Wednesday 4th October 2017

Range Rover Sport PHEV announced

There is a new SVR too...

---

Outwardly, Land Rover's mid life update of the enormously popular Range Rover Sport appears to be a rather evenhanded affair. On the one hand it has launched the firm's first plug-in hybrid electric model - meaning that Gaydon now has an SUV to compete with the 'green' credentials of various luxury-minded rivals - and on the other, there's a refreshed SVR, belligerently furthering the idea that the Sport is a Range Rover meant for keen drivers.

Really, though, it's all a little more club-fisted than that. The P400e (as the hybrid has been badged) is a necessary step in the right direction for a brand which has committed itself to offering an electrified version of every model from 2020 - but its claimed 101mpg and 64g/km CO2 emissions (measured on the NEDC cycle) are likely to be as repeatable in the real world as the ice in your freezer.

That doesn't necessarily separate it from any of its rivals of course; it merely signifies that Land Rover is unlikely to have furthered the appeal of a hybrid SUV beyond the current benchmark. Certainly there is unlikely to have been any headway made on the headline foible of the breed (namely a chronic weight problem). The previous four-cylinder Sport was already the wrong side of two tonnes; expect the addition of an 85kW electric motor and a 13.1kWh lithium-ion battery module to have done it no favours at all.

Combined with the 300hp 2.0-litre Ingenium petrol engine, the P400e will output 404hp through its eight-speed ZF transmission (and all four wheels) with both power sources running simultaneously; apparently good for 6.7 seconds to 62mph and a top speed of 137mph. Its all-electric range meanwhile (the reward for sacrificing nearly 80 litres of boot space to make way for the battery) is quoted at 31 miles. With a fast-charging 32 amp wall box, it'll recharge in two hours and 45 minutes. If you're stuck with a 10 amp domestic supply, it'll take the best part of eight hours.

From where we're sitting (on top of a wallet containing a fuel card) all of this makes the Special Vehicle Operations product look like the far more pragmatic choice. Yes, a 25hp increase in the 5.0-litre V8's output from 550hp to 575hp is unlikely to have helped its appetite for super unleaded, just as the introduction of a carbon fibre composite bonnet won't have made a colossal dent on its prodigious kerbweight - but the new SVR is expected to be marginally quicker (and sharper to turn, too, if SVO's tuning adjustments pay off) and that's a good thing when you've got a 570hp Porsche Cayenne Turbo S to compete with.

Mild styling updates will also feature across the range, as will some interior changes which are intended to bring the model in line with the Velar's use of dual 10-inch touch screens. The new line up, otherwise comprised of a familiar selection of petrol and diesel engines, goes on sale in 2018; with the P400e starting at £70,800 and the SVR, £99,680.

[Mercutio]

Hmm. It's a laudable step in the right direction, and no doubt will be snapped up by those who love the marque and the image, but can now do so with better fuel economy and a clean(er) conscience...

However I just feel it's a bit late to the party, and the horrible weight and size of the vehicles puts me off - as per the article, I can't imagine all that battery is going to do anything to make the car more nimble.

Worse, with JLR's reputation for reliability, adding a whole load more electrical gubbins to go wrong isn't filling me with confidence.

I love the historical marque (still want to own a Discovery or Defender) and am proud of our modern British motoring success story with JLR under Tata, but I'm unlikely to buy this over an XC60.

[hornetrider]

Can you imagine the reliability issues with these

[Audemars]

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

[Sixpackpert]

Audemars said:

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

And yet I have owned 2 Disco's that were fault free and my father has RRS that has also been fault free. Just lucky I guess.

Edited for speeeeling

Edited by Sixpackpert on Wednesday 4th October 10:12

[W124]

That's the odd thing about JLR in general. Rather than a general level of unreliability you just get a few cars that are faultless and the majority which go wrong all the time. They can make incredibly reliable cars. They just don't do it very often.

[W124]

They don't half drive well though. I was thinking this recently as I delivered a 5.0 petrol Range Rover. I've driven almost every car there is but the RR is still just a joy to pilot. And the XF, to drive at least, is miles ahead of anything it competes with - incredibly composed when you really hustle it. I got our of the XF into an A6 which felt so unresolved in comparison.

[Hoofy]

I'm more amused by the thought of greenies having a mental breakdown when they find out that this supposedly polluting Chelsea tractor is a hybrid.

Edited by Hoofy on Wednesday 4th October 12:06

[rxe]

IMO this is a perfect hybrid use case.

Owners can do a lot of their journeys as an EV (we keep being told that most journeys are less than 10 miles) and in the usual morning traffic, you won't notice you've only got 100 HP to play with.

A smaller boot isn't going to be a big issue. Most people don't fill these to the brim anyway.

