RE: Range Rover Goes Further with Range e
Thursday 17th February 2011
A Rangie with more range. Eee!That's not 690 miles at 120mph, presumably, but the numbers are impressive anyway. The 'Range e' is Land Rover's diesel hybrid plug-in prototype, and one of several working prototypes currently being developed at Land Rover's design and engineering centre in the UK.
The Ultimate Range Rover. So far.The new Range Rover Evoque will also be on display in five and three door form (they want us to call the latter a 'coupe', but we can't quite bring ourselves to conform), along with a load of options giving customers a sense of a truly 'tailored' vehicle.
Range Rover Goes Further with Range e
Plug-in hybrid does 120mph with 690 mile range
A Rangie with more range. Eee!
Based on a Range Rover Sport, the car features a 3.0-litre TDV6 diesel with an eight-speed ZF automatic transmission. Matched with a plug-in parallel diesel hybrid system it offers a premium SUV that can also run as a pure electric vehicle, says the company, which is going to show off the vehicle at next month's Geneva show.
The 'Range_e' is the first capable 4WD model from Land Rover to achieve 89g of CO2, reckons the press release, and LR also states the electrified Sport has an EV range of 20 miles, a top speed of around 120mph and a range of 690 miles.
The Ultimate Range Rover. So far.
Also making its debut at the Show will be the Range Rover Autobiography Ultimate Edition - the firm's most luxurious Range Rover ever, with its yacht inspired teak floor.
Discussion
Those are impressive figures, especially when you consider the standard RRS without all the hybrid gubbins weighs 2700kg!
It's likely to cause bigger confusion for the Government and Boris than it is the greenies:
"Ooh, people are driving around in 4x4s which aren't gas guzzling anoy more, AND not paying RFL, AND not paying congestion charge. But we can't change the rules because it will hammer those who are more obviously responsible because they have a small car and it would also damage our largest indiginous car maker. What do we do?!"
It's likely to cause bigger confusion for the Government and Boris than it is the greenies:
"Ooh, people are driving around in 4x4s which aren't gas guzzling anoy more, AND not paying RFL, AND not paying congestion charge. But we can't change the rules because it will hammer those who are more obviously responsible because they have a small car and it would also damage our largest indiginous car maker. What do we do?!"
Hendry said:
Those are impressive figures, especially when you consider the standard RRS without all the hybrid gubbins weighs 2700kg!
It's likely to cause bigger confusion for the Government and Boris than it is the greenies:
"Ooh, people are driving around in 4x4s which aren't gas guzzling anoy more, AND not paying RFL, AND not paying congestion charge. But we can't change the rules because it will hammer those who are more obviously responsible because they have a small car and it would also damage our largest indiginous car maker. What do we do?!"
My only real 'thing' against big 4x4s are the visibility and crash implications. I can't see round them, they're more 'lumbering' than a normal car and will cause more damage if they crash. This doesn't do anything to allay any of this, but it is nice to know they're not going to get clobbered with tax for all the wrong reasons.It's likely to cause bigger confusion for the Government and Boris than it is the greenies:
"Ooh, people are driving around in 4x4s which aren't gas guzzling anoy more, AND not paying RFL, AND not paying congestion charge. But we can't change the rules because it will hammer those who are more obviously responsible because they have a small car and it would also damage our largest indiginous car maker. What do we do?!"
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
At the risk of being flamed, I like it! These are the kind of vehicle where hybrid systems can make a large difference. Shame it's plugin and doesn't use a KERS system though, all that mass generates a lot of wasted energy that could be harvested.. unless the plumbing for that would effect it's off road capabilities.
[AJ] said:
At the risk of being flamed, I like it! These are the kind of vehicle where hybrid systems can make a large difference. Shame it's plugin and doesn't use a KERS system though, all that mass generates a lot of wasted energy that could be harvested.. unless the plumbing for that would effect it's off road capabilities.
It does use a KERS system, all ICE/electric hybrids do. You can just also charge the batteries from the mains. Twincam16 said:
My only real 'thing' against big 4x4s are the visibility and crash implications. I can't see round them, they're more 'lumbering' than a normal car and will cause more damage if they crash. This doesn't do anything to allay any of this, but it is nice to know they're not going to get clobbered with tax for all the wrong reasons.
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
It depends where you live. Out in the sticks they're damn well handy and a must in winter if you want to get out of your house. Not everyone has the luxury of gritted roads.I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
Twincam16 said:
will cause more damage if they crash.
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
There's the rub, the Land Rover Defender is consistently, according to DFT 'real world' crash statistics, one of the safest vehicles on the road. For its occupants...I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
If you want a safe car - and we're constantly being told that this is a 'good thing' then get a Defender.
[AJ] said:
Twincam16 said:
My only real 'thing' against big 4x4s are the visibility and crash implications. I can't see round them, they're more 'lumbering' than a normal car and will cause more damage if they crash. This doesn't do anything to allay any of this, but it is nice to know they're not going to get clobbered with tax for all the wrong reasons.
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
It depends where you live. Out in the sticks they're damn well handy and a must in winter if you want to get out of your house. Not everyone has the luxury of gritted roads.I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
[AJ] said:
It depends where you live. Out in the sticks they're damn well handy and a must in winter if you want to get out of your house. Not everyone has the luxury of gritted roads.
The trouble is if you live in the stick (as I do), and particularly if you live in a hilly area, a range of 20 miles as an EV is useless. This sort of dynamic only pays off in urban conditions. In urban conditions why do you need a huge off-roader? [AJ] said:
Twincam16 said:
My only real 'thing' against big 4x4s are the visibility and crash implications. I can't see round them, they're more 'lumbering' than a normal car and will cause more damage if they crash. This doesn't do anything to allay any of this, but it is nice to know they're not going to get clobbered with tax for all the wrong reasons.
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
It depends where you live. Out in the sticks they're damn well handy and a must in winter if you want to get out of your house. Not everyone has the luxury of gritted roads.I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
[AJ] said:
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that! My hybrid interest thus far has been limited exclusively to those systems used in motorsport.
inkiboo said:
"The 'Range_e' is the first capable 4WD model from Land Rover to achieve 89g of CO2"
That means it is CC exempt!
At least until they realise that the way they measure the CO2 output for plug-in electric vehicles is stupid and change it. This does 89g/k in much the same way that an electric car does 0g/km. In other words, it doesn't. That means it is CC exempt!
Twincam16 said:
I like the sound of this.
How much torque will it produce though? A Range-Rover that can't hack it off road, no matter what its owners do with it, just won't be a true R-R IMO.
The 3.0 TDV6 has quite a lot of torque (241bhp & 442 lb/ft) and the electric motor(s) will only add to this, so im sure it will be fine for off road.How much torque will it produce though? A Range-Rover that can't hack it off road, no matter what its owners do with it, just won't be a true R-R IMO.
booner said:
Hmmmm government better start finding new ways to tax the motorists.....speed camera's coming down, 4x4 which are nearly tax exempt and don't use much fuel while driving the combined cycle test, which also come under the congestion charge free group.....where will they get their money from?
EFA.TheRoadWarrior said:
booner said:
Hmmmm government better start finding new ways to tax the motorists.....speed camera's coming down, 4x4 which are nearly tax exempt and don't use much fuel while driving the combined cycle test having already been fully charged from the mains, which also come under the congestion charge free group.....where will they get their money from?
EFA.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff