Less glitzy Rover sister plenty attractive
LR2 is great on highway and in the woods — all for $39,990
Unfortunately for Land Rover’s LR2, it is the dumpy sister. You know, the slightly overweight sibling with the itsybitsy overbite who, if asked to a party, is always admonished to bring her older sister. The one who was always stuck Friday night after Friday night being the designated driver. The sister who was always described, with all the earnest sincerity that teenage boys can muster when they lust for the sexier sibling, as “the smarter one.” Yes, no matter how you slice it, the LR2 is, and will be for the foreseeable future, Dedee versus the Range Rover Evoque’s Michelle (as in Pfeiffer, says he, thanking IMDB for its lexicon of less-than-foxy sisters), for, while there can be no doubting that while the Land Rover is an attractive little beast, the new Evoque is Charlize Theron with four-wheel drive.
The fact remains, however, that there is often little objective difference between siblings’ talents to justify the oft-cavernous gulfs in their relative success. I defy you, for instance, to separate the caterwauling that is a Britney Spears album from the screeching that is a Jamie Lynn Spears tune. Ditto for Ashlee versus Jessica (as in Simpson, says he, reaching for TMZ as his celebrity reference guide). Yet, one is a multi-multi-millionaire and the other is begging for someone to produce yet another tepid-selling album. Hell, I am pretty sure that Dedee could do an equally stilted turn as a mob wife (Married to the Mob) as Michelle, except her hair wouldn’t look as good in bouffant curls.
The same is true of any objective comparison between 2013 LR2 and the new Range Rover, espe- cially since the base Land Rover inherits the Evoque’s 2.0-litre turbocharged four the company sources — with much modification, Land Rover engineers insist — from former parent Ford. It also has a brand-new interior and an optional 825watt Meridian audio system (the better to capture all of Britney’s massive octave range, says he).
It’s difficult to decide which is of the greater benefit to the LR2’s comportment, the new engine or the revamped cabin. The new power plant offers the more easily quantifiable answer as it boasts 10 horsepower and 16 pound-feet of torque more than the 3.2-litre Volvo-sourced in-line six it replaces. It’s also, as one might expect with the loss of two pistons and 1.2 litres of displacement, lighter than the big six and more frugal as well.
What’s more surprising — especially to me, who worships the in-line six as the optimum engine layout — is that the little four actually feels more sophisticated than the rather thrashy six. Not only does it seem smoother, but because it is blessed with oodles of low-end torque, it needs far fewer revs than the comparatively peaky 3.2L it replaces. The mark of a great SUV engine is that it never feels overwhelmed or harried. The LR2’s 2.0L may lack the bounty of pistons that is the Range Rover’s 5.0L V-8 or its overwhelming power, but it shares the utterly unmarried way it pumps out low-end torque.
Its only fault is the non-linearity of throttle response. Initial throttle tip-in at low-speed can suffer a momentary delay and, occasionally, when you’re calling for moderate power, the turbocharger gets all enthusiastic and responds as if you’ve called for warp speed. It takes a little adjustment, but then so do most turbocharged engines after driving a steady diet of normally aspirated engines.
The view from the driver’s seat, meanwhile, is much more pleasant than it used to be. Indeed, interiors have always been the LR2nee-Freelander’s Achilles heel, the automaker only upgrading it after its competition had moved on. The 2013’s revisions, then, are a pre-emptive strike by comparison, coming only a few months after the Evoque raised the ante. The leather trim is now more sumptuous, there’s a new seven- inch LCD touch screen centre stage as the navigation and audio systems controller (now voice-activated) and the instrument cluster has been revised.
Ditto for the terrain Response switchgear, which is now a more easily deciphered row of buttonry in the centre console. Other highlights include the airy dual sunroofs and the aforementioned megawatt sound system, which, given its head, can really hit you one more time … Baby (damn, these Britney refer- ences are getting harder to work into the story).
As well, some of the plastic has been upgraded as well with softer-touch material moving the LR2 farther away from its bargain-basement roots (the original Freelander had particularly cheap interior decor).
What remains — and is common with everything else the storied marque sells — is incredible off-road ability. No, the Freelander won’t go as deep into the woods as an LR4 or even a Range Rover. The lack of dual-range gear-set and massive amounts of suspension articulation see to that. But thanks to its Haldex full-time four-wheel-drive system, as well as Land Rover’s trademark Terrain Response system and other electronic gadgetry like Hill Descent Control, the LR2 can venture fairly far into the unknown. It may be, by Land Rover’s standards, the least Sahara-worthy of the company’s offerings, yet it still plunges down river banks with elan.
Its major limitation is a stiff suspension meant to maximize on-road handling, which, by the way, seems better than ever with more responsive steering.
Despite the upgrades, I still suspect the LR2 will remain the sister with “personality,” doomed to prove its popularity the hard way.
However, if you do opt for the less glamorous sister — and with an MSRP of $39,990, some $7,005 less than even the cheapest Evoque, that might be easier than you think — you still get virtually all the same attributes, abilities and, well, most of the allure.