It looks like Land Rover are not going to market the MY13 FL2 in the UK with the option of the Si4 Petrol engine as fitted to the Evoque.

If it was available...would you...???

Possibly depending on facts and figures  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

Not me! Even though petrol is the superior fuel. It offers a quieter smoother drive with no DPF to worry about etc but the fuel and tax costs would be too much. Plus the problem with N/A petrol is that to get the best out of them, you really have to rev them which will hit the MPG big time. The 190bhp and 310 lb ft in the SD4 is more than enough grunt and is quiet enough too.  60 plate SD4 XS, Stornoway Grey, Arm rest pack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly--gT1RJdk

Agree it is not for everyone but hard to reason why we don't get the option.

richardk wrote:

Agree it is not for everyone but hard to reason why we don't get the option.

LR would probably say the demand would not justify it. Evoque is a new 'premium' offering that would appeal to those with more cash.

The FL2 is the entry level LR and would appeal to those looking for a quality 4x4 from LR but for realistic money (relatively speaking). As such, the vast majority of customers would choose diesel, making the petrol a waste of money for LR to make.

They made a V8 Disco 3 for a while but sales fell through the floor. Until the Evoque, only the RRS and FFRR had the beefy petrol engines. But even a chicken farmer and a resident of Aberdeen had the sense to choose diesel. One of them had the sense to buy a proper Range Rover too  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

personally i would stick with the derv, i can see the attraction of a V8 petrol but not a smaller similar powered petrol to the diesel, also residual values of petrol 4x4's are terrible!
don't get me wrong i've had plenty of big powered petrol bmw's subaru's etc but for me i prefer diesel 4x4's.

I think diesel is far the better fuel for a vehicle of this type

I would say it's a marketing decision, aimed at not robbing current Evoque sales ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

It would be so under powered! When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

chrisdeeming wrote:

It would be so under powered!

How can the 2l petrol be more powerful than the 3.2 ? And it's all about the torque so diesels would be better IMO xd When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

I know someone with a petrol Evoque and they struggle to see anything near 30mpg - the FL2 being heavier would fair even worse!

The new 2.0 litre petrol engine has more power, 237 v 233 and more torque 340 v 234 than the old 3.2 unit.
DPF is putting many people off as it is not ideal for those pottering to the shops now and again, the 2.0 litre petrol as Shilen says, will be terrible on mpg for those same people.

Tbh taz I assumed it would be less powerful than that, however I still think it will be worked too hard for the weight of our freel2 the diesel sd4 is the perfect choice for power and fuel efficiency (y)  When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

Official combined fuel consumption for the Si4 engine in an Evoque is 32.5 mpg. Given that Freelander 2 is a bit heavier than an Evoque I would hope for an official combined in a Freelander 2 of 30 mpg ish.

0-60 mph in an Evoque is 7.1 secs, so again given the extra weight a Freelander 2 will probably do the same in under 8.0 secs.

If you're after fuel efficiency in a Freelander then I'm currently getting 40 mpg from my TD4 manual and 35 mpg from my work SD4 on similar roads/journeys.