The New Range Rover Sport

[ak]

I've been doing some reading and the base model does not come with low range. You have to order the next spec up the Super-charged Twin Turbo. I wonder how less capable this base model will be without low range compared to the next spec up. I know TR has come along way from what a classic Rangie was with a CDL but I can't help thinking Land Rover is ever so slowly moving away from it's core values in pursuit of making high end luxury cars.

[Rich84]

Supercharged twin-turbo?? I'll take that one. You mean SDV6 or supercharged v6 petrol or higher? I'd want the SDV8 but the $$$ are extremely high. Might buy one in 5-6 years.

Either way I definitely wouldn't want to tackle anything difficult without low range, think of the stress you're putting on the drivetrain. I agree that nothing with a Range Rover badge should be getting around without low range but the vast majority of present Sport owners don't off-road their cars (ie, Toorak tractors), this is probably a strategic move in order that anyone who really wants the dual range box will have to spend extra (again) to get a car with it. So really anyone who thinks a dual range box is useful will now be spending $130K+ instead of $105K+ for the base model, when the outgoing model had it in base spec. The average 'value' of the car will increase closer to the FFRR.

I have read that the single speed transfer box utilises a torsen centre diff so I'm assuming it'll handle something like a torsen-quattro equipped Audi. It'd be a bit like an X5 I can only assume. Anything super steep, forget it. Of course you'd have a lot better underbody protection than an X5.

[chippy]

without low range it appears obvious they are trying to take more of the BMW and Porche SUV market and entry price to RRS proper 4x4 is now higher.

the other thing that seems like a problem if someone wants to use it in outback Oz to me is tyre size. it looks like it has 19" disk brakes and 19" wheels the smallest to fit it.

also i read somewhere their aluminium body construction has some cost savings technics making it comparable to steel body cost because they are saving huge amounts on electricity cost, due to riveting instead of welding ? if i understand that correctly i am not sure how i feel about driving around after 10-15 years over corrugations in a body thats been riveted together ;)

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Aren't aluminium planes riveted together?

[ytt105]

Personally, I think the deletion of a low range box is a good thing!

With the introduction of an 8 speed box, low range is probably superfluous.

What we need is some low gearing. Not eight low range gears where only the bottom 2 or 3 are lower than the bottom ones in the high range.

How about 2 super low gears, accessed manually if required, and via terrain response normally. Plus 5 close ratio gears for on road driving and a tall gear for cruising.

With adjustable air suspension the clearance issues are taken care of, so we still have a true off-roader.

Landrover already has all the required technology!

[benji]

I think you'd find majority of strength comes from structural adhesive anyway.


Sent from my GT-I9305T using AULRO mobile app

[101RRS]

Personally, I think the deletion of a low range box is a good thing!

With the introduction of an 8 speed box, low range is probably superfluous.

What we need is some low gearing. Not eight low range gears where only the bottom 2 or 3 are lower than the bottom ones in the high range.

How about 2 super low gears, accessed manually if required, and via terrain response normally. Plus 5 close ratio gears for on road driving and a tall gear for cruising.

With adjustable air suspension the clearance issues are taken care of, so we still have a true off-roader.

Landrover already has all the required technology!

All well and good but that is not how it is - the 8 speed has normal gears in it - it does not have have say gears 1 and 2 as crawler gears. If it did, your point would be valid but it doesn't. The vehicle as designed is basically a big Freelander - good in most offroad conditions but when you are on slow steep country - no good.

Garry

[ytt105]

Yes Garycol, that may be how it is, but not how it could be!

I recon with my system, the Freelander and Evoque would be unstopable!

[ak]

All well and good but that is not how it is - the 8 speed has normal gears in it - it does not have have say gears 1 and 2 as crawler gears. If it did, your point would be valid but it doesn't. The vehicle as designed is basically a big Freelander - good in most offroad conditions but when you are on slow steep country - no good.

Garry

Agreed Garry I wouldn't buy a Land Rover or any other off road vehicle unless it has low range. I want a real 4wd not a pretender.

