soflorovers
Well-known member
Seems like the facts suck for both Jeep and LR camps. We're both better off just leaving facts out of this one lol
New Defender News
- Thread starter blackangie
- Start date
soflorovers
Well-known member
I hate to burst your bubble (and my own), but diesel is a dirty word at JLR NA. I've spoken to a fairly reliable source who has stated JLR has no plans to introduce the diesel in the USA, and instead are going to focus their efforts on PHEV/electrification. IMO, the writing was on the wall as soon as we saw them drop the diesel option for the 2020 Velar; I imagine we'll be losing it in the rest of the lineup for 2021. I'm really hoping JLR pulls their heads out of their (insert expletive here) and gives the people what they want, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Only initially. I'm sure we'll see a 4 cyl option after launch
soflorovers
Well-known member
Clearly. Everyone should go out and buy applian...I mean Toyotas. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is pure mechanical reliability.
soflorovers
Well-known member
The irony of this statement is that it's coming from the man who's profile photo is an RRC - Probably one of the least reliable cars ever made. This new Defender can't possibly be worse than what you're experiencing.
Victory_Overland
Explorer
I hope we are wrong here........lol But, like my statement before; this is where I am debating a 4-Cyl purchase option D110 as a backup plan.
soflorovers
Well-known member
For perspective, the new 4cyl defender has as much HP as the V8 LR3, and I believe it weighs less than the D3. 300 hp should be "sufficient". That said, I'd aim higher if you plan on stuffing a large tire like some of us idiots.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Maybe? FWIW, forced induction tends to fare better than N/A counterparts at altitude.
It's still 2 liter ..............
nickw
Adventurer
That's what they said about the 2.7 EB and 3.5 EB in the F150 and they are work every bit as good as the V8's. If you look at the 2.3 EB in the Ranger, its has more low end power than it's contemporaries and is on par (if not better ) than NA V8's a few years back and exceeds pretty much all NA V6's. This new LR engine looks to be sim power output to the 2.3 EB, I have no concerns that it will lack power.
I do think people have come to EXPECT massive power out of SUV's over the years, it won't be a race car, but 300 hp is more than enough for a rig of this size.
It has more torque lower down than the old 300TDI's and significantly more power....
My point was for towing and at altitude. Altitude as in 8,000 to 10,000 ft, on average. It's all about torque, not hp.
Victory_Overland
Explorer
Believe its a twin-turbo 4-cyl if I remember correctly and turbo normalizing negates altitude considerations; hence why it has a turbo.
@soflorovers Agreed; seeing the torque curve will answer the remainder of the questions!
@mpinco that part about "it's still a 2 liter" is not valid if the map/curve is right for the vehicle and configuration in placed in.
LR Spec 2.0 Liter 4cyl: 296hp @295lb/ft
Cummins R2.8 (arguably the best crate motor anyone can buy): 161hp @ 310lb/ft
Look like pretty good numbers to me! But ask me about turbos and high altitude performance and normalizing in aviation cuz I'm not an LR engineer so they probably did better math on their vehicle than I did; one can only assume! Is density altitude on the ground at 9600ft the same as density altitude for the aircraft flying by at the same altitude; guess that depends on if we are turbo-charging or turbo-normalizing; modern ECU's can use variable turbos and manifold pressure to do both on the desires of demand.
In simple terms; turbo-charging alone is for on demand power required and turbo-normalizing maintains manifold pressure very similar to supercharging (I said similar in concept) in all environments so the vehicle does not perform any different through its entire operational range due to demand needs, altitude, etc. Means your power/torque curve does not change regardless of the environment under computer control. Generally, turbo-normalizing is not as ideal on engine life as compression/manifold pressure is always high where as turbo-charging is on demand only.
Disclaimer: these are simple terms in simple explanation.
@soflorovers Agreed; seeing the torque curve will answer the remainder of the questions!
@mpinco that part about "it's still a 2 liter" is not valid if the map/curve is right for the vehicle and configuration in placed in.
LR Spec 2.0 Liter 4cyl: 296hp @295lb/ft
Cummins R2.8 (arguably the best crate motor anyone can buy): 161hp @ 310lb/ft
Look like pretty good numbers to me! But ask me about turbos and high altitude performance and normalizing in aviation cuz I'm not an LR engineer so they probably did better math on their vehicle than I did; one can only assume! Is density altitude on the ground at 9600ft the same as density altitude for the aircraft flying by at the same altitude; guess that depends on if we are turbo-charging or turbo-normalizing; modern ECU's can use variable turbos and manifold pressure to do both on the desires of demand.
In simple terms; turbo-charging alone is for on demand power required and turbo-normalizing maintains manifold pressure very similar to supercharging (I said similar in concept) in all environments so the vehicle does not perform any different through its entire operational range due to demand needs, altitude, etc. Means your power/torque curve does not change regardless of the environment under computer control. Generally, turbo-normalizing is not as ideal on engine life as compression/manifold pressure is always high where as turbo-charging is on demand only.
Disclaimer: these are simple terms in simple explanation.
Thanks for the review! Always welcome.
Interesting perspective on the engine performance differences. I'm not surprised.
Victory_Overland
Explorer
@Cseabaugh would love to hear if you have the insight on the 4 banger PETROL engine D110? I didn't see a reference in the article about use of one, just the I-6 and Euro 4 Banger Diesel.