-ramps would have to suffice. And on that note, I noticed little difference between the racing slick-like performance tires and the heavily grooved mud & snow rated winter rubber, which made it quite clear that I hadnt even come close to testing this SUVs tenacity when equipped with the Pirellis.

No worries, track testing the Sport would have to wait. Currently, I was on my way home to prepare for a road trip; one of those rare opportunities to travel without the headaches of airport security and fear of baggage loss. And looking around at my first-class cabin of choice, I realized that even upgrades to business class brought about by my frequent flier status wouldnt come close to the opulence Land Rover had afforded me.

Only the top-line Range Rover delivers a more lavish SUV interior, with few others, VWs Touareg, Porsches Cayenne, plus a couple from Lexus being the only off-road capable SUVs immediately coming to mind that even come close to matching the new Sports cabin. And while plank-like hardwood graces the door panels and frames the center stack, its ambience is more adventurous than its larger, older siblings moneyed décor. The wide center interface commands immediate attention, pulling all eyes toward its fusion of high-tech componentry and old world charm. Level with the topmost edge of the dash and surrounded by a set of high-quality vents is a large LCD screen displaying navigation information; requisite in this segment of the market. I found it easy to use and effective, although I really didnt need it during my trip as I knew the way without need for directions. Just below, four square buttons, the first to defeat the DSC stability control system, the second to turn off the SUVs electronic parking assistant, the third and fourth pair being rather oddly placed buttons for unlocking and locking the doors, in that order, flank a large, red half-moon hazard switch. Traveling further down the center stack brings a somewhat utilitarian looking audio system head unit, but it wins points for ease of use, the inclusion of an integrated six-disc stacker, and superb overall sound quality.
And that last point, of course, is crucial for a road trip. I started later than I had hoped, not unusual for me mind you, but I didnt want to end up in the middle of a snowstorm after sunset. Road tunes were in order, but only after setting the automatic climate control to that optimal temperature that keeps all extremities comfortable but doesnt lull a driver to sleep – different in almost every car, as Ive learned. Heated seat set to high, via a crafty set of two-mode buttons incorporated within the center of each dual-side temperature dial, I pulled six of my favorite CDs out of their cases and slotted them into the CD changer one by one, and proceeded to wake up my senses to “China Grove”, the first track on the “Best of the Doobies” album – yes, Im a boomer, can you tell?

The first segment of the trip is one Ive taken many times, and therefore was hardly eventful. Once in Vancouver, and then on my way out of the city, over the Port Mann Bridge into Surrey and beyond to Langley, Aldergrove, and the rest of the “cities” that just seem to blend into what locals simply call the Valley; one of the richest tracts of rainforest-nurtured farmland in the world. Ive driven it many times, mind you, so the splendor of the region is most often lost on me, my sole thought at the time being how to maximize time so that I might arrive at my clients office with enough time in hand to meet them face-to-face for the first time, learn a little bit more about their business, and then join them for dinner.

While driving a luxury car along this stretch of freeway, such as the Jaguar XKR that the aforementioned dealership just happened to have on display in its showroom the day before, would no doubt offer greater comfort thanks to a more compliant suspension setup, and would be capable of higher speeds despite being equipped with what is very nearly the same supercharged 4.2-liter engine – the Sport “making do” with 390-horsepower and 410 lb-ft of torque while the XJR V8 puts out a slightly more engaging 400-horsepower and 413 lb-ft of torque – I wasnt held back by the Land Rover. Once up to speed its 50 mph-plus passing power found no rivals, or at least none that were willing to try. Of course, there are a number of super-SUVs that can take the Sport Supercharged in acceleration tests, and others that will outperform it in the corners, but I dont think that Land Rover created it to be the worlds fastest SUV anyway. Let Porsche and its Cayenne Turbo, plus Dodge and the Grand Cherokee SRT8 fight that battle. Only the former is capable off-road, and theres a pretty sound argument among SUV enthusiasts that neither vehicle looks as attractive as the Sport, or for that matter is executed to such a high level of style and refinement inside the cabin.

The Valley was soon in my rearview and the mountains loomed overhead, glorious in their presence but foreboding just the same. Ive done this route many times, and while some trips have been filled with blue skies framing green, gray, and in winter, white landscapes, others tormented with desperate white-out conditions that made it difficult to see the lines on the road directly in front of the car, let alone scenery. I climbed out of the valley, making good pace in the Sport, the engine and six-speed automatic combination effortlessly scaling grades that often make lesser vehicles gasp in breathless overwhelm. Not surprisingly, the Sport managed the high speeds with composure too, its air suspension totally soaking up pavement irregularities while keeping the hefty ute tracking flawlessly… that is until the pavement below transfigured into a brownish snow, with only the rightmost lane clear enough to safely maintain the speed to which Id become accustomed.

