Next Range Rover to go upmarket, downmarket and lighter-weight
With Ford selling off parts of its Premium Automotive Group (PAG) one at a time, it remains uncertain if Land Rover and Jaguar will end up under the same ownership in the future. In the meantime, Land Rover is collaborating with Jaguar on a future flagship model that will draw on Jaguar's expertise to produce a new Range Rover with a lighter-weight construction that could expand both upmarket and down.
Based on a new aluminum structure called Premium Lightweight Architecture, the next Range Rover is anticipated to shed about 40% off the unpainted unibody's weight, and some 800 pounds off the curb weight. Applying the magic formula of less weight and more power from a revised engine line-up, also benefiting from Jaguar collaboration, would contribute to improved performance and fuel economy. An all-new 5.0-liter V8 could produce about 350 hp, or as much as 460 supercharged, while the existing range of diesels are anticipated to be bored out from 2.7 liters to 3 and from 3.6 liters to 4. If Land Rover chose to shoehorn in the smaller Jaguar/Land Rover turbodiesel into the lightweight Range Rover, it would create a lower model in the range, while the top-end, supercharged version could fetch as much as $200,000 and feature a full spectrum of luxury equipment to anchor the SUV's position at the top of the luxury sport-ute market.
A new styling direction, led by new design chief Phil Simmons, is expected to include shorter overhangs and de-emphasized greenhouse to give a tauter and less top-heavy appearance. If given the green light for development by Ford or by any future parent company, the Range Rover would be the first in a series of new models from Land Rover, to be followed by a new Discovery (LR2), Freelander (LR3), Defender and Range Rover Sport.
[Source: Motor Authority via AutoWeek]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Blake 6:48PM (7/16/2007)
No the Discovery is the LR3 and the Freelander is the LR2. COME ON, PEOPLE.
Reply
Oliver 6:51PM (7/16/2007)
Discovery is an LR3, Freelander is an LR2.
Just Sayin'
Oliver
Reply
Doogs 6:49PM (7/16/2007)
Discovery is the LR3 and Freelander is the LR2, not the other way around.
Reply
... 7:33PM (7/16/2007)
I think more people need to post about how the discovery is the lr3 and the freelander is the lr2
Reply
British_Rover 7:45PM (7/16/2007)
Every time I see that pictures I want to puke. The next Range Rover will not look anything like that. The next Range Rover will not have a smaller green house with narrow windows. That would violate one of the principal concepts of Range Rover/Land Rover design. You need big tall windows on a Land Rover with a low belt line to give better visibility. I don't care if people think they look tippy. I will gladly take them well past 30 degrees sideways on my off-road demonstration course to show them that they are not.
Reply
Tiffany 5:36PM (7/22/2007)
When is the new Range Rover body coming out?? I am thinking about getting a 07' but I don't want the body to change right after I buy it. Your knowledge is wanted.
thanks
kballs 8:05PM (7/16/2007)
LR3 = 5400lbs
5400lbs - 800lbs = 4600lbs = still an obese tub of shit = will still eat fuel and handle/brake like a bus.
Considering the size of the vehicle, it should already weigh ~4500lbs, and switching to aluminium should get it into 3700lbs territory. Where does all the extra weight come from?
Other vehicles that this reminds me of: Porche Cayenne, and VW Toureg... along with the LR3, they all weigh around the same as a Tahoe, but with a lot less space inside. WTF?
Also, re: increasing displacement while decreasing weight. This continues with the trend to increase HP but keep MPG the same (AKA shitty). When shedding 800lbs, did they not think keeping the same displacement would still significantly improve acceleration?
Reply
British_Rover 9:07PM (7/16/2007)
The LR3 weighs more because it is much more heavy Duty then the Tahoe or most any other SUV. It has a fully boxed Frame for Off-road strength and towing along with a Unibody for more chassis rigidity and improved crash protection.
As for the Tahoe having more interior space then the LR3 that is just not true.
Just look at the cars.com comparison data.
http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB70LRS061C0,USB70CHS112C0
The LR3 is 12 inches shorter, 3.6 inches narrower and 2.4 inches less tall.
It handles better .73g VS .70g.
Tows more 7,700 lbs vs 7,200 lbs although I think the tahoe has an optional tow package to increase that rating.
Has an inch more front leg room 42.4 " vs. 41.3 "
Slightly less 2nd row leg room 37.6 " vs. 39.0 "
Over 10 in. more third row leg room 36.3 " Vs. 25.6 "
Front head room is about the same 40.4 " vs. 41.1 "
More 2nd row head room 42.4 " vs. 39.2 "
more 3rd row head room 40.1 " vs. 37.9 "
If you pull all of the big heavy seats out of the Tahoe you will get 18 more cubic feet of luggage room then the LR3 but with the LR3 you can fold all the seats flat in less then a minute to get over 90 cubic feet of room.
Oh and the LR3 out stops the Tahoe by almost 20 feet 117 feet vs. 133 feet and nearly matches the Tahoe for acceleration 8.9 seconds to 60 vs 8.6 seconds.
All for essentially the same mpg 12/17 for the LR3 14/19 for the Tahoe.
Now imagine when the LR3 gets redesigned onto an all aluminum chassis in a few years. With 800 less lbs it would completely dominate the mid-sized SUV segment.
1337 9:16PM (7/16/2007)
The LR3 is also amazing off road and can be had with a diesel (though not yet in America).
