We bought our petrol 2008 FL2 over 10 years ago, it's been a great vehicle. At 210k. We had the suspension rebuilt and changed the rear diff, apart from that it still runs well. We can tow our (up to) 1700kg camper trailer with relative ease on the highway. Off road is fine but I am always mindful of the car's limitations. This is my wife's car, although I do all the driving
She has found a nice looking 2014 FL2 diesel with less than 80k on the clock. I can see that the petrol version has more hp than the diesel, but the diesel has more torque. I can understand that from the engineering perspective, but I am aware that towing at 1700kg I am working at the edge of the vehicle's capacity.
Question is, will I notice or be negatively affected by the difference in the engine and towing ability if we move to the newer diesel version?
Thanks from Melbourne, Australia. First time poster. Not so many petrol FL2 imported here.

Hi there

If memory serves the SD4 is 190 bhp, I’ve got the TD4 160 and it’s great.
Regarding towing, diesel’s are built for it. I’m confident you won’t see any issues with towing.
You’re already close to the towing capacity anyway too. It’s also about the structural integrity of the car not just the powertrain.
I would say it will feel fine with the diesel. Great mileage too. Grab it.

The SD4 has the same acceleration as the 3.2 petrol. But when yer come oft the gas it will be more economical. Diesel rattle will make the petrol sound much quieter. The SD4 ain't short of piwer in all gears.

Hippo said:

The SD4 has the same acceleration as the 3.2 petrol.

Click to expand...

Stats online say 8.5 vs 8.7 sec to 60mph in favour of the 3.2

However, most online stats are not great as they mix up 0-60mph and 0-62mph.

It also depends on the shift points too, meaning one vehicle might need an extra gear change, which could make the vehicles look closer than they really are.

Wonder if anyone has ever done a drag race with them or any proper testing? would be very interesting to see. 40hp power difference is fairly significant really.

300bhp/ton said:

Stats online say 8.5 vs 8.7 sec to 60mph in favour of the 3.2

However, most online stats are not great as they mix up 0-60mph and 0-62mph.

It also depends on the shift points too, meaning one vehicle might need an extra gear change, which could make the vehicles look closer than they really are.

Wonder if anyone has ever done a drag race with them or any proper testing? would be very interesting to see. 40hp power difference is fairly significant really.

Click to expand...

Jesus christ 0.2 seconds and 2mph difference. That really is a massive difference. You'll be wanting to weigh the driver next.

Hippo said:

Jesus christ 0.2 seconds and 2mph difference. That really is a massive difference. You'll be wanting to weigh the driver next.

Click to expand...

No, read the rest of what I put.

Hence asking if anyone had ever raced the two. You often find a lot of interesting things on Youtube. Although I can't see much for this.

A bit more searching has also said 8.4 for the 3.2 and 8.9 for the SD4, but no idea where the stats are from. One USA site also claimed 7.7 sec for the 3.2

Many vehicles will do 60mph towards the red line of a gear, but sometimes require a gearchange to get to 62mph, even an auto is going to take 0.5-0.8 sec to change gear in a stat like this.

So, depending on the origins of the stats, they could be closer or much further apart.

20-80mph or 0-100mph might also produce quite difference results.

The SD4 is only 190PS, so 188bhp. Not sure on the 3.2, but I've seen 231bhp claimed. So the difference could be as much as 43bhp or 21% less power.

The SD4 may have more mid range torque, but at wide open throttle through the gears, you'll only see 2000-2500rpm in 1st gear, as when you shift, you'll likely land past Peak torque.

The SD4 likely goes very well, but flat out I'd guess the 3.2 is faster. But being n/a will require you to rev it out to make the most of it, while the diesel will offer a bigger shove at part throttle and middle revs.

I just think it would be very interesting to see in the real world how they differ performance wise.

For example, here we have two Range Rover Sports, they have a 30% power difference, it makes for a huge real world difference in acceleraiton:




I don't think the FL2 would have such a difference, being the power difference is nearer to 20% and the torque profiles are very different. But it would still be super interesting to see a 3.2 up against an Sd4 in a head to head race.

300bhp/ton said:

No, read the rest of what I put.

Hence asking if anyone had ever raced the two. You often find a lot of interesting things on Youtube. Although I can't see much for this.

A bit more searching has also said 8.4 for the 3.2 and 8.9 for the SD4, but no idea where the stats are from. One USA site also claimed 7.7 sec for the 3.2

Many vehicles will do 60mph towards the red line of a gear, but sometimes require a gearchange to get to 62mph, even an auto is going to take 0.5-0.8 sec to change gear in a stat like this.