I pushed on, flurries now whirling around overhead, but not so much as to block my vision. The biggest obstacles were inevitably on the road before me; vehicles making their way northeast, just like me, forcing me to pass if only to avoid flying rock salt and, as I soon found out… stones. Yes, one hit the windshield like a bullet ricocheting off a sheet of shale, but unlike what it would likely do to the black rock, the impact resulted in a tiny crack. No worries, Im sure that this can be fixed without replacing the glass. And then another… whack! Ouch. I know its not my vehicle, but I was raised to take better care of things that were borrowed than even that which is my own, so I felt each hit as if it were tearing apart my very own Sport, and possibly even more so. I eased into the passing lane and feathered the throttle, not to upset the SUVs level of traction by adding too much torque. I held on, passing a number of cars, vans, pickups and highway trucks, none of which appeared expensive enough to cause their owners any concern over flying debris, and once in front was able to stay out of harms way until I reached the toll booth atop the mountain. It was then, when I was able to relax for a moment, that I noticed a rotating dial on the center console, complete with pictographs depicting various road conditions. Just to the right of my default setting, I noticed one with swerving tracks and a snowflake image, and immediately pressed the knob, which elevated it from its recessed position, and then turned it to the appropriate setting. Immediately driving on snow became almost as carefree as on dry pavement, allowing me to move to the left as soon as I saw upcoming traffic closing in, so that I could avoid any more damage to the window – or anywhere else that wouldnt have made itself known as of yet.

Its mostly all downward from the toll booths, at least until the tiny town of Merritt ushers in a four-way crossroads that could either have me pointing north, to Kamloops, northeast, to Kelowna, west, to the beautiful Nicola Valley (maybe another time), or southwest, from where I came. I continued on toward Kamloops, unaware that the storm I had just passed through would seem like a cakewalk compared to the peaks that lay between me and my final destination.

The hill out of Merritt is long, steep and again, taxing on some vehicles, but similarly hardly noticeable to the Sport. The road was wet but not drenched, and fortunately the white stuff was relegated to the shoulders. Reaching the summit and rounding the mountaintop everything changed. Now snow was everywhere, and with it the intensity over the previous leg of my journey increased. The highway was now completely covered and air filled with more aggressive swirls of the white stuff, gusting and limiting visibility, tiring the mind as much as the eyes. I new I was only an hour away from Kamloops, and therefore pressed on. Again, the Sport maintained a swift clip without showing any signs of instability, making me glad Id opted for what I now considered to be the ultimate winter traveling companion.
I made it in time for a short, informative meeting, enjoyed a fabulous meal at Rics Grille (made all that much better after a little adventure) conveniently located in the hotel I would stay at that night, the Four Points Sheraton, and took part in some great conversation that rarely touched on the business Id come to discuss, which ironically is always better for business in the end. After a good nights rest it was off to their office once again, for more in-depth discussions, a spirited lunch of brainstorming and good fun, and then back on the highway.

The road home, despite only being twenty-four hours past, was as clear and dry as the sky overhead. I made quick time, and due to this was able to pull off the highway to investigate a back road Id always wanted to explore. A Range Rover is the ideal exploratory vehicle after all, so how could I pass up such an opportune off-road adventure? First I went north, as the road crossed under the highway in two directions. It was, as expected, farmland surrounded by trees, and the road, while gravel, was well groomed and a walk in the park for the Sport. I stopped to take a few photos, traveled up a little-used road that quickly became a goat trail, engaged low gear and raised the suspension, an easy combination of processes that included rotating the previously mentioned dial one click to the right and then pushing the switch with the mountain pictograph on it that resided next door. I took a few more photos, circled back to the road, hardly phasing what I already knew was a much more competent 4×4 than I would ever have use of on this trip, and then returned the suspension and gearing settings to those previously chosen, before continuing on up the road. On the way I passed by a lovely homestead and, a hundred meters down the road, some dilapidated shacks that hardly looked habitable, turning around only because the southern road had always been of most interest anyway.

