Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.
Although it doesn't constitute a full redesign of the LR3, the 2010 Land Rover LR4 brings one very important upgrade: a 375-horsepower 5.0-liter V8. Thusly equipped, the LR4 has gets up to speed with an authority its predecessor never had.
We timed a 2005 LR3, which had a 300-hp 4.4-liter V8, at 8.9 seconds to 60 mph and 16.6 seconds at 84.0 mph for the quarter-mile. Click past the jump and you'll see the LR4 shaves quite a bit off those numbers.
Beyond that, the 2010 LR4 is still a very large, very off-road-oriented SUV with seating for seven. It has a permanent four-wheel-drive system with a standard locking center differential, an optional rear locker and numerous driver-adjustable terrain settings. Bottom line, there's a lot of hardware on the Land Rover LR4, and although this gives it considerable rock-climbing ability, it's not quite so useful at our paved test track.
First Drive: 2010 Land Rover LR4
Vehicle:
Odometer: 2010 Land Rover LR4
Date: November 3, 2009
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $54,760
Specifications:
Drive Type: Full-time four-wheel drive (standard locking center differential, optional locking rear differential)
Transmission Type: Six-speed automatic
Engine Type: 90-degree V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4,999/305
Redline (rpm): 6,200
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 375 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 375 @ 3,500
Brake Type (front): 14.2-inch ventilated disc with two-piston sliding caliper
Brake Type (rear): 13.8-inch ventilated disc with single-piston sliding caliper
Steering System: Variable-ratio, hydraulic-assist power rack-and-pinion
Suspension Type (front): Independent, double-wishbone, air springs, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent, double-wishbone, air springs, load-leveling dampers, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 255/55R19 111V
Tire Size (rear): 255/55R19 111V
Tire Brand: Continental
Tire Model: 4x4Contact
Tire Type: All-season
Wheel Size: 19-by-8-inch front/rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): Aluminum alloy
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 5,751
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.7 (2.9 TC* on)
0 - 45 (sec): 4.9 (5.1 TC on)
0 - 60 (sec): 7.5 (7.7 TC on)
0 - 75 (sec): 11.1 (11.4 TC on)
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.6 @ 90.0 (15.7 @ 89.8 TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 7.3 (7.4 TC on)
30 - 0 (ft): 32
60 - 0 (ft): 126
Braking Rating: Good
Slalom (mph): 56.4 (56.3 ESC** on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.70 (0.69 ESC on)
Handling Rating: Average
Db @ Idle: 42.1
Db @ Full Throttle: 65.5
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 58.0
*TC = traction control
**ESC = stability control
Acceleration Comments: No technique here -- just whack the gas to the floor mat. The V8 feels pretty peppy, even with the 5,700 pounds it has to motivate. Upshifts are crisp and reasonably smooth. No difference between "D" or "S" at wide-open throttle.
Braking Comments: Impressive brakes, both in terms of capability and fade resistance. Predictable and substantial forward pitch, but controlled and straight stops. Quite a lot of pedal travel, but same effort first to last stop.
Handling Comments: Skidpad: Predictably tall and top-heavy performance on the skid pad, where ESC keeps things from getting out of hand. Steering weight is a little much, but feel for what the front tires are experiencing is adequate. Slalom: The slalom is a pretty pointless exercise in the Landie. ESC is both hyper-vigilant and (I'm guessing) rather necessary to keep all four tires in contact with the ground. Best runs were the "less is more" technique, keeping steering input and body roll minimized.
jrcarch says:
08:59 PM, 12/29/09
I would really love to see y'all add one of these to the Long Term fleet. This is an incredibly capable vehicle and I think it could give the Flex and XC60 a run for overall 'love' factor.
wasaabi92 says:
09:39 PM, 12/29/09
^^^ They had a long-term LR3 a few years ago.
I really like the "new" LR4, but it's still WAY TOO HEAVY. I know it's totally a different kinda car, but for this kinda coin, I'd get a 535xi Wagon. Or a used G-Wagen!
iancar says:
09:52 PM, 12/29/09
This is the perfect vehicle if your daily commute involve terrains as inhospitable as the moon.
icecubefosho says:
10:18 PM, 12/29/09
For a 375 HP V8, those numbers aren't too great compared to an Xterra... I Wish Infiniti would make one to compete with the likes of the LR3/4
firstwagon says:
10:19 PM, 12/29/09
I'm not sure it would be as great off road as people think. With 19 inch rims, you have a tough time finding any decent off road tires and you can't swap a smaller rim because of the big brakes.
A standard locking centre diff is nice but no big deal. My 95 Grand Cherokee Laredo has one too.
It's still is a cool truck but I don't really see it as an off roader anymore.
jrcarch says:
02:21 AM, 12/30/09
@ wasaabi92,
True but that was an LR3. The LR4 has since throughly improved upon its predecessors faults the Long Term team noted. (IE: interior, engine, etc.)
frazier500 says:
02:52 AM, 12/30/09
@firstwagon
Why don't you read Edmund's full test of the LR4 and look at where they took it. That baby handles the rough stuff just fine.
cr_driver says:
08:31 AM, 12/30/09
Wow, what a difference with the numbers of car and driver.!
I really like the improvements they`ve made,especially interior and the new engine. Finally something appropiate for the price tag.
But the biggest gripes for me of this car remains: way too heavy, very poor fuel economy, and too boxy. Not my cup of tea!
rsholland says:
09:08 AM, 12/30/09
Now if only Land Rover can make their vehicle reliable, they'd really have a winner. For years Land Rovers have been rated one of the least reliable vehicles sold in the USA.
jmess says:
09:56 AM, 12/30/09
Sound like a real winner. You get mediocre performance and poor quality for a high price.
DLu says:
01:03 PM, 12/30/09
sometimes journalists and professional car reviewers seem ... too unrealistic. most of Land Rovers/Range Rovers i see are driven by people who drive it as a status symbol and keep them very clean and drive only on well-paved roads. this makes sense if you spent $50k-plus and have to keep putting loads of gas into it. trying to convince yourself that off-road prowess for such a vehicle is a great reason to buy it (over another vehicle that's less expensive, more reliable, but does not have off-road prowess) is just sad. people seem to accept that though; those who buy an expensive sports car seem more often looked down upon. i see a LOT more pickups and Wranglers that are mud-covered and used for off-road endeavors.
firstwagon says:
09:29 AM, 12/31/09
frazier500
I read the test. They took on a few muddy trails. Nothing much. My guess is a CRV could have done the trail too.
You should see what older Land Rovers are capable of.
landrovertexas says:
03:27 PM, 01/ 4/10
Too many folks talking BS here...We own both a 2006 LR3 HSE and 2006 RR Sport HSE. Both vehicles are awesome! We bought them used so saved some money upfront. We did a Land Rover Adventure drive about a month after getting the LR3, what a Blast and it did things I could not believe!
The 2010 are all great vehicles. Bottomline is you can't get a better all-around vehicle than a Land Rover. Hate to tell you guys that we've had ZERO problems with our 2006 trucks. Our dealer is great, and even if you have an issue, you get another Land Rover for a loaner. So what is the 'problem'?
You guys who don't own one or can't afford one, I'm sorry. But don't be jealous of the Brand or folks who do have them and have NO problems. In fact, I just put some extra PSI in the tires and I get combined about 17mpg in both trucks...not bad, huh? Check your facts, many CUVs w/V6s are getting right about that, and those can't touch a Land Rover. Go test drive one, then you will know the truth.
charlesb says:
05:32 PM, 01/ 4/10
I'm going to buy one of these when I sell my Hummer.