I thought it might be interesting to discuss the Freelander 2 in an off road situation:

I had various off-road vehicles (JEEP CJ7, Freelander 1, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee 4,7 ), and lived mostly in South Africa where i used to off road with a club (did the roof of africa in my CJ7).
Unfortunately i have been unemployed for sevral months now (Italy is tough at the moment)....

but the positive is that I have been OFF ROADING EVERY DAY !

the first comparison that comes to mind is with the Freelander 1...
The Free 2 has LOTS more torque and its higher off the ground ! With the Free 1 I used to charge at the obstacles, and let the traction control do the work. With the Free 2 it has improved slightly.

1)The biggest fault of the Free 2 is the lack of low end grunt (nothing below 2000 RPM). This comes to light in a steep uphill start, and boulder crawl. If you stop on a steep incline (grass and dry).. its a mission to pull off again ! You got to juggle clutch, brakes and accelerator (obviously with the DSC off, otherwise you will stall every time)
A low first gear would be nice !!!
I am looking forward to the new 9 speed box (automatic), as this might just cure the lack of low range, and bring the car in line with its capabilities. I will buy an auto box next time ! had both, and an auto is infinitely better in off road ! (i am sorry i bought a manual Free2)

2)The only other real fault is the low ground clearance. Its much better than Free 1, but not yet in line with what the car is capable of ! I am hitting the belly, even where a Subaru goes through without scraping (they are 23Cm ground clearance)

3) finally an observation... every outing without fail (i do uphill starts, and slow twisters and rut crossings) ends up with a HDC FAULT Message. and if you insist the HDC goes a bit crazy (brakes initially when you are accelerating). I don't think the electronics are up to the capabilities of the car.

next month I am off with the LR club to do an 80KM off-road outing (an old salt road) so we will see how she behaves... though those outings are long but not tough.

oh.. and the paint scratches easier than the Free1 (eco paint ?)

on a closing note.... I miss the power of my Jeep 4,7 (really makes you feel in control, in off-road situations)

just my 2 cents

what are your observations ?

I agree with much of what you say, but perhaps not all. The TD4 engine has plenty of torque, and peak torque is at 2000 rpm with most of that available from 1600-1800. So I don't think the problem is lack of torque, or the revs at which the torque is delivered, it is simply the gearing. People on here will be sick of hearing me say it, but the FL2 should have had low range and that's it's only (for me) real failing. And personally I'd take a manual with low range over an auto every time - I just hope they fix this with the FL3 (whatever it's called) and give it a proper low range transfer case. (I'm also far from convinced by 9-speed autos -many people have commented that they're far too 'busy', changing all the time when it's not necessary, and are more about fuel consumption than driveability.)

Remember, by the way, that the terrain response system reduces throttle response, so with the TR on the car will feel like it has less torque than it actually does and if you really want maximum torque you'll have to floor it (or turn the TR off). But in the situations you describe (steep grassy slope) the FL2 should have more than enough torque to break traction it you're not careful! But perhaps the best advice for steep grassy slopes is not to stop on them!

You comments about Suburus are interesting too. I came to the FL2 from a Forester, and whatever the figures say I would take the FL2 places where I'd think twice about taking the Forester - it just feels so much more competent, and better protected if it does hit anything. A bit more ground clearance would be nice, of course, but in its class it's pretty good.

So, for me, give me low range and I'd be more than happy with the FL2. Even without it I'd rather be driving it than anything else this side of a D4, just for its all-round on and off road comfort and capability.

I've got a Jeep Grand 2.7 CRD and have taken my 08 auto FL2 everywhere the Jeep has been. I believe that if you buy a car with no low range then it has to be an auto diesel to compensate. The diesel gets the torque to the wheels at lower revs so the wheels spin less. Using low range and first or second gear is infinitely better for descending steep slopes than using the HDC in the FL2. I was on some very tough, steep rocky tracks in the Victorian High Country with the FL2 last summer and the HDC was losing it big time squealing its head off by the bottom of the hills. We are talking steep 5km downhill runs at 10kph
maximum speed due to the rock ledges and ruts. You could have roasted marshmellows on the brake pads. I went back with the Jeep in March and didn't even need the brakes crawling down in low range first. The same with steep ascents. The FL2 had no trouble traction wise climbing some really tough stuff but the auto and terrain response were working overtime causing the transmission temperature light to come on a number of times. The Jeep crawls up the same or worse inclines with very little effort.
Speaking of Foresters, I am a member of the Subaru Club in Australia and we do a yearly trip to Abercrombie River National Park to tackle Little Bald Hill. It's an awesomely steep hill with loose gravel and very few non low range cars have made it up. Rav 4's, CRV's, manual petrol Foresters, petrol XTrails...forget it, they all have failed. Auto petrol Foresters with the newer traction control are stretched completely to the limit to make it, diesel XTrails have made it and my FL2 made it very comfortably, easily in fact. It's very entertaining watching the show as the cars all try "that hill".