Thats a faint clue to the core of my personality, if you were ever interested, as Im almost always willing to put off something good now in order to get something better later. Unfortunately, Im also just as willing to put off doing something that seems less than favourable at any time, unwittingly allowing it to mushroom into something much worse. As hoped, the southern road was much more picturesque, following a fast-paced river at first, only to hug closer to the mountainside as it continued, winding and undulating at the whim of the landscape. A sign at its beginning noted a town was ahead, but in my experience such backcountry towns are rarely as worthy of attention as the route getting there, so I enjoyed my drive, catching glimpses of rushing rivulets and still ponds, rocky crags and rambling valleys, and finally noting that shade was covering my gravel path more often than sunshine, I turned around and headed back.

Having added a little adventure to my road trip, and knowing that you would have grilled me relentlessly if I hadnt bothered to take the Sport off-road (I do read your emails and most often respond if you care to click on the writing credit at the top of this page to find the hidden address), I settled in for the long, somewhat dull trip home. Again, with scenery as spectacular as that which lay before me, only a desire to be home with my wife and children, plus the monotony of traveling this route over and over again through the years, causes me to use the term “dull” as a descriptor. If youre from the prairies, or even a few hours away in the city of Seattle, a trip across the border and then up the Coquihalla Highway will floor you. Im just jaded, I suppose.

(this article was taken from automobile.com)

We trust you all had a good Christmas and New Year, let’s get back to the good stuff…

On Christmas Eve, Scotland’s Daily Record reported that Land Rover gave a fleet of eight vehicles–worth over £400,000–to Britain’s Prince Charles as a Christmas gift.

This prompted the publication to call Charles the “Prince of Wheels,” and Land Rover must be eating it up. After all, the Ford Motor (nyse: F – news – people ) subsidiary loves its ties to the British monarchy. Hanging near the entrance to the company’s factory in Solihull, England, are plaques commemorating visits from the queen and the queen mother.

The queen’s famous ride of choice is the Range Rover, the $75,000 flagship of Land Rover’s all-SUV lineup. Until recently, a huge gap existed in showrooms between the Range Rover and the next rung on the ladder, the comparatively downmarket, $39,000 Land Rover LR3.

Enter the $57,000 Range Rover Sport, which shares a name with the Range Rover but little else except for styling cues. The company introduced this model to bridge the gap in its lineup and to give it a needed sales boost. Rover sales are up 31% this year in the U.S., but subtract the Range Rover Sport from the tally and sales would have only increased by 4%.

The new vehicle was the best-selling Rover in the U.S. in November, and we’re seeing it everywhere. It apparently looks enough like the highly desirable Range Rover to give it credibility, but at a cut rate that is attracting an unusually high number of customers for a Land Rover.

The best decision the company made was to incorporate the words “Range Rover” into the new car’s name. Trading on the status symbol that is the brand’s flagship, Land Rover has masked the truth about the Range Rover Sport: It’s a waste of money compared with the LR3.

The name also hides the fact that the Range Rover Sport has way more in common with the LR3 than with the Range Rover–especially in terms of cockpit design–but without adding any significant benefits other than an optional, 390-hp V-8 engine. In fact, it subtracts two seats and 20% of the LR3′s cargo room.

While the Range Rover’s chassis came from former-owner BMW, the Range Rover Sport shares Ford-sourced mechanical underpinnings with the LR3. In terms of size, chassis and interior design, the Range Rover Sport and Range Rover are totally different.

The most they have in common are looks. The Range Rover Sport looks like a Range Rover that went to the gym, added some bulk here and there, subtracted some elsewhere and then left with its nose pointing upward. The Range Rover is stately–if a bit stiff and formal–whereas the Range Rover Sport is spunkier and takes more chances with its looks.

But the looks appear to be working. Having driven every Land Rover, we have to say that the exterior design is clearly selling the new car.

(this article was taken from www.forbes.com)

Our 2005 Land Rover LR3 has performed admirably so far. It has been pressed into service for a variety of duties including participation in an Edmunds.com fuel economy test and a week-long family vacation by an Edmunds employee.

The e-mailed comments exchanged concerning the LR3 are primarily positive but some editors took issue with the midsize Land Rover’s nearly $51,000 as-equipped price. As we noted in our long-term introduction that price includes every option except DVD navigation and an in-car beverage cooler. However, it’s important to remember that Land Rover has a well-deserved reputation for building top-notch off-road vehicles so the price certainly reflects abilities and technology that might not be useful to the average minivan owner. It’s important to consider your needs before adding the Land Rover LR3 to your shopping list.

