Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Range Rover and Range Sport Plug-In Hybrids Coming Next Year

      Land Rover readies plug-in variants of their luxury models

    Land Rover will be offering plug-in hybrid variants of Range Rover and Range Rover Sport next spring. This news comes from Jaguar Land Rover CEO Ralf Speth at the Frankfurt Motor Show last week.

    The models will pair JLR's 2.0L four-cylinder Ingenium gas engine with an electric motor. EV range is said to be about 30 miles when the battery is charged - although the range could be based on the European cycle. No power ratings were given for hybrid system. More details on the plug-in hybrid models will be announced next month.

    Land Rover has sold a hybrid version of the Range Rover for a few years in Europe, but it uses a diesel engine. 

    Source: Motoring, Motor Trend

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    3 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    Only 30 miles..... Hmmmm

    Agree, in todays market, they should at least get 50 miles or more for the base ev mode. Kinda how my attitude is against the Mercedes S class hybrid and Porsche where they state 30 miles or maybe it was 18 miles. Crazy stupid low range, why bother. Shows no effort and for expensive auto's a big disappointment.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    30 miles for a vehicle 8 times the size of a Volt and shaped almost like a brick is pretty impressive to me(Range Rover, sport is more like 4 times as large). I mean they can't just cram batteries underneath because they likely want to keep its off road abilities and clearances. 

    FYI, I'm being a smartass about the sizes but they are both much much larger than a Volt. "regular" Range Rovers are huge vehicles.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    30 miles is pretty weak, the Range Rover Sport with the diesel has like a 560 mile fuel range..

    49 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    "regular" Range Rovers are huge vehicles.

    Not really...a regular wheelbase Range Rover is sized between the Grand Cherokee (which is RR Sport sized) and the Durango..smaller than Ford and GM full size SUVs..  

    Oddly, the LR Disco, Range Rover Sport and regular Range Rover all have the same 115 inch wheelbase, the Disco and RR have a bit more rear overhang.  The Velar has a 2 inch shorter wheelbase and is slightly smaller than the Sport.  (It seems very odd to me to have both the Velar and Sport which are both around the same size).

     

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well it isn't a 3 row SUV. but it's 3 inches wider, 6 longer, 3 taller...fair amount larger. Most comparisons compare the RR Sport to the JGC. 

    That seems pretty significant for a 2 row SUV. You're right it isn't a BOF GM full sizer but I also think those are stupid big. 

    After looking at the dimensions the big Rover is closer in size to the Tahoe than the JGC. Definitely smaller than the Tahoe. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
    • Happy (belated) Birthday @G. David Felt!
    • Oh yeah, I forgot to even mention the wireless charging! That is also a game changer. It eliminates yet another thing people are afraid to change, plugging in. Yes, i realize it is EXTREMELY easy to do, but the anti-EV people love to point out "I don't want to have to plug in every night". It's just another thing to check off the list. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search