chrisdeeming wrote:

It would be so under powered!

Kal-El wrote:

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.

If you do lots of miles then derv is the only way...but if you only do 10,000 miles per year then petrol is cheaper than diesel to offset the lower mpg.

Anyway quite a few are saying the petrol might be of interest...hopefully LR will see sense.

I'd buy diesel (as I do now) if it didn't have a DPF as that is not compatible with the driving we do...it's not about power or mpg..just an engine that won't keep needing to go back to the dealer to have the dpf reset and the oil changed/wallet emptied

If the Evoque is based on the fL2 there can't be too much in the way of engineering changes to make the SI4 fit can there?

For those worried by DPF issues in Freelander 2 or Evoque diesels pop along to your nearest LRE Centre and ask them if they have any problems with them - I'm pretty sure the answer is they don't and their vehicles do plenty of short, slow journeys.

Only 30% of the Evoque chassis is the same as the Freelander 2 but the Si4 engine will fit a Freelander 2 as it is already on sale in a number of overseas markets in Si4 guise.

That 2.0 Ecoboost drinks fuel! I had the 203ps version in my Mondeo and couldn't better 27mpg. My neighbour had it in a Galaxy and could squeeze it to 30mpg on a long motorway run.

In a fl2, or Evoque, it would be less economical than the Mondeo application so not an economical choice. If you did low mileage and were not bothered about tax it would be a nice choice.

However, in the Mondeo I picked mine up for less than a 2.2TDCi because it was less popular, being petrol, and there was a lot in TCH as they bought the first batch of Ford-Direct cars from Ford. I'm not sure LR would be the same. I'm guessing you'd have to get one as a factory order and they wouldn't be many made just for the hell of it, like say a Td4 GS Fl2.

Also I think the Fl2 is - relaxing chilled car, you cruise sensibly, not race about and in my mind the diesels suit that style well. Lastly I thought the Ecoboosts felt slower than they were. Mainly because they were linear, smooth and quiet. You never knew anything was actually happening.

Yes, it would be a good choice for someone who relishes a silent car. But I'm BIK'd on emissions so give me a 1.0 2-cyl quad-turbo, 64 valve, diesel that claims to do 93mpg and emit 67g/km CO2 in the Fl2
Maybe not!

I'll give you a yes as cars are about choice, individuality and FUN!

rchrdleigh wrote:

For those worried by DPF issues in Freelander 2 or Evoque diesels pop along to your nearest LRE Centre and ask them if they have any problems with them - I'm pretty sure the answer is they don't and their vehicles do plenty of short, slow journeys.

Only 30% of the Evoque chassis is the same as the Freelander 2 but the Si4 engine will fit a Freelander 2 as it is already on sale in a number of overseas markets in Si4 guise.

The comments about weight and mpg is rubbish to a degree. It can't be compared to a Mondeo or Galaxy. Apart from the fact that these two cars do not run the same spec of engine as the LR version.

LR changed the head, turbo and pistons to make the engine more efficient than it's Ford counterpart. Ford have for the first time used the 2.0 ecoboost in LR spec in the new Forcus ST. hence the higher power output.

Gearing is also changed mode to model.

Personally, I would buy the Si4 tomorrow over the diesel. 17000 miles a year is the break even point between the two when you consider purchase price, fuel cost, mpg etc.

I have driven an Si4 FL2 and it is just brilliant. The torque is fantastic, and the overall performance with 240bhp is amazing.

I did 134 miles in it and achieving over 30 mpg on a run was easy. I was managing 36mpg. Don't forget, a turbo charged petrol is way more efficient than it's normally aspirated counterpart as turbo engines are much lower compression.

At worst it hit 21mpg.

Kal-El wrote:

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.

chrisdeeming wrote:

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

Mav, you have set out the arguments for the Si4 far more eloquently than I could. I do max 12K pa, mix of short (up to 20 miles) and long (500 mile round trips) followed by sometimes weeks of sitting idle; for that kind of mileage and drving pattern a petrol engine is the way to go. LR seem intent of not giving us the choice though, even the Dolly Trolley is diesel only in UK now.

Please Land Rover can I have the Si4?!

Mav71 wrote:

The comments about weight and mpg is rubbish to a degree. It can't be compared to a Mondeo or Galaxy. Apart from the fact that these two cars do not run the same spec of engine as the LR version.

Thoughtful reply Harvey. Thing is, what you refer to is marginal to someone like me. What I want is a choice; mpg and emissions are relative, especially on my mileage and whilst the SD4 is a good unit, there is much in it which can (and does) go wrong. For that reason, i would prefer to go with a petrol engine next. May have higher mpg and emissions, but as I say, on my mileage, its hardly going to amount to a hill of beans.

TBH, I am PRO a Si4 Fl2 being introduced in the UK, as I think the customer should have the choice. Co-car tax rules being in CO2 means we'd have to go diesel, plus we only need a GS and I'm sure LR would only bring in the Si4 as a HSE, oh and it's an auto so I'm stuffed on 3 counts.

When LR first introduced the Fl2 I thought the 2.5 5-cyl turbo would have been a better choice than the 3.2 6-cyl. But LR have their reasons no doubt

Harvey, your arguments are flawed. Of course a diesel will get more to the gallon, but you have to weigh this up against the fact the diesel costs considerably more than a petrol to buy and that diesel is more to buy and diesels cost more to service.

Also, have a look at the gear ratios and final drive of the Evoque compared to the FL2. They are different. Emmisions and mpg are not all to do with the engine.

The 2013MY FL2 is better on MPG and emmisions that the current car, but the engines have not changed. It is down to software, transmission etc that can make a car more efficient.

The Mondeo is getting the 240ps Ecoboost unitmin full LR spec, and it is lower on emissions and better mpg than the 200bhp version in the current car.

You are stating a lot more about your own circumstances which is fine, but we are all not in the same situation. Of course, under current co car tax rules, diesels will provide a lower company car tax bill, but many buy as private so this doesn't matter.

If the Si4 does come out, you will find it is available across the range. It is in foreign countries. Freelander 2 HSE Lux 2013MY - Barolo Black with Ivory Leather. Alpine DVD - Privacy -Evoque 20" Dynamic Wheels and more to come.........

After having drive the Si4 in an Evoque and being gobsmacked on how well it performed I would love it in a FL2. This would be a private purchase..any company car for me has to have CO2 of under 120 (hence the current FL2 auto is a personal car too).

Like Mav I mpg and CO2 are not relevant to me given the low private mileage we do vs the higher cost of diesel fuel and engines - and those ruddy eu demanded DPFs

I am assured by a LR dealer that the SI4 Evoque is in hot demand both new and used.

The first Evoque at LRE Rockingham was an Si4 and it performed brilliantly, the current one is an SD4 which is also a great drive.

Having briefly looked at the Freelander MY13 brochure there is no Si4 engine option at the moment but if enough people ask for it, it might happen in the future. Now going to peruse the brochure in more detail and see what other changes there are.

rchrdleigh wrote:

Having briefly looked at the Freelander MY13 brochure there is no Si4 engine option at the moment but if enough people ask for it, it might happen in the future. .

boo hiss..confirms what I'd heard from Mr M. Fingers crossed JLR read this site. Not sure I can stretch to an Evoque at the moment