RE: Driven: Range Rover TDV8 4.4

[B.J.W]

jbi said:

B.J.W said:

You could always do what the majority of LR owners do, wait until they are 3 years old and get one for half the price. No need for one at the moment, but if I ever needed to combine the daily driver qualities of my Audi with the rugged rural wagon approach of my L200 then a Rangie/Disco would still be top of the list.

I wouldn't like to touch one of these newer land rovers/range rover with a barge pole once they get a few years under their belt.

Air suspension and land rover reliability?

no thanks

So a 3 year old car with FSH and, say, 20k miles does not represent a tempting proposition? I bought my TD5 at 5 years old and ran it for 3 year without any issues. Slighlty older tech, granted, but the concept is the same.

A bit OTT ref Land Rover Reliability - there is always a risk of something going wrong with any used car.

[bob1179]

Range Rovers are awesome.

Anybody who disagrees is a left wing, lentil eating, communist lover of Gordon Brown.

There. I said it.

[rudecherub]

seeing this I am reminded that BMW looked at putting their Diesel M67 4.4 v8 in the car during their ownership, but the gearbox broke, which is much the experience of Overfinch, during the chevy days, and later the bored out 4.4 > 5 litre M62 (which was the base for M5 S62 and came in up to 4.9 litres), if they put more power through the RR box it broke.
Shame really since the 4.4 was twin turbo'd in the Bentley Arnage, I wonder what a 5.0 L rebuild twin cosworth Arnage barge would be like? but I digress.

Diesel has come a long way, but this isn't so cutting edge,
The 2011 duramax v8 is putting out http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/10/gm-announces-... 397-hp at 3,000 rpm and a peak torque of 765 lb-ft at 1,600 rpm and that's before the clever guys start tweaking it.

Clever people like Banks power, where as this is - http://www.bankspower.com/fridaynightnews/show/35-... Banks marine a 1000 ft lb torque at idle...

or indeed the simple http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0707d... diesel muscle car

in short for 80 + k this is plain weedy, add more cubes and double the output and I'd be more likely to be excited.

[rudler]

I note all the reports on the new 2011MY TDV8 say that they now have the Brembo brakes from the Supercharged model. When the TDV8 3.6 came out in 2006 it had Brembo brakes, I had a 2007 model and the brakes were fantastic. HOWEVER when the 2010 model had its facelift Land-Rover took the Brembos off (Cost cutting Land-Rover?). I now have a 2010 model and the brakes are rubbish, have complained to L-R without any luck so far. They have obviously realised the error of their ways for the 2011 TDV8. When towing 3500kg you do worry if you'll stop!

[LuS1fer]

What's with the picture of a broom handle leaning against an Evoque?

[Cassius81]

rudecherub said:

seeing this I am reminded that BMW looked at putting their Diesel M67 4.4 v8 in the car during their ownership, but the gearbox broke, which is much the experience of Overfinch, during the chevy days, and later the bored out 4.4 > 5 litre M62 (which was the base for M5 S62 and came in up to 4.9 litres), if they put more power through the RR box it broke.
Shame really since the 4.4 was twin turbo'd in the Bentley Arnage, I wonder what a 5.0 L rebuild twin cosworth Arnage barge would be like? but I digress.

Diesel has come a long way, but this isn't so cutting edge,
The 2011 duramax v8 is putting out http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/10/gm-announces-... 397-hp at 3,000 rpm and a peak torque of 765 lb-ft at 1,600 rpm and that's before the clever guys start tweaking it.

Clever people like Banks power, where as this is - http://www.bankspower.com/fridaynightnews/show/35-... Banks marine a 1000 ft lb torque at idle...

or indeed the simple http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0707d... diesel muscle car

in short for 80 + k this is plain weedy, add more cubes and double the output and I'd be more likely to be excited.

You are paying 80k for more than just the engine.

We are talking about a super smooth, classy, supremely comfortable and (mostly!) well made top end four wheel drive, not a pick-up with a socking great clattery marine engine in it.

I know which I'd prefer, "weedy" or not.

[300bhp/ton]

Cassius81 said:

rudecherub said:

seeing this I am reminded that BMW looked at putting their Diesel M67 4.4 v8 in the car during their ownership, but the gearbox broke, which is much the experience of Overfinch, during the chevy days, and later the bored out 4.4 > 5 litre M62 (which was the base for M5 S62 and came in up to 4.9 litres), if they put more power through the RR box it broke.
Shame really since the 4.4 was twin turbo'd in the Bentley Arnage, I wonder what a 5.0 L rebuild twin cosworth Arnage barge would be like? but I digress.

Diesel has come a long way, but this isn't so cutting edge,
The 2011 duramax v8 is putting out http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/10/gm-announces-... 397-hp at 3,000 rpm and a peak torque of 765 lb-ft at 1,600 rpm and that's before the clever guys start tweaking it.

Clever people like Banks power, where as this is - http://www.bankspower.com/fridaynightnews/show/35-... Banks marine a 1000 ft lb torque at idle...

or indeed the simple http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0707d... diesel muscle car

in short for 80 + k this is plain weedy, add more cubes and double the output and I'd be more likely to be excited.

You are paying 80k for more than just the engine.

We are talking about a super smooth, classy, supremely comfortable and (mostly!) well made top end four wheel drive, not a pick-up with a socking great clattery marine engine in it.

I know which I'd prefer, "weedy" or not.

I do sort of get your point, but you missing a part of this. And that's the fact these pickup trucks are hadly clattery maine engines, they are some of the most advanced road car engines available. And I haven't personally looked into it, but is this 4.4 Land Rover one a PSA engine? If not, then it's a downsized smaller engine as used in Ford pickup trucks.

And I think they make a valid point, at this price range the RR is evidently being aimed more at the US market than the UK one. And in the US they like big engines, so maybe LR are missing a trick by not offering something more on par with expectations over there?


And at the end of the day, are you seriously complaining about the prospect of having more horse power and better performance?

[Bobdenero]

Why would you ruin a hard earned reputation by using Victoria Beckham in your publicity shots, you might as well use Stalin, Hitler or Heather McCartney !

[Trommel]

300bhp/ton said:

And I haven't personally looked into it, but is this 4.4 Land Rover one a PSA engine?

It's a Ford engine which was going to be put into the F150 (but now apparently isn't).

I would think something like a 6.6 Duramax or 6.4 Powerstroke is pretty heavy.

I imagine they would need a lot of NVH work too.

[Deva Link]

Bobdenero said:

Why would you ruin a hard earned reputation by using Victoria Beckham in your publicity shots, you might as well use Stalin, Hitler or Heather McCartney !

If she doesn't do anything for you then you're not in the target demographic.

It's no worse that Wayne Rooney being a Mercedes Ambassador!

[300bhp/ton]

Trommel said:

300bhp/ton said:

And I haven't personally looked into it, but is this 4.4 Land Rover one a PSA engine?

It's a Ford engine which was going to be put into the F150 (but now apparently isn't).

I would think something like a 6.6 Duramax or 6.4 Powerstroke is pretty heavy.

I don't know, would depend how different the block is or not. Is the 4.4 based on the current Powerstroke?? I know there was talk of it a couple of years back. In which case it probably would weigh the same, or at least similar enough not to have to worry about it in a vehicle of this size and weight.

Trommel said:

I imagine they would need a lot of NVH work too.

Dunno maybe, but then maybe not. Again depends how similar, and it's not as if these engines are known as bone shakers in current pickup trucks either.

[Trommel]

4.4 is a stroked 3.6 in a taller block.

Duramax have a narrow V-angle and a balancer shaft, Powerstroke are the usual 90 degrees. No experience of either though.

[300bhp/ton]

Trommel said:

4.4 is a stroked 3.6 in a taller block.

Duramax have a narrow V-angle and a balancer shaft, Powerstroke are the usual 90 degrees. No experience of either though.

Cheers thanks

[Red 3]

LuS1fer said:

What's with the picture of a broom handle leaning against an Evoque?

tis possibly the worlds most annoying woman...

