Two litre Range Rover Sport

[Jem0911]

I have just been on the LR site to see a two litre sport available.

Would this be a poor relation or a realistic option for high motorway miles circa 50K a year.

Anyone own one yet?

[Jem0911]

http://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/range-rover-sp...
Land Rover are claiming 45mpg combined.

I would love to know he reality of that.

[wildcat45]

I rarely get that in my DS which I guess has the same Ingenium engine. I assume the RRS is heavier.

[Jem0911]

wildcat45 said:

I rarely get that in my DS which I guess has the same Ingenium engine. I assume the RRS is heavier.

I can't seem to find the GVW on the specification.
But my guess is heavier than the disco sport.

[wildcat45]

The Ingenium is supposed to be developed for different applications. If JLR have upped its power from 180 BHP to say 250, would that improve economy? Genuine question as I don't understand physics. More power means the engine doesn't have to work as hard?

If so, it bodes fell for future DS models and the F-Pace.

[oop north]

Of course it won't make the "official" figure. No car ever does... I thought everyone knew that by now!

[bakerstreet]

Jem0911 said:

http://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/range-rover-sp...
Land Rover are claiming 45mpg combined.

I would love to know he reality of that.

People are getting mid and high 30s out of the V6' so 45 sounds reasonable.

[Jem0911]

bakerstreet said:

People are getting mid and high 30s out of the V6' so 45 sounds reasonable.

Might fit me as a Company car as my current 520 only gives me 44 mpg

[Jem0911]

Lease Quote from Land Rover came in too strong for my cc budget which is a shame.
50k a year based on a standard SD4 HSE with electric tow bar and off road pack full serviced £1415 per month plus the vodka and tonic

[PhantomPH]

I personally didn't entertain the 2.0 when I've spec'd mine. Aside from the engine not being available in the model I went for, when you look at the manufacturer's numbers they are very close to the 3.0V6 with the V6 giving you more power, torque and faster to 60.

LR-SD4, 2.0, 240hp, 8.3 to 60, 500nm torque, 45.6mpg combined, 164g/km
LR-SDV6, 3.0, 306hp, 6.8 to 60, 700nm torque, 40.4mpg combined, 185g/km

I know it's different for those who get via company car, but as a private buyer it was not an engine I considered when specing mine. I suspect the 4-bang will be a good entry level into the RRS once they are a couple of years old (in terms of used price).

[battered]

wildcat45 said:

The Ingenium is supposed to be developed for different applications. If JLR have upped its power from 180 BHP to say 250, would that improve economy? Genuine question as I don't understand physics. More power means the engine doesn't have to work as hard?

If so, it bodes fell for future DS models and the F-Pace.

If you use the power, you'll get worse economy. Power comes from burning fuel. However you can get better economy from bigger engines driven reasonably because they are not having to be thrashed to deliver the power. Smaller engines can suffer from this because no engine gives good economy when it's being driven flat out everywhere.

Oh, and the current breed of turbo petrols only give the stated figures when driven like a nun. I've hired a couple of Ford Ecoboosts, with VERY modest driving you get high 30's mpg, which is crap.

[wildcat45]

Thanks for the physics lesson. I think I understand!