In fact, one driver who did use the LR3 in its intended element said that it performed quite well and that the SUV’s interior remained quiet even during off-road excursions. He went on to say that its off-road demeanor was “very composed” and “inspired a lot more confidence off-road than on-road.” This driver also made use of the various height settings and the LR3′s hill descent control, commenting, “Thanks to the multiple terrain settings, the LR3′s various components all worked in concert to tackle virtually any obstacle, plus these features all worked unobtrusively.” In the end, it’s the LR3′s specific-use features that make its price justifiable.

On the other hand, Road Test Editor Brian Moody noted, “There are buttons, switches and dials that I haven’t touched in a month of driving and doubt I ever would. If I were to spend $50,000 on the LR3 I wouldn’t be getting a very good value considering my personal needs. I simply don’t go off-road. But for those who do go off-road and still want to drive a luxury vehicle, the LR3 is perfect.”

Another high point is the climate control system. One driver noted that the A/C was “powerful enough to cool this almost-black car in the hot 100-degree Arizona sun.” Actually, virtually every editor had good things to say about the LR3′s interior. While the seats are comfortable and the interior looks luxurious, it’s the truck’s versatility that inspired the most discussion. One driver simply loved the ample front and rear storage and made specific mention of the rubberized surfaces that help keep things in place. Another editor found the rear storage boxes invaluable and still another loved how easily the third-row seats fold up and down; “I can do it with one hand.”

The one thing we wished the Land Rover would do better is sip fuel. Most of the time our fuel economy was in the low teens and once or twice dipped into the 12-mpg range between fill-ups. Add to this the fact that the V8-powered LR3 requires premium fuel. However, Senior Consumer Advice Editor Phil Reed included the LR3 in an upcoming fuel economy study and found that one could achieve better-than-EPA estimates (14 city/19 highway) if driven moderately. He went on to say, “We also discovered that using the cruise control for freeway driving improved the fuel economy by over 13 percent!” So the lesson here is leadfooting in the LR3 is gonna cost ya.

We have had only one minor issue with the LR3. We keep getting a warning message on the instrument panel that indicates “Bonnet Open.” We have checked and rechecked and have come to the conclusion that there is a faulty switch. It seems like no big deal but we had a hard time getting a service appointment. The earliest available time we were given was a week and a half after our initial call; that seems a bit excessive considering the price and upscale clientele Land Rover caters to. If we were driving a Ford or a Lexus we’d simply call another local dealership. However, Land Rover dealerships aren’t quite as abundant as Lexus dealerships and our next closest Land Rover retailer was a good 30-minute drive away. Once we got the LR3 into the dealership, the problem was corrected and the car was ready later that same day.

Thankfully, the Land Rover was out of service for just a day, something that’s very appreciated considering how much we like the LR3. We’re sure it will continue to be a staff favorite on road and off, we’ll just have to plan ahead for our next service appointment.

(this article was taken from edmunds.com)

The 4X4OTY award-winning new Discovery bristles with technology, but does it work and how does the all-new Land Rover compare with its rivals? Allan Whiting and the gang from 4X4 Australia magazine were pleasantly surprised.
Occasionally a landmark vehicle comes along and, more often than not, it emerges from the British town of Solihull. Some of us are old enough to remember the impact the first Range Rover made on the Australian 4X4 scene in 1972.

With its all-coil suspension, smooth V8 and full-time 4X4 drivetrain the Rangie took a quantum leap over its leaf-sprung, part-time 4X4 Japanese and North American rivals. But its $7475 retail ask was around twice the going rate of an ordinary 4X4. Since 1972 there have been only a few landmark 4X4 wagons that have introduced new technology and Land Rover has been responsible for most innovations: direct-injection turbo-diesels, variable-height air suspension, electronic traction control and hill descent control are the stand-outs.

The 2002 Range Rover stacked these and other innovations into an independently-suspended body to become undoubtedly the most advanced 4X4 wagon in the world, but at a price upwards of 120 grand. What then, of the brand-new Discovery 3 that puts all these technological advances – and more besides – into a package priced from around $60,000? Little wonder Disco 3 picked up 4X4 Of the Year 2005. But 4X4OTY is not a direct comparison: it’s an award for what is deemed to be the best new release in a calendar year. So, we were keen to find out how the Discovery 3 stacked up against the opposition. We chose a mid-spec Disco 3 SE – turbo-diesel with air suspension – and put it up against its turbo-diesel, auto-transmission competitors: Prado Grande, LandCruiser 100 Series and the price-leading Patrol ST-L. The Disco is powered by a 2.7-litre V6 turbo-intercooled diesel.

