http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-land-rover-range-rover-supercharged-road-test-review
kerbweight: 5,612 lbs - 500 lb more than claimed.
it's BS anyways, as all the European diesel V8 R/Rovers that have been independently tested have been found to weigh nearer to 3 US tons, 6,000 lbs(2,625-2,670 kg), than 5,500 lbs, and Land Rover themselves claim the petrol V8 Supercharged only weighs 30 kgs less than the 4.4 V8 diesel.
The Yank hacks are knocking off a couple of hundred pounds to limit the embarrassment of Land Rover's "420 kg weight loss" lie, and make it look like it squeezes in under the weight of the "old tech" steel-bodied, 7-seat Mercedes GL63 AMG.
"Land Rover has lately boasted[lied] of weight savings of up to 926 pounds. Maybe that was true before the Brit interior decorators and safety engineers got their hands on the thing. But our test car tipped the scales at 5612 pounds, making it “only” 326 pounds lighter than the Range Rover Supercharged we tested in June 2010."
so what else, well, there are seats in a 'luxury SUV' that aren't luxury:
"Despite all the animal skins, the seat cushions, both front and rear, are hard. After about 90 minutes, you begin shifting your tush as if on the witness stand"
fuel economy?
"17 mpg."
yeah right. A 1,600 lb lighter, two-wheel drive Jag XF, with much better Cd than the R/Rover brick, with the smaller six-cylinder version of the R/R's engine, and only 340 hp, managed only 13.1l/100km/18 mpg US in a very recent independent test. Anyone who believes the 5,600 lb 4WD Range Rover brick will actually do just 1 mpg less should inquire about bridges for sale in Brooklyn.
12-13 US mpg tops would be the real figure for this behemoth. Again the US hacks have set the tested fuel economy figure above that of the GL63 AMG's and the like, just to be able to say the "lighter" R/Rover is a better vehicle, when it patently can;t be, given its real weight, its Cd of 0.36, huge frontal area, and its fuel-sucking, outdated supercharged engine. More BS from the JLR-protecting hacks.
But surely reliability's gotta have gotten better by now, on a $120k SUV made by Brummies, owned by an Indian, right? Right? er no, worse:
"Whenever we discuss Roverdom, the reliability issue, like smoke, swirls ominously under the door. During this test, the park assist ($650) expired after we whacked a bird in Wyoming. The remote radio-volume buttons worked when they felt like it. We endured two false warnings to check the already locked-tight fuel cap. The radio switched itself off in Chicago and took five minutes to reboot. And the power rear-seat recliner locked the seatbacks in the half-down position, where they remained for two days as if taking a bow."
"Then there were items that didn’t break but maybe should have. The automatic high-beam dimmers, for starters, accurately reverted to low for oncoming headlights but did the same for random street lights, front-yard floodlights, and highly reflective signs. The interior door handles were hard to find. In their most comfy position, the inner front armrests made it tricky to lock seatbelts. And the pop-up rotary PRNDL was known to seize if any downward pressure was applied as it twirled through its balletic arc."
What an absolute joke, overpriced, overweight, gas-guzzling, totally undeveloped, downright dangerous POS. And that's why so many here will rush to defend it, fawn and salivate over it, no doubt. And that's why, partly, the world's going to hell in a brainwashed and dumbed down handcart.
I'm learning.
