The new Range Rover: Coming with aluminum!
Imagine you're overweight. A friend of yours tells you about a diet he got great results from. If you do the one simple thing he did, you'll lose around 1,000 pounds. You'd try it, wouldn't you? That's what's in store for the next generation Range Rover, with plans to give the Posh-UV an all-aluminum chassis.
The newer, lighter Range won't arrive until 2012, but engineers have sought approval to build it with a rivet-bonded aluminum monocoque. To do so, it would employ lessons and technology from the Jaguar XJ sedan. In light of the cost involved, such construction would also be spread throughout the Land Rover line. Weight savings for the Range Rover would be around 40-percent, equating to anywhere from 300-500 kg over the current version, a change that would seem to be all pro and no con. Engines would also be borrowed from Jag -- the same lumps expected to power the XF sedan. The 350-450 HP engines would go a lot further in an aluminum Range, as would a speculated hybrid version.
A decision on the aluminum option hasn't been made yet, but it is expected to get the go-ahead.
[Source: Motor Authority]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
boulderhorn 8:49AM (5/11/2007)
i have always liked landrover styling and this really seems like a step in the right direction for them. People have been complaining about the weight of their vehicles for years and its nice to see that they finally agreed and decided to do something about it. New engines can't hurt either but with 500kg less, fuel economy should improve even with the old engines in there.
Reply
David 8:49AM (5/11/2007)
Since it's a British make, shouldn't it be "aluminium?"
Reply
cowboy bob 9:10AM (5/11/2007)
Aluminum may save weight, but it DOES corrode. I had a '78 Olds 25 years ago with an aluminum rear bumper mounting plate which allowed the salt in upstate New York to dissolve it in just five years. I saw many GM cars of that period with the same inner bumper mounts with the rear bumper bungied on after about the same time. Manufacturers always seem to overlook the environmental conditions of a percentage of end users. The first owner is their priority, and screw the guy that buys one that is four or five years old. This why I would never buy used vehicles with plastic intake manifolds for instance. Both Ford, and GM have had plastic failure rates ten fold higher than metal intakes on five to ten year old vehicles. Do they care? Try to envision an aluminum corrosion repair on a used Land Rover covered under a recall. I didn't think so.
Reply
Bill 9:27AM (5/11/2007)
@3
... yeah, but you have to remember, this is a Range Rover, not a 78' olds.
They know people will drive these in the snow... where the roads are salted...
They also know that people plan on taking these off-road, where god knows what will get into the chassis.
I'm sure theyve taken this into account and wont leave you with a rusted sure-to-be-$90,000+-when-it's-released vehicle years down the line.
Fun facts:
If you grew up in a 3rd world country, there is a 90% chance that the first vehicle of any type you saw was a land rover.
It is estimated that 80% of all land rovers ever made are still in use all over the world.
Reply
British_Rover 9:30AM (5/11/2007)
#3 You are comparing a car made almost thirty years ago to a modern vehicle. Metalurgy has improved a fair amount since then. Also Land Rover has a lot of experience with aluminum since they have been using it since 1948. The bodies of the first Land Rovers were made out of aluminum and so were the bodies of the first Range Rovers. Current rovers have many body panels made out of aluminum as well. That combined with all of Jags experience with aluminum should make this a great switch.
I have heard that the next gen Rover would come out earlier though. The rumors I hear say it will be sometime in 2010 not 2012.
Reply
el diablo 9:31PM (8/18/2007)
guys i bought a 1998 RR and then a 2004 RR and i'm hooked to this car ever since, if anyone has any confirmed news about the all new RR being released sooner than 2012 pls let me know.
thanx
amp 9:40AM (5/11/2007)
It good that they're studing Jag for this one. Audi can't even make a sub-2-ton aluminum sedan.
Reply
Mike 9:49AM (5/11/2007)
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome that the Jag alum tech is making it to LR. Can you imagine how much the power to weight ratio is going to change and how much better the acceleration and handling will be?
Good job LR, keep the great changes coming!!!!
AND GET THE DEFENDER TO THE USA AGAIN DAMN IT!
Reply
Avinash machado 9:49AM (5/11/2007)
In fact the very first Land Rovers were made of aluminum. This was because steel was rationed by the British Government due to shortages folowing the Second World War.
Reply
John-Scott Smith 9:57AM (5/11/2007)
@8
You are correct about that as is @4's fun facts!
I used to own a lovely 1985 Land Rover 90 (pre-cursor to the D-90...same shape though) and it had all aluminum body parts which was nice cause I lived on the coast and didnt have to worry about salt spray rusting me inside my truck. Quick rinse and good as new :) I just wish LR would ditch the sissy crowd of Manhattan and go back to their roots of rugged all-terrain vehicles that have driven all over the world.
And LRNA....bring back the Defender...and Diesel too!
Reply
Doogs 10:28AM (5/11/2007)
#4...
Having owned a Defender 90 and spent a number of years highly involved in the Land Rover community, I can tell you with complete confidence that the 3rd-gen Rangies are not being offroaded. That would be the older Range Rovers, Discoveries, and Defenders.
When they first landed in the U.S., Rovers were offroad/expedition vehicles that just happened to have a few luxury touches (leather, power windows).
These days, they're luxury vehicles that just happen to have a few offroad touches.
Reply
Pinkerton 10:44AM (5/11/2007)
@Cowboy - It was because of galvanic corrosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion
Often times if you bolt different metals together, there's a chemical reaction. In this case, aluminum and steel. (my 79's bumper fell off too)
About the Range Rover. That's a helluva big weight savings. Maybe this will eventually trickle down to more Ford vehicles.
Reply
Big Mike Al 10:50AM (5/11/2007)
RE: "a change that would seem to be all pro and no con"
There are plenty of cons to aluminum. Just ask Jimbo down at the local Maaco how confident he is working on aluminum. Shouldn't they be more concerned with trying to keep these POS vehicles running 1st? What is Land Rover, like dead last in long term dependability?
Reply
ssgtakeo 11:55AM (5/11/2007)
I wonder if they've thought of using friction-stir welding? Rivets in cars seems a bit strange to me.
Reply
British_Rover 12:05PM (5/11/2007)
Nope 12 you are wrong.
They will just set up the same aluminum repair network for Land Rover that Jaguar currently has.
http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/bb/bb050540.htm
http://www.i-car.com/html_pages/training_programs/oem_training/jaguar_training.shtml
If your jag gets in a wreck Jag will ship the car for you to the nearest body shop in the network.
Reply
George M. 1:20PM (5/11/2007)
Corrision shouldn't be a problem. Most cars made today are basically disposable and luxury car owners rarely keep their cars more than 2-3 years. Its the suckers who'll buy a used Range Rover that'll get screwed...
Reply
cowboy bob 3:05PM (5/11/2007)
George @ 15, yea, I think I said that. Pinkerton @ 11, Yea, that's what happened. I can't imagine Rover using all similar metals everywhere. Posts 4&5- yea, everything is different thirty years later. Mostly the engineers who now don't have the benefit of the previous experience. That's why we have the same mistakes made today that were made thirty years ago. Perhaps there have been improvements. Want to spend $90K to find out? I worked to hard for my money to risk it with suspect technology. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I know what works.
Reply
Don 4:51PM (5/11/2007)
I'm not so sure about aluminum...Audi uses it extensively, and their cars are heavy mofo's.
Reply
phil 6:13PM (5/11/2007)
17-
that's because Audi has no idea what they're doing with aluminum.
Reply