So, depending on the origins of the stats, they could be closer or much further apart.

20-80mph or 0-100mph might also produce quite difference results.

The SD4 is only 190PS, so 188bhp. Not sure on the 3.2, but I've seen 231bhp claimed. So the difference could be as much as 43bhp or 21% less power.

The SD4 may have more mid range torque, but at wide open throttle through the gears, you'll only see 2000-2500rpm in 1st gear, as when you shift, you'll likely land past Peak torque.

The SD4 likely goes very well, but flat out I'd guess the 3.2 is faster. But being n/a will require you to rev it out to make the most of it, while the diesel will offer a bigger shove at part throttle and middle revs.

I just think it would be very interesting to see in the real world how they differ performance wise.

For example, here we have two Range Rover Sports, they have a 30% power difference, it makes for a huge real world difference in acceleraiton:




I don't think the FL2 would have such a difference, being the power difference is nearer to 20% and the torque profiles are very different. But it would still be super interesting to see a 3.2 up against an Sd4 in a head to head race.

Click to expand...

I dun't need to read it. Had an SD4 for 10 years. Trust me. Its fast a ****. Put yer foot down and it goes. 0 to 60 makes my FL1 v6 feel slow. In reality no one is going to drive it like they stole it. It will just kill the auto box. Drive it in 2wd and the front wheels easly spin untill the car corrects it. Even on moderate acceleration on dry roads. The only benefit to the 3.2 petrol is its quiet. The diesel FL2's ain't.

Use LR's figures in the sales brochures in my sig.

Hippo said:

I dun't need to read it. Had an SD4 for 10 years. Trust me. Its fast a ****. Put yer foot down and it goes. 0 to 60 makes my FL1 v6 feel slow. In reality no one is going to drive it like they stole it. It will just kill the auto box. Drive it in 2wd and the front wheels easly spin untill the car corrects it. Even on moderate acceleration on dry roads. The only benefit to the 3.2 petrol is its quiet. The diesel FL2's ain't.

Use LR's figures in the sales brochures in my sig.

Click to expand...

FL1 is a completely different vehicle, engine and gearbox though. The KV6 (as nice as they are) only makes 177bhp, so less power than even the SD4 and 53+bhp down on the 3.2 under discussion. So, I'm not sure what relevance it has in this discussion?

Thanks for the brochure links. They say; 8.4 and 8.7 sec. Which certainly makes them close. The 3.2 however seems to do 61mph in 2nd, I couldn't find in-gear speeds for the Sd4, but Td4 auto is 45mph in 2nd and 68mph in 3rd.

This would suggest the 3.2's 0-60mph and 0-62mph (100kph) would be very different. While the SD4's 0-60 and 0-62mph times would be quite similar.

I still think this only paints part of the picture though, as the seat of the pants or butt meter typically isn't a great measure of performance and the turbo induced torque will make the diesel feel quicker than it really is. By the numbers the 3.2 is faster to 60mph (and will undoubtably be more refined and smoother, not that the diesels aren't though). 20-80mph or 0-100mph would be very interesting to see for both. To see if the diesel can keep pace at higher speeds or if you removed the off the line performance, where the turbo torque may again play a big part in the stat.

And of course, we have to assume Land Rover where telling the truth with the stats, often companies lie to help distance models from other models. Sometimes they lie to claim better than real world, but most times it is underrating rather than over. Not saying this is the case, but there would have been good marketing reasons that the FL2 was not quicker than an L322 Range Rover in 2008, considering the price difference and V8 vs S6. Therefore the 8.4 seconds might be a conservative claim. And by the time the Sd4 came out, the game had moved on as the RR would have had the 5.0 s/c or 4.4 TDV8. Giving less need to distance the models in this way. Not saying this is the case, but things like this have certainly happened in the past. Even Land Rover have done things to distance models, such as giving the Td5 Defender a crap tune and less power than the Disco 2 Td5. Done purely to stop the Defender being faster than the more expensive Discovery.

The FL1 v6 is fast enough for a car of its size and type. The FL2 manual can keep up with the FL1 v6.

The SD4 is faster than the above. Goes to 70mph in 3rd.

Facelift FL2's pushed up the comfort and interior. The SD4 gave more power. Both to fight oft the competition. A mid life restyle is cheaper compared to a redesign.

The FL2 is a significant threat to the bigger LR's, with its ability to do most of what they can. It can't tow 3 ton but yer see very few on the road that do. Its reliabilty is important. Parts dept at main dealers admit its the most reliable. They issue parts for servicec and repair. So give a reliable opinion from what they see. Yer can't go wrong when buying a freelander. But some will need more love than pthers.