Variable geometry turbocharging and common-rail, high-pressure injection combine to give the bent six very respectable figures of 140kW at 4000rpm and 440Nm at 1900rpm – that’s only 11kW less power than the 4.2-litre LandCruiser turbo-diesel and with 10Nm more torque. This engine is matched to a six-speed adaptive-shift, Tiptronic-style automatic box. The standard Discovery SE fare is comprehensive: electronically controlled, independent air suspension; 18-inch alloy wheels; cruise control; xenon headlights; park distance control; seven cloth-covered seats; manual height-adjustable driver’s seat; tilting-telescopic steering column; climate control; single-CD, six-speaker sound system; EBD/ABS brakes; dynamic stability and roll control; traction and hill descent control; on- and off-road programming; electric park brake; and multiple airbags.

Our test vehicle had optional locking rear diff ($1000), cornering headlights ($1000), satnav ($6100), front park distance control ($850), metallic paint ($1500) and a ‘Hi Ice’ Pack with eight speakers, passive sub-woofer, in-dash six-CD stacker and steering wheel audio controls ($3650). Added to the SE base price of $73,650 that list took the total ask to $86,900. We’d let Land Rover keep all options except the diff and the literally brilliant cornering lights, dropping the evaluation SE’s price to $75,650.

ALSO RANS…
The Prado Grande is an obvious competitor at $73,710. Grande features include a four-speed auto box, rear air-suspension with height-adjustment, variable-rate dampers, Driver Assist Technology (DAT) that incorporates traction control, swerve control and hill holding and descent control, EBD/ABS brakes, multiple airbags, eight leather-covered seats, a navigation system, sunroof, climate control with rear outlets, cruise control, power-adjustable front seats, tilt-telescopic steering column, metallic paint and 17-inch aluminium wheels. Next in the numbers game is the LandCruiser 100 Series and the most popular spec level is the GXL.

Our comparison vehicle was a stock GXL turbo-diesel, priced at $74,200. You get little in the way of frills with the GXL: five-speed auto box, manual air-conditioning, seven cloth seats without height or lumbar adjustment, steel 16-inch wheels, a tilt-only steering column, no traction aids other than a limited-slip rear differential (despite a window sticker proclaiming the vehicle is fitted with DAT) and cheap-looking aluminium side-steps. The Nissan competitor for the Discovery 3 is the newly announced ST-L turbo-diesel Patrol.

A more appropriate spec level would be the Ti, but Nissan makes that model only with 4.8-litre petrol power. Our evaluation Patrol was a 3.0-litre auto model that retails for $61,240. The ST-L spec includes seven leather seats, power-adjustable front seats, front and rear manual airconditioning, 17-inch aluminium wheels, a tilt-only steering column, a powerful limited-slip rear diff and part-time 4X4 operation. If we’d opted for the ST-L 4.2 model, we’d have picked up cruise control, but the auto box disappears and the retail jumps to $65,240.

TO THE TEST
We loaded each vehicle with typical bush-touring freight and headed off for three days of widely different driving conditions. For all but one of the test team it was a first encounter with the new Discovery. Over the bitumen and gravel on-road sections of the test the Discovery was by far the best performing, riding and handling vehicle of the quartet. Early Range Rover air-suspensions were somewhat harsh-riding, but that characteristic has been eradicated. The Discovery 3′s air-suspension was sufficiently supple to absorb bumps, but cross-linked air springs kept the big wagon flat through high-speed manoeuvres.

We drove it on bitumen in the Terrain Response System’s ‘general driving’ mode, then switched to ‘grass/gravel/snow’ on dirt roads. The change in engine and transmission response was immediately noticeable, with a ‘softening’ of power delivery and shifting action, to reduce the chance of traction loss. With the ‘grass/gravel/snow’ program working it was difficult to provoke out-of-shape behaviour from the Disco 3. Punting the new Discovery on any formed surface is like driving a luxury sedan, with none of the expected compromises a 4X4 should impose. It also had the easiest cruise control operation. The 100 Series turbo-diesel has been the benchmark for big wagon performance and handling, but the Cruiser has well and truly met its match in the new Discovery.

