Internal 2014 LR4 information

proper4wd

Expedition Leader
Here is a copy of the internal release that was just distributed regarding 2014 LR4. I know most details have been available for a few weeks but I thought I'd share.

5396112-0.jpg5396112-1.jpg5396112-2.jpg5396112-3.jpg5396112-4.jpg5396112-5.jpg5396112-6.jpg5396112-7.jpg5396112-8.jpg
 

Scott Brady

Founder
Thank you Adam. The LED lights are growing on me, and they would just be covered by an ARB bumper in my case, regardless.
 

proper4wd

Expedition Leader
Speaking of headlights, I am pleased that the HID lights are now standard with the HSE package. It has always been a bit embarassing that you had to move up to the Luxury package to get them, when vehicles at half the cost had them standard!

Also, based on past sales history the majority of LR4's on dealer lots will be HSE's with the Cold Climate package, priced at $56,995. Sadly, I really don't think there will be many out there with the HD package and twin speed transfer box.
 
Last edited:

LR Max

Local Oaf
The cool thing is that if it has low range, it automatically has rear diff locker.

Also I like their color blue.

Nice.
 

Eniam17

Adventurer
FIgured it would be more than 1350 to add 2 spd transfer case and locking rear diff. An LR4 w/ Cold Climate, 7 seats, and HD package for 55k is a lot of vehicle for the price IMO, compared to what else is out there. Still out of my price range though. The sticker on my 08 LR3 w/ all of that except HD package was 53k so nice to see them keeping costs pretty much flat 6 model years later.
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
Would like to see a torque curve of the SC V6 vs. 5.0L V8. Suspect the V8/6-sp is a better choice than the V6/8-sp. Especially loaded, towing and/or altitude.
 

proper4wd

Expedition Leader
You may be surprised, the 3.0 seems to have more grunt from 1500-3500rpm in my seat of the pants experience. The 5.0 is a monster but this 3.0 is no slouch.
 

evilfij

Explorer
You may be surprised, the 3.0 seems to have more grunt from 1500-3500rpm in my seat of the pants experience. The 5.0 is a monster but this 3.0 is no slouch.

I am waiting for the lwb new range rover to come out. I might trade my jag super v8 in for it when it does. IMHO the supercharged jag V8 is a great motor.
 

proper4wd

Expedition Leader
Indeed it is and the 3.0 V6 is its little brother. You are familiar with what forced induction does to the V8, imagine the same throttle response and torque curve just scaled down.
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
You may be surprised, the 3.0 seems to have more grunt from 1500-3500rpm in my seat of the pants experience. The 5.0 is a monster but this 3.0 is no slouch.


In the Inter-Mountain West, take 20-30% off power specs. Broad torque ranges needed.

Need hp and torque curves of each.

This discussion ( http://www.xfforum.co.uk/threads/12737-V6-SC-torque-curve ) indicates the V8's torque range is "2,500 to 5,500 rpm with the SC version actually peaking as low as 2,000 rpm. ........Whereas the new V6 torque peaks fom 3,500 to 5,000 rpm"

That's a large difference at the lower rpm's where you are cruising while towing or simply climbing hills. The V6 will need to do a lot of shifting to compensate.
 
Last edited:

proper4wd

Expedition Leader
20-30% off power specs may be true for some engines but the supercharged systems that LR use have a significant amount of reserve capacity. They will pressurize the intake charge to the same boost level regardless of altitude by varying the flow through the bypass valve.

Also worth noting is that it was only 2009 where the 4.4V8 LR3 had just 300hp and 315 ft lbs (at 4000rpm). The 3.0SC is still significantly better than that especially in the torque curve, and being coupled to the 8-speed transmission. I dont hear LR3 owners lusting for more power too often.
 
Last edited:

mpinco

Expedition Leader
20-30% off power specs may be true for some engines but the supercharged systems that LR use have a significant amount of reserve capacity. They will pressurize the intake charge to the same boost level regardless of altitude by varying the flow through the bypass valve.

Also worth noting is that it was only 2009 where the 4.4V8 LR3 had just 300hp and 315 ft lbs (at 4000rpm). The 3.0SC is still significantly better than that especially in the torque curve, and being coupled to the 8-speed transmission. I dont hear LR3 owners lusting for more power too often.


Loss of power at altitude is not about reserve capacity. The density of air is much less and atmospheric pressure is 10.1 to 12.2 psi vs. 14.7 psi at sea level. Engines are air pumps and compression >ratio< is simply the pressure above your atmospheric pressure. Same with Turbo's or Superchargers. They are boosting the cooler and less dense air above ambient in order to produce higher power output from a smaller displacement engine. Same with 8-speed transmission, with tighter operational ranges per gear to better match power demand of the driver to a smaller engine.

A quick search found the following on the MB forum: Brandon Kleemann USA said at altitude a Kompressor engine losses so far between 15-17% of power, turbo engines 7-8%, and normaly aspirated 20-22%. Those numbers are consistent with other discussions I've had with others.

If Land Rover can increase boost by 20% at altitude I'd like to see a document on that, and associated hp/torque curves. I know they have them at the engineering level. I just don't see LR data in this area.

Also, it is common knowledge for those who live at altitude that larger engines get better fuel mileage while the smaller engines never live up to their hype as the driver has to work the drivetrain harder.

As I've read, the LR4 is suppose to loose 800 lb's in 2015. In addition the single speed xfer case will further reduce total weight. Both needed for smaller power plants.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,539
Messages
2,875,662
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top