You've still got a 400 HP car when you want to have fun.

Keeping the electronics intact outside warranty would be the big concern.

[oldtimer2]

At about £8,000 extra for the PHEV bits, my guess is that most buyers will find the new touch screens (as seen on the Velar) more appealing.

As for RR Sport reliability my own experience has been excellent; it is shared by my daughter who now owns and runs my old vehicle.

[David87]

To me, a massively more attractive prospect than the Velar. The hybrid one sounds good (didn't they already make a hybrid RR, though?) and the SVR continues to be a beast. Do you have to have it with the exposed carbon two-tone bonnet, though? Don't mind the new vents, but would prefer it all painted.

Also, where's the proper RR's facelift? Wasn't it released before the Sport?

[gdaybruce]

At the cheaper end of the Land Rover range, our daughter's Freelander (previously owned by us) has just had its 150,000 miles service and the only significant fault over all those miles was the dual mass flywheel breaking up at 90k, and that's hardly an issue that's confined to JLR! Oh yes, it also ground to a halt over the last Christmas holiday when the daughter's dog, confined to the passenger footwell because of a boot full of furniture, got bored and chewed through a cable, lighting up the dash like a seasonally appropriate Christmas tree!

The AA managed to repair the damage at the roadside but I don't think we can hold that particular breakdown against Land Rover!

[cirks]

gdaybruce said:

............ daughter's dog, confined to the passenger footwell because of a boot full of furniture, got bored and chewed through a cable, lighting up the dash like a seasonally appropriate Christmas tree!
............. I don't think we can hold that particular breakdown against Rover!

possibly a minor edit at the end there

the dog's name of course was 'Rover' and therefore definitely a reliability issue

That's why my two dogs are called Ayay and Areacey

[berlintaxi]

Audemars said:

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

Up to the usual standard of complete bks, you're consistent if nothing else.

[T1berious]

I know that a cars appearance is subjective but the whole Chav thng aimed at the L494 current model seems a bit odd?

Yes the previous generation had an image issue but the current one? IMHO the Q7 and Cayenne look considerably more "new money".

The current RRS has a simplicity about it's lines that work. A pity the design language has been used all over the model range (Disco being a particular sore point)

I'm not seeing the max power in its looks (and I used to buy Max Power!).

[Mastiff]

Sixpackpert said:

Audemars said:

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

And yet I have owned 2 Disco's that were fault free and my father has RRS that has also been fault free. Just lucky I guess.

Edited for speeeeling

Edited by Sixpackpert on Wednesday 4th October 10:12

And I sell about 150 a year, few of which have any REAL reliability issues. Sure there's the odd horror story but it's a machine and these things happen.

I'd love to work for any manufacturer who makes every car it builds without fault!

[Mastiff]

David87 said:

To me, a massively more attractive prospect than the Velar. The hybrid one sounds good (didn't they already make a hybrid RR, though?) and the SVR continues to be a beast. Do you have to have it with the exposed carbon two-tone bonnet, though? Don't mind the new vents, but would prefer it all painted.

Also, where's the proper RR's facelift? Wasn't it released before the Sport?

I'm hitting F5 on the dealer portal every ten minutes - hopefully this is not far away.....

[popeyewhite]

Audemars said:

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

I used to think the same but having graduated to a FFRR by way of trying other 4x4s I think the Rangie is pretty good. Loads of room and very comfy. Does the off road bit with a lift and some decent tyres. The RR Sport on the other hand...a Golf Gti with worse mpg. Looks awful. Bodykits abound which make them look even worse, and they take rims and tyres so thin I shudder to think what the ride quality must be like. Mind, it's about being seen in one I suppose... .

[Hairymonster]

Get a life not an SUV

[RacerMike]

popeyewhite said:

Audemars said:

Seriously why do people buy Range Rovers?

Appalling reliability and a chav image. I do not see why both are things people would want in a car.

I used to think the same but having graduated to a FFRR by way of trying other 4x4s I think the Rangie is pretty good. Loads of room and very comfy. Does the off road bit with a lift and some decent tyres. The RR Sport on the other hand...a Golf Gti with worse mpg. Looks awful. Bodykits abound which make them look even worse, and they take rims and tyres so thin I shudder to think what the ride quality must be like. Mind, it's about being seen in one I suppose... .

You realise the Sport is just a FFRR in drag now? Same wheels and tyres, suspension and floorplan?

[PhilboSE]

Hairymonster said:

Get a life not an SUV

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, for many people, an SUV is a good choice that supports their active lifestyle.

My SUV tows my track car, drives my family to skiing holidays, lugs antique furniture around, and is a generally brilliant family workhorse.

But I'm sure we'd have more of a life if we had a 525d. We can but dream.