The British machine easily out handled and outgunned the grunty 100 Series. The Prado also failed to match the Discovery’s bar height, with far less power and torque available, and with its live rear axle unable to match the handling precision of the Land Rover’s independently sprung design. The 2005 Patrol’s 1988 GQ heritage showed positively in flat handling, but with lively suspension action that provided ample evidence of the unsprung axle weight reciprocating beneath. Sadly, the change to 17-inch, lower-profile tyres with less cushioning action than the previous 16-inchers has made the Patrol’s ride-quality worse.

THE ROUGH STUFF
Nissan doesn’t fit cruise control to the 3.0-litre diesel models, which we reckon is silly. All four vehicles ran our off-road course without drama. The Discovery’s Terrain Response System took all the guess-work out of mode selection and the automatically-locking rear diff took much of the grip-assurance work away from the traction control system. The Land Rover climbed steep, loose slopes with some traction-control slip and grip at the front end, but was never fazed. In ‘rock crawl’ and ‘mud and ruts’ positions the Terrain Response System activated a higher ride height, effectively increasing underbody and under-axle clearance. The Prado’s traction control and height-controlled rear axle combined to give it very good rock-climbing ability.

We liked the manual control over the centre diff lock in both high and low ranges that allowed easy manoeuvring in tight situations. The 100 Series made up for its lack of traction aids with excellent rear-suspension travel that kept both rear wheels in contact with the ground almost all the time. The Patrol performed the rock-shelf climbing trick without much wheelspin, thanks to the excellent travel of front and rear live axles and its strong rear LSD. Beam axles may reduce on-road handling and ride quality but they sure work in the rough stuff! Oddly, though, the Patrol’s engine braking was the worst of the four vehicles and needed considerable wheel-braking effort as a supplement. The big Cruiser’s engine braking was the best, so the fact it didn’t have hill descent control wasn’t a problem.

The Discovery and the Prado both had very effective hill descent control and we liked the way the Disco’s could be adjusted for descent speed via the cruise control buttons. In soft sand the LandCruiser 100 Series’ baggy 16-inch tyres gave it superior flotation over the other three vehicles and it could be almost idled around our sand circuit. We expected the 18-inch low profile rubber on the Disco to nobble it on the sand, but the V6s diesel’s free-revving ability in concert with the brilliant six-speed transmission’s shift quality overcame the tyre drag to a large extent. The 2.7-litre V6 felt more like a petrol engine than a diesel, able to rev at will and never ‘bogged down’ by the wrong gear ratio. We’re still not happy about the 18-inch tyre fitment and we’d opt for the ‘S’ model’s 235/70R17 wheel and tyre package. Seventeens that can handle bush work are becoming more readily available in the marketplace. The Patrol auto-3.0-litre combination was much sweeter to drive in sand than the manual we last evaluated.

The box allowed the engine to rev well and sand performance was impressive. However, the low-profile tyre move is a backward step for sand gropers. The Prado was the least comfortable of the quartet in soft sand, lacking directional stability and understeering when asked to corner. We still reckon the Prado works better on the GX model’s 225/70R17 rubber than it does on the GXL and Grande models’ 265/65R17s. There wasn’t a huge fuel-consumption difference across our test foursome, with the LandCruiser 100 Series averaging 13.8L/100km, the Discovery 14.3L/100km, the Patrol 14.7L/100km and the Prado 15.4L/100km.

All four offer considerable fuel cost-savings over equivalent-performance petrol engines. The Prado’s relatively poor economy showing can be put down to the fact it’s powered by an old-generation pre-chamber diesel that also had to work harder than the more modern engines. The Prado is the touring range leader thanks to its 180-litre tank capacity. Next best is the 100 Series, with 141 litres, then the Patrol on 125 litres and a poor last is the Land Rover’s inadequate 82 litres. Another aspect of economy is running expense and here the Discovery has some saving potential, thanks to much longer servicing intervals than the Japanese trio, with their 5000km oil drain requirements. Land Rover allows oil drains out to 15,000km.

REPUTATION PRECEDES…
The only doubt hanging over the new Land Rover Discovery 3 is its heritage of less than consistent build quality and the marque’s historical quirkiness and unreliability. As with all post-Ford-ownership Solihull products (except the incurable Defender) the build quality question seems to have been answered in the affirmative. Our recent test Discoverys have been well built and this evaluation Discovery 3 was faultless on test. If we judge the Land Rover Discovery 3 without prejudice it stands beside the original 1970 Range Rover as a true landmark 4X4. It’s also by far the best vehicle in its class and is today’s best value-for-money large luxury wagon.

(Article by 4X4 Australia’s Allan Whiting)