Driven: new Range Rover

It looks like the old one. That's the first thought on seeing the new, fourth-generation Range Rover. All that work, all that expense, and it ends up just the same. Except that those vertical slats on the flanks look even less likely than before to have any function, because now they sit uselessly on the front doors instead of looking as if they might extract air from the engine bay (they didn't, as it happens).

Well, you'd expect it to be good at this
Well, you'd expect it to be good at this
Function fails to follow form, then, unless you accept that the visual purpose is sufficient in itself. "The vertical detail reduces the visual impression of length," says Land Rover designer Gerry McGovern, who makes it clear that this is quite sufficient to justify the garnish.

But then... but then, you look a little harder at the new Range Rover and a lot of subtleties start to emerge. Its nose is shorter and less bluff, the windscreen sits back at a faster angle, the waistline rises rearwards and both front and rear lights have little tongues licking around the corners. Also, the wheelarches hug the wheels like never before, which has the unexpected effect of making the Range Rover look more compact than it really is. The body seems less of a burden.

More luxury and more toys up here...
More luxury and more toys up here...
Trick of the eye
It is, too. That's because the whole monococque structure is now made from aluminium, which contributes to a hefty weight saving of up to 420kg. Length, width and wheelbase have all grown a little but the roofline is lower. Rear-seat passengers have significantly more lounging room.

Which is part of the point, because more than ever before the Range Rover is the definitive luxury SUV. Never has the 'U' part strayed further from its origins; it's almost an oxymoron now. The RR was introduced to us in Morocco and the Range Rover's party piece was not simply that it can drive along the sides of sand dunes with barely any tail-slippage, nor that it can clamber along rocky riverbeds before clawing its way back up the bank, but that it can do so while keeping its occupants in near-silent, air-conditioned luxury with barely a body-wobble between them as it does so.

...and more, much-needed, space back here
...and more, much-needed, space back here
Range Rovers have always been good at that, but this one has yet more wheel travel and an extra-clever system of traction electronics called Terrain Response 2. You can dial the different modes - sand, rocks, snow/grass/gravel, semi-solid lava flow, etc - or you can leave it to its own automatic devices. Following a Defender along the dunes showed what it can do; the Defender was fishtailing with the rear wheels forever trying to fall down the gradient, but the Range Rover ran almost straight as the drive torque flowed to the wheels best able to make it do so. The 'probability estimators update 100 times a second' while sorting out how to do it, apparently.

Party piece
It's a brilliant off-roader, then, but you expected that. It can now wade in water up to 900mm deep, too, thanks to air intakes right up just below the bonnet. They look like a ship's funnels. But can the Range Rover really do this while also rivalling the world's best luxury saloon for ride and handling, as claimed? Up to a point it can.

As good as a limo (nearly) on the road
As good as a limo (nearly) on the road
All new Range Rovers have height-adjustable air suspension, and the V8 versions - 4.4-litre, 339hp turbodiesel and 5.0-litre, 510hp supercharged petrol - have an active anti-roll system. That was true of the old model, too, although the systems are refined and the suspension arms are now aluminium. New to the Range Rover, though, are electric power steering and the entry-level option of JLR's 3.0-litre, 258hp, V6 turbodiesel made possible by the weight reduction. With this engine, weight comes down to 2,160kg.

The supercharged V8 is the hotrod of the range, with a claimed 5.4 seconds to 62mph and - with the right tyres - a 155mph maximum. It feels properly quick on the road, with enough torque to make you wonder if it really needs eight forward gear ratios in its ZF automatic 'box, but a 322g/km CO2 figure is the downside. The V8 diesel at 229g/km is a better eco-bet and still gives you 62 in 6.9 seconds; subjectively it feels nearly as quick as the supercharged car, and doesn't sound much different. That's how refined the diesel is.

No S-Class can do this though
No S-Class can do this though
Downsizing, of sorts
The one to have, though, is the V6, preferably on the smallest, 20-inch wheels. 7.4 seconds to 62mph, 130mph, 196g/km, 442lb ft of torque and a £71,295 starting price. On real roads it might not have quite the ballistic surge of the V8s but it's plenty quick enough for an SUV. It, too, is ultra-refined and un-diesel-like, and it also both handles and rides the best. The V8s still feel a bit SUV-like, with large masses being shifted and a feeling of forces being fought, and they can thud heavily into road-breaks. The V6 steers sweetly and naturally, you're hardly aware of the minimal extra roll, and it eases beautifully over bumps while feeling much more agile than it should. Physics are defied best here.

All have the lush cabins and myriad trim possibilities you'd expect of a new Range Rover, with only a slightly untidy on-screen menu and an annoying beep when you press the start button to cloud the picture. England expects, and the Range Rover delivers. Again.

2,993cc V6 turbocharged
Transmission: 8-speed auto, four-wheel drive
Power (hp): 258@4,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 442@2,000rpm
0-62mph: 7.9 sec
Top speed: 130mph
Weight: 2,160kg
MPG: 37.7mpg (NEDC combined)
CO2: 196g/km
Price: from £71,295




P.H. O'meter

Join the PH rating wars with your marks out of 10 for the article (Your ratings will be shown in your profile if you have one!)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Rate this article

Comments (152) Join the discussion on the forum

  • DonkeyApple 03 Nov 2012

    LongLiveTazio said:
    I think the old one is gaudy but the current one in a dark colour and non-stupid alloys looks pretty swish; certainly lacks the upright stance that makes an SUV seem more imposing than it actually is.
    The new shape is much nicer And they are exceptional road cars and now with a nery nice interior but I'm not yet convinced that it looks anything like an £80k+ car though.

  • LongLiveTazio 03 Nov 2012

    Deva Link said:
    I don't think I've seen that word associated with Cayenne styling before!
    I think the old one is gaudy but the current one in a dark colour and non-stupid alloys looks pretty swish; certainly lacks the upright stance that makes an SUV seem more imposing than it actually is.

  • Deva Link 03 Nov 2012

    LongLiveTazio said:
    I don't think I've seen that word associated with Cayenne styling before!

  • LongLiveTazio 03 Nov 2012

    shirleynot said:
    +1 Nothing even comes close to the Rangie cool
    Prefer the Cayenne's styling myself, looks very subtle which is a good thing with a big car. The last RR tried to smooth out its proportions, this one seems to embrace them. I'm not a fan of that. Need to see the interior in the flesh but it looks like the touch screen and rounded off edges are too try-hard and have lost a bit of the square-edged solidity that made it a Range Rover. And much though I like the Evoque for what it is I don't see LR products as sharing some kind of 'design language', which to me only serves to diminish the aesthetics/features of the flagship.

    Would rather have a Disco, I think.

  • aeropilot 02 Nov 2012

    DonkeyApple said:
    Digga said:
    DonkeyApple said:
    In my mind, the original will never be knocked off the top step.

    My earliest memory of Christmas was getting a Corgi police Range Rover. Then a few years later, one of my favourite toys - another present, this time from my Nan for my birthday - was a larger Range Rover model.

    The Range Rover simlpy looked like nothing else.
    So true. It's the dog's danglies.

    This is why I think RR are really missing the point of not re-introducing a 'compact' RR. It's what the RRS should have been all along.
    The 3dr Evoque could come close if they gave it a bit more off-road ability and the TTd V6 engine.

    Still rather have a proper 'compact' 3dr Rangie though.

View all comments in the forums Make a comment