NAV8 vs SCV6 Comparison

[neezer]

Both sound like they're large machines, if that makes sense. It certainly doesn't sound like a V6-powered vehicle in the sense that so, so many out there do. Hard to explain, but yeah I expected the noise delta to be larger. Honestly on startup the 5L V8 never sounded wow on any LR product, decent only. However, the SUPERCHARGED 5.0L in several Jag products, and certainly the new 2014+ RRS, omg...sounds spectacular. Sure, a lot has to do with exhaust work

Now when you're accelerating hard, yes that sweet 5.0L sounds better, but I am overall highly impressed with this SCV6 application. I read that it sounded trashy in the new RRS. Not at all in my '16, somehow...

 

[neezer]

Compare acceleration numbers, you'll see how extremely close they are (and the 0-30 are equal), V8 LR4 (2010) vs SCV6 LR4 (2015). No idea why their 2015 test car was so freakin heavy, makes no sense. Anyway:

V8 LR4: http://media.caranddriver.com/files...011-land-rover-lr4-hse-2010-lexus-gx460-2.pdf

SCV6: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-land-rover-lr4-30-v-6-test-review

 

[crash1121]

I still haven't found the right '13 after searching for nearly 6 months. The combination of color, packages, and mileage that I want are making this a mighty long process for me, although there have been a handful of teaser, near-perfect rigs pop up on the market. Summer isn't quite here yet though, so I've got a little more time before I'll really get antsy.

My lack of luck finding the perfect '13 convinced me to drive SCV6s on a number of occasions to see if they would grow on me, but I've decided to keep waiting. I'm not knocking on the SCV6 one bit, but (for me) after driving both back-to-back, the V8 is most definitely smoother in scenarios such as kick down, acceleration, and especially the effortlessness in the way it delivers its power. So for me, it's not just the lack of power that's keeping me from getting the SCV6. That said, I've spoken to a few local SCV6 owners who absolutely love them, and one guy owned a V8 before and likes the SCV6 just as much.

 

[Surfrider77]

Compare acceleration numbers, you'll see how extremely close they are (and the 0-30 are equal), V8 LR4 (2010) vs SCV6 LR4 (2015). No idea why their 2015 test car was so freakin heavy, makes no sense. Anyway:

V8 LR4: http://media.caranddriver.com/files...011-land-rover-lr4-hse-2010-lexus-gx460-2.pdf

SCV6: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-land-rover-lr4-30-v-6-test-review

All these MPG and acceleration tests would be a hell of a lot more meaningful if they shared the same transmission. You can take two identical engines but the 8 speed transmission makes a significant difference. Cruising at highway speed 800-1k or so RPM higher will make your fuel burn difference.

I still don't buy that the engine (SCV6) is better than the outgoing V8, especially considering it is considerable less HP and TQ. The transmission is making all the difference between these two models.

 

[neezer]

That's true Surf, but the mere fact that you simply cannot get the V8 with the 8speed, nor the V6 with the 6speed, makes it a real comparo. It is just about the 2010-2013 vs 2014-2016 cars in terms of the important factors (for a luxury ride) of accel, smoothness, range capability, response, etc.

 

[roverman]

"The 2015 is .2 seconds slower to 60, and out on the street it feels even MORE lethargic than that" I'm not sure I'd use lethargic for .2 seconds to 60. These reviews crack me up. Worried about skidpad results on a 5600 pound vehicle? Then you're buying the wrong vehicle...
Either one of them is about as fast 0-60 as my old '80s V8 camaro. I'd say that's probably good enough for an SUV.

 

[neezer]

"The 2015 is .2 seconds slower to 60, and out on the street it feels even MORE lethargic than that" I'm not sure I'd use lethargic for .2 seconds to 60. These reviews crack me up. Worried about skidpad results on a 5600 pound vehicle? Then you're buying the wrong vehicle...
Either one of them is about as fast 0-60 as my old '80s V8 camaro. I'd say that's probably good enough for an SUV.

Yeah, in general I like C&D, but that is a pretty terrible article. They claim super-intrusive DSC is getting in the way of their skipad testing, ok so TURN IT OFF and try!

 

[k-lr]

So, I know this has been a heated debate as to why people have picked a 2013 model before it ended and not sure about the SCV6. Those of us with a 2014 have probably never had a chance to even drive an LR4 with the NAV8.

Last week I was able to have a 2011 LR4 loaner vehicle while my 2014 was in the shop. This gave me an opportunity to check out the 5.0 V8 in the previous models. I had the vehicle for 24 hours so I was able to really compare it to my daily routine in comparison to my SCV6 performance.

Couple Thoughts - Good and Bad:
1) While I will say, the NAV8 sounds amazing in comparison to the SCV6's Supercharger whine, I wasn't overly impressed.
2) I really didn't feel like the V8 had more power than my SCV6. Navigating city streets or cruising down the highway, there was no significant difference in coming to speed or lane changing in traffic.
3) There was a noticeable difference between a NA engine and a FI engine in terms of throttle response. You have to approach the gas pedal differently.
4) Fuel mileage was about 1 MPG less than what I typically get in my vehicle.
5) Really didn't like the gear shift. I know people think the knob in the 2014 is somewhat silly but it really opens up space in the center console area.


I had expectations that when I got back in my SCV6 there was going to be a huge empty feeling in my gut from feeling like the V8 was going to be missed, but there wasn't. I am perfectly happy with the SCV6 in my 2014 LR4.

I have a 2013 LR4 with the V8 and had a SCV6 loaner over the weekend. agree with pretty much everything you said with two main differences - the loaner I had returned about 1-2 mpg less than mine (and it had the stock tire option - Pirelli 20" whereas mine has cooper LTZ 19's which come with a mileage penalty due to their tread design). mine gives about 16-17mpg overall (mostly highway commute) and the SCV6 returned about 14-15 mpg for the same commute - I ran the actual numbers between gallons used and miles covered and not the dash readouts.

the engine did feel a lot harsher and rougher in its feel than my V-8 - although this could just be the difference of a 5000 mile old engine in the loaner versus a 65K well broken in engine in mine .

other than that .... no real world difference in the way acceleration and throttle response between the two in the normal drive mode. in sport mode, I actually prefer my 6 speed to the 8 speed - felt that the 8 was popping way too many gears in sport mode.

 

[neezer]

By any chance did any of you notice a difference in the ride/suspension feel, or body composure, between the V8 LR4s and the 2014+ ones? I need to try a 2010-2013 again but back-to-back with my 2016, but I swear, it seems as if LR tightened things up a bit. I just simply recall on my 2011-2012 loaners that they had more dive/pitch and lateral boing-boing movement going on (like when I go onto my garage driveway diagonally). I know the literature and press releases don't claim any changes whatsoever, but I am suspect it?!

 

[Hayseed_LR4]

lateral boing-boing movement

I think they specifically targeted that boing-boing movement.