Cars, Trucks, Bikes, Project Cars, DIY, Travel, Adventure, Podcast, Videos
By Jeff Glucker
Dec 13, 2019
The idea of taking a nearly-$200,000 Range Rover SVAutobiography Dynamic and getting it covered in dust and dirt, is quite appealing. Until something goes wrong. Shod with 22-inch wheels and low-profile tires, the uber-lux Land Rover has the internal strength to go anywhere but it’s wearing the wrong shoes.
And we found that out at the top of a mild trail.
[Disclaimer: Land Rover tossed us the keys to Range Rover SVA, and we promptly ruined that poor tire. Sorry Land Rover…]
Jeff Glucker is the co-founder and Executive Editor of Hooniverse.com. He’s often seen getting passed as he hustles a 1991 Mitsubishi Montero up the 405 Freeway. IG: @HooniverseJeff
Kamil Kaluski
There’s a reason the F150 Raptor has 17″ rims and 70-series tires. It has a whopping 8.6″ of tire cushion, vs. 4.3″ on this Range Rover (and overall 34″ vs. 31″ in diameter, respectively). HALF the cushion– no wonder a small rock crippled this thing. The smallest wheel you can get (stock) on the Range Rover is 19″, which gives you 6″ of tire in the same 31″ diameter. That’s still a couple of inches too little for off-roading. Even the wimpiest base-model Wrangler Sport has considerably more tire than this.
Was this a stupid environment in which to test this vehicle? Yes and no. I’m glad you guys did it, because it demonstrates that– regardless what potential has been designed into the Range Rover– it is no longer a true go-anywhere vehicle from the factory. This is not an off-roader wearing the wrong shoes. It’s a road car with engineering that 99.9% of buyers will never fully utilize, but are for some reason willing to pay for. Smart move by Land Rover, though– they certainly know their market. The buyer is the dipshit, not Jeff.
There’s a reason the F150 Raptor has 17″ rims and 70-series tires. It has a whopping 8.6″ of tire cushion, vs. 4.3″ on this Range Rover (and overall 34″ vs. 31″ in diameter, respectively). HALF the cushion– no wonder a small rock crippled this thing. The smallest wheel you can get (stock) on the Range Rover is 19″, which gives you 6″ of tire in the same 31″ diameter. That’s still a couple of inches too little for off-roading. Even the wimpiest base-model Wrangler Sport has considerably more tire than this.
Was this a stupid environment in which to test this vehicle? Yes and no. I’m glad you guys did it, because it demonstrates that– regardless what potential has been designed into the Range Rover– it is no longer a true go-anywhere vehicle from the factory. This is not an off-roader wearing the wrong shoes. It’s a road car with engineering that 99.9% of buyers will never fully utilize, but are for some reason willing to pay for. Smart move by Land Rover, though– they certainly know their market. The buyer is the dipshit, not Jeff.
Assuming all four tires are the same size, it’s better to put the spare on the rear and then that wheel on the front, otherwise your braking and steering are seriously compromised with the space saver spare.
Good advice!
I understand one can expect only so much for $182,000, but does the $210,000 version at least come with a full-sized spare?
One can purchase four (4!) full-size spare tires from the dealer for a slight additional fee of $210,000…
https://ppchero-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/7y2hPq4.png
https://ppchero-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/7y2hPq4.png