[chippy]

Agreed Garry I wouldn't buy a Land Rover or any other off road vehicle unless it has low range. I want a real 4wd not a pretender.

so true, for me and you--but they suit some ppl

these SUV's (i tell my kids, whom are now adults but i still call em kids) as i call them, Suburban Urban Vehicles and my kids believe it :p(read havnt caught on yet) are fine for a lot of things, just not going way out back and up and down all the beaches and out of the tracks we have...


i bet my ol mum would have loved an all wheel drive (Suburban Urban Vehicle) in the old days when we used to have to drive several hours to the city, much of which were wet slippery dirt roads to do our shopping, the old falcon station wagon slipped and slided the whole way until we reached the tarmac and i can still see her struggling with the steering wheel and taking a deep breath once we got there...thing is as bad as it was she would have still took the falcon over an old slow and bumpy land rover (not me but you get where i am coming from)...the SUV's are good for something but ironically a lot of those old dirt roads are now sealed :)

[101RRS]

Yes Garycol, that may be how it is, but not how it could be!

I would like to see pigs fly but it ain't goin to happen :D

[101RRS]

Agreed Garry I wouldn't buy a Land Rover or any other off road vehicle unless it has low range. I want a real 4wd not a pretender.

I have a real 4wd that is more capable than most all Landrovers and it does not have low range, and doesn't even have 35" tyres - only 24" tyres.

But in the context of the discussion - yes you are correct.

[Marmoset]

The new evoque 9 speed gearbox gets a lower 1st gear. It would make more sense to have a couple of low gears in an existing box as modern engines have the torque to cope with starting in say 3rd, leaving a couple of under drive/low gears. It all helps get the weight down and economy up I guess, I suppose it's also one less drivetrain join to leak without a transfer case :wasntme:

[Rich84]

I have a real 4wd that is more capable than most all Landrovers and it does not have low range, and doesn't even have 35" tyres - only 24" tyres.

But in the context of the discussion - yes you are correct.

And what 4x4 is that Garry?

[ytt105]

The new evoque 9 speed gearbox gets a lower 1st gear. It would make more sense to have a couple of low gears in an existing box as modern engines have the torque to cope with starting in say 3rd, leaving a couple of under drive/low gears. It all helps get the weight down and economy up I guess, I suppose it's also one less drivetrain join to leak without a transfer case :wasntme:

Throw in the air suspension and it would be a weapon, a squashed ugly weapon, but still a weapon.

[Geedublya]

And what 4x4 is that Garry?

1973 Haflinger AP700

[101RRS]

1973 Haflinger AP700

Signature blocks contain a lot of information.:)

[Geedublya]

I prefer: 1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster :D

Though I'm sure the Hafy is a lot of fun.

[DiscoWeb]

Gents, is no this ultimately the key argument/issue for the brand.

I am sure LR know that the vast majority of RR and RRS owners will never really use their vehicles in anything more difficult than a gravel road, the beach or a trip to the snow.

So dropping a who transfer case (that will never get used) and making the car lighter, more fuel efficient and therefore attractive to the main buyer segment is a pretty simply equation.

For those that really want to take their Sport off road they will either have to step up to the next model or buy a Disco 4 or 5 when released.

Now I hope they retain low range in the next generation Discover (whenever that gets released) because if they go with the new aluminium style frame and drop 450 -500 kg the new Discovery will be equally as awesome as the new Sport sound from every report I have read.


garrycol, whilst I am sure the Haflinger is great off road I am pretty sure it next to useless and a long distance tourer. Not a very fair comparison as the fact it has only 1 gear box is because it is basically low range with no high range, not the other way around.

Regards,

George.

[chippy]

George i agree with you all the way.:BigThumb:

except it appears to me, being part of the great unwashed so not well informed in these matters, that its basically a low range box, but with overdrive (ratio .71 from mem) which was probably ahead of its time in the day, when they built them or first designed them...assuming they are an old design <shrugs> still its top speed, even with the overdrive is only 75klm or so the stats reads. cool car but hardly enough to scare a kangaroo, or the mother in law sitting in the back, hehe

the diameter tyres arnt really comparable to RRS either as the wheels are much much smaller (its not the outer dia ppl have a problem with, as much as its the reduced side wall measurement), e.g the side wall is still pretty good on the halfdude 4wd, not unlike old little suzuki 4wd etc

[101RRS]

garrycol, whilst I am sure the Haflinger is great off road I am pretty sure it next to useless and a long distance tourer. Not a very fair comparison as the fact it has only 1 gear box is because it is basically low range with no high range, not the other way around.

Regards,

George.

