Skip to content
Land Rover models, news & reviews
5
Handling
3
Performance
4
Usability
Feelgood factor
Readers' rating
2.5
By Ben Barry
First Drives
16 August 2010 09:00
Here it is, the new 2011 model year TDV8 Range Rover, yours from £67,495 for the entry-level Vogue, the top-spec Autobiography coming in at £81,395 – a rise of £855 and £3515 respectively. Headline changes are the introduction of an all-new 4.4-litre turbodiesel V8 and a new eight-speed automatic ZF gearbox.
We have indeed, or at least a significantly revised RR – Land Rover refer to that as the 2010.5 model year. Essentially the SUV was facelifted last year and the old 4.2-litre supercharged petrol engine made way for the new 5.0-litre supercharged V8, just as it did in Jag XKs. However, if you wanted a diesel, you had to make do with the old 3.6-litre TD V8. The 4.4 TD V8 that the 2011 model brings means both powertrains are now updated.
Absolutely. The car industry’s rush to slash C02 never seems to impact on performance, and the new TDV8 Range is no exception. Power rises from 268bhp to 309bhp, torque from 472lb ft to 516lb ft, which drops the 0-60mph by more than a second and adds 6mph to the top end. Meanwhile, C02 falls from 294g/km to 253g/km (shaving £200 off your first year’s tax, a tenner a year thereafter), while mpg rises from 25mpg to 30mpg. No doubt the tall eighth-speed helps with all that.
Really well. There are no surprises here – it’s still peerlessly comfortable, still pretty rolly, still quite understeery, still the antithesis of sporty, still brilliant. I did notice that the ride felt a little plusher, the body better controlled and front-end grip a little better than the 2010.5 model year car I also drove recently, but Land Rover isn’t claiming any chassis improvements and – cue self-administered slap across the knuckles – I can’t remember whether the wheel and tyre combo of both test cars were identical.
Both are hugely worthwhile additions. The engine is noticeably quieter and smoother, and the extra capacity makes it feel far healthier and better able to shrug off what remains a pretty obscene kerbweight – 2800kg!
The gearbox is smoother and quicker too, and the old car’s lag between dawdling and kicking down for urgent acceleration is all-but eliminated. Oh, and a Jag-style rotary controller usurps the conventional gear stick, and there are now paddles on the steering wheel, which sound a bit pointless but adds extra user-friendliness.
No big changes here, but this is a great SUV that benefits hugely from the addition of a quieter, faster, more refined and more frugal new engine and a swifter, slicker transmission.
>> Click 'Add your comment' below and let us know what you think of the new 2011 Range Rover TDV8
Add your comment
Sign in You must be signed in to submit a comment.
Range Rover 4.4 TDV8 (2011) CAR review
Subject
Your comment
By submitting your comment, you agree to adhere to the CAR Magazine website Terms and Conditions
Cancel
You must be logged in to subscribe to a topic
Login or register now
OldDog says
RE: Range Rover 4.4 TDV8 (2011) CAR review
Dear All, I've driven lots of cars with impressive specification sheets and have often been underwhelmed almost instantly. It's ALL about drivability, you can talk stats until hell freezes over but unless you've driven a car you are really talking out of your smoking exhausts...
Dear All,
I've driven lots of cars with impressive specification sheets and have often been underwhelmed almost instantly.
It's ALL about drivability, you can talk stats until hell freezes over but unless you've driven a car you are really talking out of your smoking exhausts...
13 March 2012 08:52
typos1 says
Dear carmobster, I am a dieselhead and have been for years-all but 1 of my cars have been compression ignition powered, so I DONT need lectures about torque, thank you very much! Diesels produce loads of torque, granted, but it is STILL about power as well. Peugeot droppped the gauntlet with diesel engines 15 years ago and all of its engines have been underpowered compared with the competition since (top 2.0 Hdi power output 160 (and thats only recently was 136 for years), top BMW 2.0 D 185 for instance). Its perfectly possible to map BMW's 3.0 twin turbo 6 to similar torque outputs to LandRover/Ford/Peugeot''s V8. VW Goup, BMW and Mercedes are where the cutting edge is with diesel engines, now, not Peugeot/Ford/LandRover, unfortunately This engine in this car is tuned for torque (as are all off roaders) but its still underpowered compared to all its rivals as is the Peugeot/Ford/LandRover V6 diesel. Audi gets 345 horses and 590 lbs/ft from a single turbo 4.2, BM gets 300 and 442 lbs/ft, Mercedes get 320 and 516 lbs/ft from just 4 litres. As I said, this engine is under powered AND under torqued for its size, number of turbos and in comparison with rival engines. Basically you could get improved performance/economoy/emissions with same outputs and a smaller engine, meaning it would be lighter as well, further helping performacne etc etc.