Easis4u 9:40PM (7/16/2007)
Ok listen up to the fool who thinks that the LR3 and the tahoe are on the same playing field. The tahoe is a c frame design that falls apart in 40,000 miles and everything is made of cheap meterials including crappy painted plastics. The lr3 was the first of it kind having a fully boxed frame and a monocoque body on frame design. This makes it not only much more robust but also more rigid. This vehicle can not only go more places and stay on all four wheels better but also give a better ride and will not sounds like it is falling apart at 40k. And for the record you said the Range rover handles and stops like a bus. You have NO ROOM to talk comparing it to a tahoe or suburban. They have not stopped well nor have they handled well until this last body style. Even then they are gutless and really and truly handle like a schoole bus. If you have anymore dumb comments please keep them to yourself
aliasfox 11:51AM (7/17/2007)
So it can outgun a Tahoe - but the important question remains: does it still have more cupholders than a Hyundai Santa Fe?
kballs 12:56PM (7/17/2007)
I never said the Tahoe was in the same class or that it was better at anything. I asked why the Rover weighs as much (and it's not alone in its obesity as I mentioned so calm down Rover fanboys - don't get me wrong, shedding 800lbs is a major accomplishment). Fully boxing the frame isn't going to add that much weight (Ford did it in the F150 without significantly increasing the curb weight of the truck). It IS smaller than a Tahoe so it should have less materials involved, but apparently it's just denser because of being "more heavy duty" and "way better off road"... good to excuse vehicles like this for at least 1000lbs of obesity... of course 99 out of 100 people won't take them off pavement (but they can brag to their friends about how "mine's better than yours"). This goes for the Cayenne and Toureg too.
Also, while the Rover handles and stops better than a Tahoe (not a hard opponent to beat), compared to much lighter vehicles with similar attention paid to the suspension, the Rover still handles like a bus (though will improve some when it sheds 800lbs). It's not the engineers' fault, they are just fighting physics. Press release from Rover: "our aircraft carrier now only weighs as much as a battleship"... or should it be "our battleship now only weighs as much as a battleship"?
My comment about the increased displacement still stands.
beanspants 8:16PM (7/16/2007)
i hope they don't adjust the overhangs too much...that look makes the Range the best looking SUV out there by far, and they really strayed too far from the distinctive look on the Range Rover Supercharged. Going upmarket with a $200k version sounds a bit crazy, but whatever. if i had the spare $80k, i'd get the current model. maybe a radical redesign will push the prices of the current model down for me!!!!
Reply
pbrown 8:34PM (7/16/2007)
Improved Fuel Economy for only $200,000 ,fetch rover fetch.
Reply
Brian 8:49PM (7/16/2007)
A smaller green house with narrow windows? WTF?
Why mess with the formula of these iconic cars?
If this change happens my Rover days may be over, the rig will be like everything else then.
If that's so I'll just save my money and reliability worries by getting a Lexus, but my day to day driving won't be filled with the charm of a Land Rover.
Reply
MikeW 10:13PM (7/16/2007)
But at least it will have an eight speed auto.
Reply
MikeW 11:02PM (7/16/2007)
and the LR3 tow rating of 3500 kilo (~7700lbs) only applies to low range.
and how fast can you go in low range? [depends on cooling] It doesn't lock the center differential by default does it?
http://www.4x4abc.com/ML320/tow_temp.html
http://www.sae.org/automag/globalview_08-00/04.htm
http://www.audiworld.com/news/00/allroad/content2.shtml
British_Rover 6:28PM (7/18/2007)
Nope sorry Fords press release is just wrong. I sell Land Rovers and every single bit of documentation in the dealership from the sales brochures, owner's manuals to the shop manuals lists the LR3 max tow rating at 7,716 lbs in high range or low range. I have been to Land Rover launch events with Land Rover engineers and talked about towing with Land Rovers. Straight from the engineers mouth the tow capacity is the same in low range as it is in high range.
The old Discovery II did have a higher tow rating in Low Range then high range but that is all. The only part of the manual that talks about towing in low range is that it is recommended to use low range when towing very heavy loads at low speeds for extended amounts of time.
The new body ML is not available with low range.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/features/specs/overview.do?modelCode=ML500&class=07_ML
Neither does the GL only the G500 has a low range T-Case.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/features/specs/overview.do?modelCode=G500&class=07_G
and it is pretty weak with a 2.16:1 ratio but I guess the 4.38:1 final drives make up for it.
roverdawg 1:33AM (7/17/2007)
Not only 800 lbs lighter but rumored to have a clean diesel/electric hybrid version as well (mandated by the new UK green laws). Nice. Electric off-road equals instant torque.
Reply
British_Rover 7:59AM (7/17/2007)
MikeW incorrect.
The LR3 tows 7,700 lbs low or high range. Just check any magazine, Edmunds or the Cars.com summary I linked. The old Disco II had a higher low range tow rating then its high range tow rating so maybe that is where you are getting confused. The center diff in the LR3 is an electronic locking center diff. Depending on the terrain response setting and conditions it sill lock as needed. It won't lock in low range and general setting except under extreme low traction situations. It will lock ahead of time when using rock crawl mode.
Also why are you linking to out of production vehicles? The current M-class doesn't offer low range anymore and can only two 5,000 lbs. Also no standard air suspension so towing 5,000 lbs is probably scary. Then you got the Allroad which isn't even sold in the US anymore and is too light to be able to two that much.
Reply