Tested: 2016 Land Rover Range Rover
Even the most basic 2016 Range Rover is capable, comfortable, and costly. We report in with our most recent test.
The days of requiring a V8 engine to lug your typical luxury SUV are waning. So says Land Rover, at any rate. The company now offers its ever-graceful Range Rover with a supercharged 3.0-liter V6 engine as the base powerplant. The British brand was good enough to loan us just such a vehicle for a test, and we found that, in the main, the 340-horsepower six doesn’t do anything to sully a magnificent driving experience.
Pros:
- The supercharged V6 is remarkably good. We have been firm fans of the 5.0-liter V8 that Land Rover used in so many applications, for so many years, but this smaller mill gives up nothing in terms of performance. The engine makes 332 pound-feet of torque to go with the 340 horses, with all of that twist available at an accessible 3,500 rpm. Combined with an excellent eight-speed automatic transmission, that translates to smooth power delivery and laid-back speed.
- Range Rovers have always offered decked-out interiors, but the 2016 iteration of the cabin is downright decadent. Pale leather swathed my test car’s innards; something so light wouldn’t be my first choice, but the application is stunning. Every control or surface that I encountered felt hand-crafted and looked remarkably stylish. Rubber mats with white leather seats… that’s something you can only get away with in a Range Rover. Oh, and if you’re a music fan at all, the 825-watt, $1,850 Meridian sound system is highly recommended.
- Ride quality is good in that “floating over the Earth” sort of way. I pushed the big-bodied Rangie on a few curvy roads, finding expected softness in the suspension and a dearth steering feel. No big thing; driven as a large SUV should be, the Range Rover whooshes its occupants to their destinations with a feeling of rich, good-smelling confidence.
Cons:
- At six-feet, five-inches tall, I’d expect something as large as a Range Rover to provide me with often-missed space behind the wheel. This is the car rookie NBA players buy, right? The truth is that I fit, but without quite as much legroom as I’d hope for an SUV in this class. Long-wheelbase Range Rovers may have ample rear-seat room for guys my size, but the standard-length version that I drove can be cramped for the XL set.
- You’ve got to pay through the nose for the privilege of driving this British brute. The most basic version asks more than $85,000, or close to $10,000 more than Cadillac wants for an all-wheel-drive Escalade, for instance. A Mercedes-Benz GL450 – with a similar forced-induction 3.0-liter V6 – starts out at just about $67,000. Sure, the Range Rover is a far superior off-roading vehicle than just about anything in the large lux SUV class, but how often do you plan on churning through the mud and ruts?
Competitors:
- Cadillac Escalade
- Infiniti QX80
- Lexus LX
- Mercedes-Benz GL-Class
| Engine | Supercharged 3.0-liter V6 |
| Output | 340 Horsepower / 322 Pound-Feet |
| Transmission | 8-Speed Automatic |
| EPA Fuel Economy | 17 City / 23 Highway / 19 Combined |
| Weight | 4,918 Pounds |
| 0-60 MPH | 7.1 Seconds |
| Top Speed | 130 MPH |
| Base Price | $84,950 |
| Price As Tested | $97,156 |
| Estimated Lease Price | $1500/month |
Check out more Land Rover reviews on Motor1.com
Gallery: Tested: 2016 Land Rover Range Rover
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
The Range Rover GT Is The Most Car-Like Range Rover Ever
The New Nissan Leaf Nismo Is All Show Without The Extra Go
Land Rover Recalls 250,000 SUVs For Bad Airbags
Woman Sits In Line For An Hour At Take 5. Then They Say They Don’t Have Her Oil Filter—And Ask Her To Do Something That Shocks Her
The Range Rover Sport Is Going Electric: First Look
This New Italian Supercar Turns A Porsche 911 Into An 800-HP Custom Machine
Land Rover Cuts Nearly 100 Horsepower From The Defender's BMW V8