For sure but the context was that to be a good 4wd you must have low range which is not the case (low gearing yes but not necessarily low range) - touring ability was not the point of discussion - you have brought in other issues that were not part of the discussion and vehicles were not being compared. Your point on it just having a low range box is not so - it has a normal high range box with just an extra low first.

Cheers

Garry

[gghaggis]

In the W4 Land Rover Challenge this past September, the Evoque climbed close to every "steep" incline the cars with low-range did, although admittedly a little faster :eek:. Only it's ramp-over angle really let it down.

The auto box (we have the 6-speed) is very good. I can only surmise that the 9-speed Evoque will be even better. Other than serious rock-climbing, I think the Evoque, and by extension the new RRS without low-range, will surprise people offroad.

I'd still get the low-range box though :twisted:

Cheers,

Gordon

[giskard]

I've read that the MY14 Disco will default with the single speed transfer box. E-Diff + 2 speed transfer will be an option moving forward. Seems an unusual strategy, but I guess the LR boffins know what they're doing? :)

[101RRS]

Other than serious rock-climbing, I think the Evoque, and by extension the new RRS without low-range, will surprise people offroad.

I'd still get the low-range box though :twisted:

Cheers,

Gordon

My 98 L series diesel Freelander was the same - just needed a particular driving style - when I had it I could go most places, normal 4wds would go but its downfall was steep rocky areas where low range would normally be required. With the exception of ground clearance (which was good on my FL1) the FL1 was more capable than my D1 in high range that I had at the same time.

Garry

[chippy]

i am still trying to find detailed specs on this car

e.g what diameter brakes it has, what the headroom is , although i did read an unconfirmed specification that headroom was 39.4" , that happens to be just the same as the outgoing RRS model which i have struggled to fit in, however i was told by a salesman that the new RRS has more headroom (he has sat in it) <shrugs>

i havnt been able to find what load carrying limit it has, not that RR has typically been good in this regard.

i'd be interested to learn if 18" (aftermarket) wheels did happen to fit on it. perhaps they would if the disks are not larger, and i cant see why the disks necessarily need to be larger if the car with same engine weighs considerably less ?

it would also be interesting to learn if the LLams or GOE or other extension rods for suspension would work on these? the extension rods look so simple its hard to imagine they couldnt work but i havnt noticed them available for range rover vouge at all so i assume their is some kind of problem/difference between the cars that doesnt allow them work?


cheers
chippy

[33chinacars]

Hi Chippy

From the new RRS brochure.
Brakes
( TDV6 & V6 petrol ) Front 350mm Rear 350mm
( SDV6 & V8 supercharged ) Front 380mm Rear 365mm
Weights
Weight from TDV6 - 2115 kg, SDV6 - 2115 kg, V6 petrol - 2144 kg, V8 supercharged - 2310 kg
Maximum Laden weight. TDV6 - 3000 kg, SDV6 - 3001 kg, V6 - 2950 kg, V8 - 3050 kg.
Headroom . Max front with panoramic roof 1002 mm. Rear 993 mm
From the factory the smallest rims on the base model are 19"

Gary

[Graeme]

it would also be interesting to learn if the LLams or GOE or other extension rods for suspension would work on these?Is there still a need to over-ride height settings with the options now available? Llams may just plug straight in and then be calibrated on the vehicle but would require me doing some homework first. Llams was plug and play with the TDV8 Vogue even though the suspension mechanicals and sensor/suspension ecu relationships are totally different to the D3/D4/RRS because Llams learns the changes at each sensor. I'll get hold of the wiring schematics and connector details as a start.

[chippy]

Hi Chippy

From the new RRS brochure.
Brakes
( TDV6 & V6 petrol ) Front 350mm Rear 350mm
( SDV6 & V8 supercharged ) Front 380mm Rear 365mm
Weights
Weight from TDV6 - 2115 kg, SDV6 - 2115 kg, V6 petrol - 2144 kg, V8 supercharged - 2310 kg
Maximum Laden weight. TDV6 - 3000 kg, SDV6 - 3001 kg, V6 - 2950 kg, V8 - 3050 kg.
Headroom . Max front with panoramic roof 1002 mm. Rear 993 mm
From the factory the smallest rims on the base model are 19"

Gary


thanks Gary, i hadn't been able to find the brake diameter details...

