Thread: 2010 3L vs 2011 2.7

Originally Posted by Duke4

Took the words right out of my keyboard.

I haven't seen one person who has the 3lt recommend you go the 2.7 what does that tell you?

It tells you that all 3.0 owners had the choice of 3.0 and 2.7, and chose 2.7, so none are going to go back.

It also tells you that not all 2.7 owners had the choice of 3.0 (because it was either not available or they couldn't afford it) so some of them may now want one.

Hi,

I own a 3.0l and the power is awesome, as has been stated on many occasions.

I've also followed a few 2.7s and had a couple of loaners from LR and wasn't underwhelmed. The difference in power is noticeable but the 2.7 is no slouch (relatively speaking).

Of course the 3.0L is at least an SE, so that comes with more fruit...not sure what exactly is extra, as my SE was a demo with the Sat Nav and a few other non-standard upgrades.

I've also read that the TC in the D4s is getting better each upgrade, to the point that the e-Diff's advantage would probably only be noticed in extreme conditions.

Cheers,

Kev.

It is true that LR refine traction control etc over time and certainly from D3 to D4. However, it's not quantum leaps, it's refinements. A slight change of line here and there can wipe out any advantage of course. The D4 still benefits very much from the e-diff, that's for sure, as do all cars for which it is an option.

As an indicator, the 2.7 takes 12.7 seconds to do 0-100. The 3.0 takes 9.6. So it's three seconds quicker. Multiply that by the amount of times you'll do the sprint or part thereof in an average drive and you get an idea of how much quicker you'll arrive in a 3.0.

Actually should also mention here that the 3.0 is more fuel efficient, which is obviously a Good Thing (once it's run in, that is).

Originally Posted by rmp

Actually should also mention here that the 3.0 is more fuel efficient, which is obviously a Good Thing (once it's run in, that is).

Has this been confirmed in real life? I suspect the 3.0 would be better when pulling a heavy load and using more of its torque but when lightly loaded I'm left wondering. However the latest gbox s/w upgrade allows the engine to make more use of its low rpm torque when using auto mode. Maybe mine's not yet run in enough - its only done 90K.

Originally Posted by Graeme

Has this been confirmed in real life? I suspect the 3.0 would be better when pulling a heavy load and using more of its torque but when lightly loaded I'm left wondering. However the latest gbox s/w upgrade allows the engine to make more use of its low rpm torque when using auto mode. Maybe mine's not yet run in enough - its only done 90K.

Yes, it has, by me. Brand new D4 3.0 against two D3 2.7s, which beat the D4. But only until the D4 was run in, then it'd be ahead. The 3.0 is a more efficient engine, and the 8-speed gearbox is also more efficient and not just because of the extra two ratios. There's also trick effects such as intelligent alternator charging.

Originally Posted by rmp

It is true that LR refine traction control etc over time and certainly from D3 to D4. However, it's not quantum leaps, it's refinements. A slight change of line here and there can wipe out any advantage of course. The D4 still benefits very much from the e-diff, that's for sure, as do all cars for which it is an option.

As an indicator, the 2.7 takes 12.7 seconds to do 0-100. The 3.0 takes 9.6. So it's three seconds quicker. Multiply that by the amount of times you'll do the sprint or part thereof in an average drive and you get an idea of how much quicker you'll arrive in a 3.0.

Actually should also mention here that the 3.0 is more fuel efficient, which is obviously a Good Thing (once it's run in, that is).

Refinement/s is probably a good word but I believe that there was a reasonable difference between the 3 and 4. I've also read that since the 2009 build D4 there have been more improvements.

Originally Posted by rmp

As an indicator, the 2.7 takes 12.7 seconds to do 0-100. The 3.0 takes 9.6. So it's three seconds quicker. Multiply that by the amount of times you'll do the sprint or part thereof in an average drive and you get an idea of how much quicker you'll arrive in a 3.0.

Actually should also mention here that the 3.0 is more fuel efficient, which is obviously a Good Thing (once it's run in, that is).

Thanks rmp,

BUT honestly when was the last time you did a standing 0-100 in everyday driving.

Sure every now and then, getting a jump from the lights is fun but lets face it even a bog stand V6 dunnydore would leave you smoked !!

i do not really understand what relevance a 0-100 time has for a 2.5 t 4wd, particularly in city traffic..

I appreciate that the 3.0 if 25% faster but I did not buy a 4wd to race to 100km ?

I imagine the fuel consumption would go north of stupid if that was how you drove regularly anyway.

Again I clearly understand the 3.0lt is better and more powerful than the 2.7 but clearly no one thinks the 2.7lt is under powered or inadequate, and lets face it the D3 won most of it accolades as 4wd of the year world wide with the 2.7.

I hope all this discussion is assisting our original poster in making a decision !!

George

And that's the point...people don't drive like that. I left it to everyone's imagination to do the maths and scenarios to work out the time they'll save. Which of course will be next to nothing. But that's not the point, the bigger engine gives you a bit of a thrill of power, and there's nothing wrong with that, we all like it, and it certainly feels fast. It just doesn't translate into much of a reduced journey time. I also didn't mention that rather than a 0-100 you're more likely to do an 80-100 or 90-100 or 50-80 change and of course theefore the gains will be less.

Also, "25% faster" sounds quite different to "3 seconds quicker to 0-100".

Again, in the real world, the 2.7 won't be left trailing behind a 3.0 on public roads if both are driven safely. On a racetrack, for sure, or when towing up massively steep hills.