Absolutely right, Mike. A proper low range is infinitely better than electronics when it comes to descents, steep ascents and rock crawls. The Isuzu I had 20 years ago was better at that stuff than the FL2! (Although the FL2's better in most other ways, of course.) Unfortunately it seems that all the electronic gizmos are there more for marketing reasons than real capability - they appeal to the people who will never go off road and will never use them!

I agree with the low range box, however I understand also how Land Rover want to position this car (multi purpose)

so, my proposal is to leave it as a 6 speed with 1st gear marked L and the rest from 1 - 5 gears.
under normal everyday circumstances you would pull off in 1st gear (slightly higher than the present 1st.), and when in need off-road you could use the L which would be considerably lower than the actual one.
Maybe this is a more doable compromise ?

The car would perform to its max capabilities, without being a hard core vehicle !
In actual fact it would become one of the most ideal dual purpose vehicles !

BTW: I was referring to the Subaru XV with 5 speed dual range box. there was one that participated with us, and he scraped less. maybe because he approached the obstacles slower ?

Sorry, but the FL2 is still a Land Rover, and a Land Rover should have a proper low range and locking or limited slip diffs. Nothing less is true to the brand's heritage! If Subaru can provide low range (actually, more of a medium range, but the principle's the same!) in their manuals then I'm sure LR can do the same.

On paper the ground clearances of the FL2 and XV are similar (210 vs 220), so the difference may well have been due to slower approach. Or maybe there were lots of rocks which were exactly 215 mm high...

The most worrying thing for me is that the lowest point on the FL2 happens to be the fuel tank. Hence the fitting of a Mantec tank guard.

I agree with the low range comments, but I do think the Fl2 is impressive and makes the most of what it has. Perhaps LR can add low range as an option as they have done in the new RR Sport. 21MY Defender 90 S 3.0 D200

Add a Low Range option like they do on the new sport

You want LR to follow in the RRS my14 footsteps charge lots more for a car that has a lower spec than the current outgoing model that you on get LOw Range if you can afford a top spec car

More likely to tow ones horse to the trials and need LR to get off the muddy field or more likely to off road a cheaper spec but sorry you cant have LR box  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

No, that's not what I said. If they can offer it as an option on one model then surely they can offer it for the Fl2 replacement for those that want it.

I've never liked the Sport, but this one takes the biscuit. They've raided the Evoque and FFRR parts bin and come up with the new sport. 21MY Defender 90 S 3.0 D200

i can't see the FL2v3 getting the LR box, they are obviously under the impression that its not used, if they wasn't it wouldn't have been dropped from the RRS as a standard item

A Range Rover without Low Range Gearing is madness  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

I can't see it either.

I don't see the harm in retaining the low range gearing in the sport. Too much emphasis on lowering CO2. 21MY Defender 90 S 3.0 D200

Especially considering that the free and evoque are their best sellers, which to them it shows that these type of cars have a bigger market.
So why change a winning formula ?
Unless the competition gets more agressive.... Such as the new Kia sorrento with dif lock and traction control
Lets see what lr3 brings us

Donnus wrote:

... the free and evoque are their best sellers, which to them it shows that these type of cars have a bigger market.

More car makers are ditching low range than adding it I'm afraid. The VW Touareg, VW Amarok auto, Kia Sorrento come to mind. Even though there are many 4x4's in Australia, only a few as a percentage leave the blacktop. That's also why more are being sold with large rims and low profile tyres...a rubbish combination for tough off road conditions. Most people who want a proper 4x4 here buy a standard Japanese one and spend up to $20,000 modifying it for the job. They buy Japanese because the modifications are available and the cars are reliable. It's no good giving an FL2 a low range box if there is no snorkel, lift, winch bar etc available. Out here you need 33" tyres minimum to get past some of the obstacles so you need a lift for them to fit. You also need at least an 800mm wading depth and you need both the lift and snorkel for that. You can spec up a Disco to that and I've seen quite a few. An FL2 looks like a toy sitting next to them and without the mods it gets pulled up at the first big bump in the track or flooded river. I believe the car could handle it in its current form if the modifications were available but nobody is going to make them due to lack of demand. It won't get a low range box for the same reason. Twenty inch rims are more likely.