only from a review article i found 350mm appears to be the same diameter as the LR4 and outgoing RRS uses with the 3.0L diesel and apparently they only just manage to fit after market 18" on them..so i guess that means the new RRS with the diesel that has both high and low range transmission SDV6 (not TDV6) wont fit after market 18", it would be a snug fit to get 19" on them by the looks with a disk diameter of 380mm

if those Maximum laden weight specs you mention are what i understand as GVM that is awesome! outgoing and past RRS can only carry about 490kg payload if one looks at the specs on carsales etc, which leaves next to nothing if you want to carry passengers as well, no real room to tow and carry a load except a picnic basket but if the new RRS can take about 885kg payload in the diesel variants thats fantastic.


cheers
chippy

[chippy]

Is there still a need to over-ride height settings with the options now available? Llams may just plug straight in and then be calibrated on the vehicle but would require me doing some homework first. Llams was plug and play with the TDV8 Vogue even though the suspension mechanicals and sensor/suspension ecu relationships are totally different to the D3/D4/RRS because Llams learns the changes at each sensor. I'll get hold of the wiring schematics and connector details as a start.

Hello Graeme,

i am not sure i follow? i saw some utube reviews and in one i vaguely heard that they have upgraded the ride height settings but upon hearing the guys explanation it didnt sound like it was much change at all, that it still went down to normal ride height at fairly low speed?

thanks for the info regarding the vogue too, it at least tells me the mechanicals are different which is why rods probably dont work, but at least llams will still work...

cheers
chippy

[gghaggis]

The new RRS and RR have an intermediate height setting (similar to the Jeep) that doesn't drop until over 80kph. At this height it has approx the same clearance as a D4 in off-road (partially due to the larger tyres), so I don't really see the need for an aftermarket suspension raise. Whether such would be effective will also depend on what reserve capacity is in the system.

The rods will work with any similar sensor-based system, but the sensors in the RRS are not easily reachable without removing a wheel, so two or three way systems such as mine may not be very practical.

On the other hand, due to the access to the top of the air springs, it would be very easy to fit a modified EAS emergency inflation system.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Graeme]

... doesn't drop until over 80kph.... so I don't really see the need for an aftermarket suspension raise. Whether such would be effective will also depend on what reserve capacity is in the system.
My only intention with Llams is to provide an over-ride to the lowering from off-road height at speed and to provide a method the get a vehicle up to normal or off-road height when any ABS-reported fault occurs, so the mechanical components of the suspension would not have to operate outside its normal operating limits. When people use Llams and rods in conjunction with off-road height then the physical limit of some component will be reached. This occurs with the Jeep air suspension due to their closed air system where it appears that the pressure gets too low in the accumulator for the pump to continue to transfer to the springs when double off-road height is attempted.

[gghaggis]

My only intention with Llams is to provide an over-ride to the lowering from off-road height at speed and to provide a method the get a vehicle up to normal or off-road height when any ABS-reported fault occurs, so the mechanical components of the suspension would not have to operate outside its normal operating limits

There are some assumptions about the system though, that may not hold unless you've had the chance to play with one? I took a jack into the showroom to play with the EAS on the demo model that came over here, but they wouldn't let me use it :(

Firstly, I don't know if the new RR/RRS has the extended or emergency profiles - given that they now have one additional higher height setting, maybe they don't? So unless you're locking out the +50 LLAMS setting when the cars are in anything higher than on-road height, there may be no capacity to honour the sensor/ECM request.

Secondly there was talk at the dealer workshops of different EAS strategies being implemented. I didn't get any clarification on that, but if that means that the cars (finally) freeze at the set height during a fault, rather than dropping to access, then there may be no need for any electronic over-ride.

We need more info.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Graeme]

I haven't assumed that the new RRS can go higher than its higher off-road height, considering only that owners might want a way to remove the speed limitation.

Edit: On re-reading your post I see that you are considering if users select Llams full raised height (+50 is actually full off-road increment from normal height rather than 50mm) whilst already at a raised height. Llams V2 already has a calibration option to fade-out the height increase as sensor values get beyond another off-road increment so something similar may be needed as standard to prevent faults in this situation.