If yer looking to buy a FL2 then forget the speed. They're fast but not by audi standard. Peeps dun't buy them for speed. The turbo is variable vein so always spinning ready.

I get to drive all sorts of cars for work. Sometimes over 500 miles in a day, twice a week. So I get to see what alternatives are available. While the FL2 is aging nicely, with newer cars catching up, yer can't beat its comfort and driving style. Driving fatigue in ma hippo is much lower than most new cars I get to drive. Ease of use of the controls and switches. Add in a non LR engine for reiability (FL2 diesels are Peugeot DW12 engines, which ford pretend is theirs) and yer can't go wrong.

Hippo said:

Jesus christ 0.2 seconds and 2mph difference. That really is a massive difference. You'll be wanting to weigh the driver next.

Click to expand...

0.2 seconds can't be felt by the driver, so the argument is moot.
Both are reasonable for the vehicle type and handling characteristics.

Of course a decent EV makes all Freelander's seem slow.

Nodge68 said:

0.2 seconds can't be felt by the driver, so the argument is moot.
Both are reasonable for the vehicle type and handling characteristics.

Of course a decent EV makes all Freelander's seem slow.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are ICEs that make the Freelander feel slow.

And there will be ICEs and EVs that make the Freelander seem fast.

GrumpyGel said:

I'm sure there are ICEs that make the Freelander feel slow.

And there will be ICEs and EVs that make the Freelander seem fast.

Click to expand...

Of course there are. Our Audi A5 diesel is miles faster than any Freelander, and our EV is miles faster than the Audi.
In general, an EV is faster accelerating than an equivalent size ICE vehicle. There are family SUV EVs that are faster than super cars.

Hippo said:

If yer looking to buy a FL2 then forget the speed. They're fast but not by audi standard. Peeps dun't buy them for speed.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point of the question. The op asked specifically about the 3.2 which they have now vs an SD4 they are considering. And how the performance would vary....

MrMagnani said:

Question is, will I notice or be negatively affected by the difference in the engine and towing ability if we move to the newer diesel version?

Click to expand...

Nodge68 said:

0.2 seconds can't be felt by the driver, so the argument is moot.

Click to expand...

Speed can most certainly be felt.

Looking further 0-60mph is 8.4 vs 8.7, so pretty close.

However, 0-62mph is 8.9 vs 9.5 sec

Only 2 mph more, but the diesel has dropped by double the amount of time. And interestingly the 3.2 has had to do a gearchange to get to 62mph, as the brouchure says 61mph max speed in 2nd gear, so 3rd would be needed. The Sd4 is already in 3rd, as it only does 48mph in 2nd.

I'd suggest that while the SD4 goes very very well and has a big mid range turbo shove (which may be better for towing). Flat out at wide open throttle the 3.2 is probably the faster vehicle, with the difference becoming more apparent the higher the speeds get.

The Sd4 is also going to suffer turbo lag, mostly masked by the autobox I'm sure, but it will still be there. The 3.2 won't, so may need more revs on hills and to offer the same acceleration when towing. But may still be the smoother drive.

It may or may not be an issue for the op, but is at the very least quite interesting. And without a real world vehicle test, is very hard to prove one way or another.

300bhp/ton said:

You are missing the point of the question. The op asked specifically about the 3.2 which they have now vs an SD4 they are considering. And how the performance would vary....

Click to expand...

muppet

300bhp/ton said:

Speed can most certainly be felt.

Looking further 0-60mph is 8.4 vs 8.7, so pretty close.

However, 0-62mph is 8.9 vs 9.5 sec

Only 2 mph more, but the diesel has dropped by double the amount of time. And interestingly the 3.2 has had to do a gearchange to get to 62mph, as the brouchure says 61mph max speed in 2nd gear, so 3rd would be needed. The Sd4 is already in 3rd, as it only does 48mph in 2nd.

I'd suggest that while the SD4 goes very very well and has a big mid range turbo shove (which may be better for towing). Flat out at wide open throttle the 3.2 is probably the faster vehicle, with the difference becoming more apparent the higher the speeds get.

The Sd4 is also going to suffer turbo lag, mostly masked by the autobox I'm sure, but it will still be there. The 3.2 won't, so may need more revs on hills and to offer the same acceleration when towing. But may still be the smoother drive.

It may or may not be an issue for the op, but is at the very least quite interesting. And without a real world vehicle test, is very hard to prove one way or another.

Click to expand...

Its clear you have no experience behind the wheel of an SD4. Turbo lag and gearbox problems. More guess work.