Dear carmobster,
I am a dieselhead and have been for years-all but 1 of my cars have been compression ignition powered, so I DONT need lectures about torque, thank you very much! Diesels produce loads of torque, granted, but it is STILL about power as well. Peugeot droppped the gauntlet with diesel engines 15 years ago and all of its engines have been underpowered compared with the competition since (top 2.0 Hdi power output 160 (and thats only recently was 136 for years), top BMW 2.0 D 185 for instance). Its perfectly possible to map BMW's 3.0 twin turbo 6 to similar torque outputs to LandRover/Ford/Peugeot''s V8. VW Goup, BMW and Mercedes are where the cutting edge is with diesel engines, now, not Peugeot/Ford/LandRover, unfortunately
This engine in this car is tuned for torque (as are all off roaders) but its still underpowered compared to all its rivals as is the Peugeot/Ford/LandRover V6 diesel. Audi gets 345 horses and 590 lbs/ft from a single turbo 4.2, BM gets 300 and 442 lbs/ft, Mercedes get 320 and 516 lbs/ft from just 4 litres. As I said, this engine is under powered AND under torqued for its size, number of turbos and in comparison with rival engines. Basically you could get improved performance/economoy/emissions with same outputs and a smaller engine, meaning it would be lighter as well, further helping performacne etc etc.
23 August 2010 12:53
carmobster says
Dear Typos, There is a big difference between petrol people and Diesel people. With Diesel it's about torque and not about bhp, you see when driving torque makes the engine feel effortless to drive, so perfect for towing or off-roading. The "new" 4.4 TDV8 has 516 compared to BMW's 443, so the v8 makes all the difference and wins from BMW´s great engine on the torque curve. You see, theres more in life than just BHP, it's about the delivery of power, the revs it makes, the sweetspot, smoothnessof the engine. Outright power is great in a Ferrari or M5 but not in a RR. When you really want that there´s always the supercharged petrol.
Dear Typos,
There is a big difference between petrol people and Diesel people. With Diesel it's about torque and not about bhp, you see when driving torque makes the engine feel effortless to drive, so perfect for towing or off-roading. The "new" 4.4 TDV8 has 516 compared to BMW's 443, so the v8 makes all the difference and wins from BMW´s great engine on the torque curve. You see, theres more in life than just BHP, it's about the delivery of power, the revs it makes, the sweetspot, smoothnessof the engine. Outright power is great in a Ferrari or M5 but not in a RR. When you really want that there´s always the supercharged petrol.
21 August 2010 17:39
How come BMW can get 306 bhp and 443 lbs/ft from a twin turbo 3 litre 6, but LandRover (well Peugeot actually-its a Peugeot engine) has to use a twin turbo V8 to achieve the same figs? Clearly theres a long way to go before LR really gets the whole efficiency thing...
How come BMW can get 306 bhp and 443 lbs/ft from a twin turbo 3 litre 6, but LandRover (well Peugeot actually-its a Peugeot engine) has to use a twin turbo V8 to achieve the same figs?
Clearly theres a long way to go before LR really gets the whole efficiency thing...
20 August 2010 16:38
You know it is really strange, I have been a huge car fanatic since I was born and had posters of Ferrari 250 GTO, Ferrari Testarossa, Maserati's on my wall but all I grave for right now is the 2010.5 Range Rover 4.4 TDV8, it's perfect! Ofcourse you would want a light roadster as your second car, but for 99 % of the the time this is perfect! Pure luxury with full leather interior and finally no "sporty" suspension set-up! I recently drove the new A8 and it is awfull as an luxury car. It wants to be too much, sporty, comfortable, luxurious, fast, etc. It's like a Schizo on wheels. The RR 4.4 TDV8 doesn't want anything then to be a save-haven, comfort machine that can go anywhere! Love it! Can Land Rover please send me a poster to put above my bed?
20 August 2010 14:19
Upload stories, photos or videos direct to the site, or email newsdesk@carmagazine.co.uk.
Alternatively, call 01733 468 485 (+ 44 1733 468 485)
Seen a secret new car, fabulous exotic or have news we should publish? Then get in touch now.