[Blue C]

Graeme and Gordon I have just been reading the new RRS specifications book and under EAS it includes access, normal, off-road and extended heights. It says the EAS automatically switches between two ride heights when off-road height is selected and that max ground clearance is 65mm above normal height at speeds less than 50km/hr. The spec sheet also lists 'Reactive Grounding Response' as standard on all models. Regards, David

[chippy]

My only intention with Llams is to provide an over-ride to the lowering from off-road height at speed and to provide a method the get a vehicle up to normal or off-road height when any ABS-reported fault occurs, so the mechanical components of the suspension would not have to operate outside its normal operating limits. When people use Llams and rods in conjunction with off-road height then the physical limit of some component will be reached. This occurs with the Jeep air suspension due to their closed air system where it appears that the pressure gets too low in the accumulator for the pump to continue to transfer to the springs when double off-road height is attempted.

yeah, thats what i am getting at, keeping it from dropping if you reach 80klm. driving on long rutted roads in the country one can easily go over 80km/h so to be safe really needs that extra height imo

it looks to me (just from seeing vids, i dont know where you guys are finding the specs?) to have almost identical set up that the Jeep does, although so far it looks like the jeep has an extra setting where it can drop to 'Aero' mode for less wind resistance when at high speed (about 100km/h). aero mode is about half inch lower than normal ride height.

both jeep and the RRS have 'access' mode to drop the height lower than 'normal' height. both have a 1st 'off road' mode which raises the car an extra 35mm in RRS and about the same in Jeep. both cars will automatically drop the vehicle to 'normal' height at 80km/h.

both cars have a 2nd 'off road' mode/height that rises the vehicle, as Blue mentions now, about 65mm above normal height.

it will auto lower from off road height 2 to 'off road height 1' if speed above 40km/h in jeep or above about 50km/h reached in RRS then it drops to 'off road height 1'


i did read somewhere there was an extra extended height, not a regular to be used height but for something special (or emergency) of about 80mm above normal, but i cant find that detail now .

ideally something (llams) that would stop it lowering down when 80km/h is reached would be useful . it probably wouldn't hurt if 'off road height 2' could be manipulated somewhat too i guess



cheers
chippy

[Graeme]

Jeep's OR2 will drop out of OR1 above 80 kph or if above 64 kph for 20 seconds. My development version of Llams for Jeep GC is 75% of OR2 (approx 50mm) unlimited rather than OR1 or OR2 unlimited because its suspension is too extended at OR2 for high speed travelling and OR1 is too low, with the Dodge Ram version at 100% OR2 because that equates to around 50mm. The new RRS/Vogue must have more travel for Reactive Ground Response (not surprising as D3/D4 has more than the Jeep) so perhaps OK at +65mm at speed. However I have a desire for Llams to not provide more than about 50mm extra at any time and 50mm gives a reasonable improvement on standard height for outback travelling.

LRs have dropped 20mm for sustained 160 kph+ but I don't recall reading if the latest Vogue & RRS drop at a lesser speed. Llams low drops by 20mm at any speed.

[camel_landy]

Back to the original question...

When you're running an auto, the lack of Lo-Range only becomes noticeable when descending steep slopes as the auto does a very good job of compensating. As someone mentioned earlier, think of like a large Freelander but helped by the extra gearing on the modern autos.

There shouldn't be any extra strain on the drive train as there'll be just as much wether you're in Hi or Lo (on the output side anyway). However, there will be more reliance on HDC, so you'll probably wear pads out at a greater rate.

M

[BigJon]

I saw a HSE SDV6 parked behind my work during the week. I wandered out and had a quick look. I think they will sell heaps of these, it looked very nice. To the point of being a possible L322 replacement for me one day in the future.

[camel_landy]

Firstly, I don't know if the new RR/RRS has the extended or emergency profiles - given that they now have one additional higher height setting, maybe they don't? So unless you're locking out the +50 LLAMS setting when the cars are in anything higher than on-road height, there may be no capacity to honour the sensor/ECM request.

Secondly there was talk at the dealer workshops of different EAS strategies being implemented. I didn't get any clarification on that, but if that means that the cars (finally) freeze at the set height during a fault, rather than dropping to access, then there may be no need for any electronic over-ride.

Extended... Yes. Similar principles as L319, L320 & L322.

Different EAS strategies... They may well be talking about the 2x Off-Road heights. i.e. OR1 0km/h => 40km/h and OR2 40km/h=>80km/h.

M

[Graeme]

Llams connectors wont fit the new RRS. The previous separate suspension and active damper modules have been replaced with a combined control module that uses a different set of connectors. It also uses a single set of height sensors compared with the previous dual sensors when active dampers were fitted which may or may not be significant. The height sensors still are 0-5V so I suspect the signal format is unchanged but until these vehicles are out of warranty to allow fitment of a hard-wired kit, there's no sense in me doing any further research. (Edit - signal format is unchanged so only need to test that the ecu accepts the Llams signal.)