[dealmaker]

Surley this is a virtual "mule" model to test the new 4.4 engine and 8 speed box prior to the "all new" 2012 model coming out with these fitted next September?...therefore anyone laying out £81k for one of these will be getting a right royal dry reaming when it comes to P/X against the "new" model????

[RRG]

In reply to the gents who are concerned by LR reliability maybe they could take heart in this:

I've just driven my 2003, 80,000mile unmodified Td6 from London to Cape Town and the only thing that went wrong was the parking sensors, probably because they are full of grit/dust. That's right, all the way through Africa, 18,000miles and some of the worst roads you can imagine and bulletproof reliability. I know of no other vehicle that has made this journey with so few problems - and that includes Landcruisers!!

If you don't believe me, take a look at this:
http://web.me.com/raymondgreaves/LilongweDown/Trip...

These cars are incredible.

regards
RRG

[rudecherub]

300bhp/ton said:

Cassius81 said:

rudecherub said:

seeing this I am reminded that BMW looked at putting their Diesel M67 4.4 v8 in the car during their ownership, but the gearbox broke, which is much the experience of Overfinch, during the chevy days, and later the bored out 4.4 > 5 litre M62 (which was the base for M5 S62 and came in up to 4.9 litres), if they put more power through the RR box it broke.
Shame really since the 4.4 was twin turbo'd in the Bentley Arnage, I wonder what a 5.0 L rebuild twin cosworth Arnage barge would be like? but I digress.

Diesel has come a long way, but this isn't so cutting edge,
The 2011 duramax v8 is putting out http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/10/gm-announces-... 397-hp at 3,000 rpm and a peak torque of 765 lb-ft at 1,600 rpm and that's before the clever guys start tweaking it.

Clever people like Banks power, where as this is - http://www.bankspower.com/fridaynightnews/show/35-... Banks marine a 1000 ft lb torque at idle...

or indeed the simple http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0707d... diesel muscle car

in short for 80 + k this is plain weedy, add more cubes and double the output and I'd be more likely to be excited.

You are paying 80k for more than just the engine.

We are talking about a super smooth, classy, supremely comfortable and (mostly!) well made top end four wheel drive, not a pick-up with a socking great clattery marine engine in it.

I know which I'd prefer, "weedy" or not.

I do sort of get your point, but you missing a part of this. And that's the fact these pickup trucks are hadly clattery maine engines, they are some of the most advanced road car engines available. And I haven't personally looked into it, but is this 4.4 Land Rover one a PSA engine? If not, then it's a downsized smaller engine as used in Ford pickup trucks.

And I think they make a valid point, at this price range the RR is evidently being aimed more at the US market than the UK one. And in the US they like big engines, so maybe LR are missing a trick by not offering something more on par with expectations over there?


And at the end of the day, are you seriously complaining about the prospect of having more horse power and better performance?

Not so much complaining about more power / performance, just not excited about the meagre gains - like I say BMW looked at a 4.4 diesel but found the gearbox could not handle it some years ago... It seems rather than being the best by far the Range Rover is looking underpowered when compared to simple pick up trucks in the most important market.

As far as sound here is the 6.6 Duramax in a sports coupe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dujg2kI2Co - Trident Iceni

and in Chevelle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mz2M-0QD-4&fea...

finally pimp my ride's Diesel Impala ( no light weight ) - leaves a Lambo Gallardo for dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4BrHzlOOQg

[piefacemate]

From the article:

"The all-new engine makes its efficiency gains largely from parallel sequential turbocharging"

Parallel sequential turbocharging? I thought these were mutually exclusive ways of feeding an engine with multiple turbochargers. How does this work? Or is it an editorial error?

[rudecherub]

Trommel said:

300bhp/ton said:

And I haven't personally looked into it, but is this 4.4 Land Rover one a PSA engine?

It's a Ford engine which was going to be put into the F150 (but now apparently isn't).

I would think something like a 6.6 Duramax or 6.4 Powerstroke is pretty heavy.

I imagine they would need a lot of NVH work too.

http://www.duramaxdieselspecs.com/lb7.html

6.6L Duramax LB7 approx 835lb - Banks is based in California and passes their smog rules

[Jasper Gilder]

Is the £2K I spent on my classic ten years ago a better investment I wonder.....