I noted a warning that if the suspension control module is knocked or dropped then it has to be replaced. The module is mounted inside the right rear quarter panel and I suspect the single rear accelerometer is located within the control module. I wonder how it might fare in an accident although the accelerometers used for D2 ACE seemed very robust. (Edit - no, the rear accelerometer is a separate component mounted nearby.)

OR2 is 75mm according to the specifications (edit - but 65mm in another section and OR1 is 40mm & 35mm respectively) and TT mode can be set by the driver - yeah! TT mode is automatically cancelled too.

I have a 1 day Topix subscription for service information for the vehicle so if anyone wants some info get in touch quickly.

Edit: Extra raising above extended mode using the brake pedal is still available.

[Graeme]

OR1 0km/h => 40km/h and OR2 40km/h=>80km/h. OR1 0-80 kph selectable up to 70 kph, OR2 0-50 kph selectable up to 40 kph.

[camel_landy]

OR1 0-80 kph selectable up to 70 kph, OR2 0-50 kph selectable up to 40 kph.
Near enough... :D

M

[Graeme]

A distinct improvement on the D3/D4/orig RRS version.

[Graeme]

Llams connectors wont fit the new RRS. .....until these vehicles are out of warranty to allow fitment of a hard-wired kit, there's no sense in me doing any further research.
Research has been continuing in spite of my earlier sentiment. Connectors can be obtained so a plug-and-play kit will be possible as long as the suspension ecu accepts the Llams signal and Llams doesn't upset active damper operation. It would only be a 5 minute task to install the module, excluding the switch.

The new connectors will probably also be needed for the current Discovery's replacement.

[Graeme]

On Monday it should be determied if Llams is compatible with the new dynamic suspension module with the CVD package fitted. Connectors appear to be available and although not past the post yet, its time to determine whether or not to keep the project going.

[Graeme]

I'm pleased to advise that Llams is indeed compatible with the 2014 RRS's combined adaptive suspension control module including when fitted with the CVD feature. No faults occurred and the owner could not detect any changes to the ride from previously in either normal or dynamic mode (firm sporty mode) yet could detect when the vehicle lowered by 20mm whilst travelling at around 60 kph on a not-so-smooth road.

The Llams normal calibration resulted in Llams high matching the OR2 +70mm height change so the calibration was redone using access and normal heights instead of normal and offroad to obtain a Llams high of +50mm. The plug-in kit for the 2013+ RRV and 2014+ RRS, when it becomes available, is expected to have the medium setting match OR1's +35mm increase rather than the current +30mm but high will be +50/55mm rather than OR2 height of 70mm.

'twas a very worthwhile exercise!

[Graeme]

Connectors appear to be available...With prices already advised, connectors will be ordered once the connector manufacturer has confirmed one attribute. Due to a 5 month lead time for one of the connector components, kits for these vehicles is at least 6 months away but are at least on the horizon.

[Graeme]

At this time connectors will not be available, contrary to previous advice. The connector manufacturer has declined to accept an order for the header that's fitted to the suspension controller due to it being restricted to the original component manufacturer even though they will supply the harness connectors. Other options including other manufacturers are being considered but the prospect is not good, certainly not simply a production lead-time delay.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Back to the original question...

When you're running an auto, the lack of Lo-Range only becomes noticeable when descending steep slopes as the auto does a very good job of compensating.
M

so the new auto's dont unlock coming up to traffic lights?
Think about a 40KPH speed limit down Cuninhams gap or Toowoomba Range, on road, towing a caravan.
???
Will first gear stay locked?

[Graeme]

At this time connectors will not be available...Having found the vehicles where the connector header was originally used and therefore inexpensive samples can be obtained, my current LLAMS LR loom manufacturer has taken on the task of contacting their connector manufacturers to ascertain development costs of the 2 almost identical mating connectors, which to be viable will need to be a lot less than the $100K off-the-cuff estimate of the OEM connector manufacturer. My LR looms also use non-OEM mating connectors but they were already in use in another application.

[RHS58]

What you saying, Willis??

[Meken]

Can't you just chop one out of the new car and send it off to china and wait and see what comes back - of course some poor sucker can't use their new $100k car for a while ;)

[Graeme]

I had one in my hand - should have made a run for it!