Analysis: Land Rover LRX

In this current economic crisis where everyone from Toyota down is feeling the pain, Land Rover – by the very nature of their product portfolio – is hurting more than most: we can only hope that this spurs Tata to fast-track the production LRX rather than delay it – a new compact, efficient model is exactly what LR needs. The reborn Range Rover, Discovery 3, Range Rover Sport and Freelander II are all products of a marque fully in control of their design language; the only bum note are the indignities foisted upon the Defender, but these were apparently the fallout from a change of engine and pretty minor anyway. In many ways LR is an object lesson in managing visual identity: the Defender, Freelander, Discovery, RR Sport and Range Rover each have their own distinct identity but all are recognisably a Land Rover. Of course it helps there are relatively few model lines (each with few iterations) and they share a common theme (off road ability) - but it still an impressive achievement: compare & contrast with the woeful state of Jeep design.

The original Range Rover not only created a niche (long before doing so became a standard tactic) but was a design classic that remained in production for nearly 25 years. I'm sure it's replacement was a very good car, but I could never get past the overgrown Talbot Horizon looks. The third generation was an incredible return to form – a design that not only incorporated classic elements ('cab back' proportions, castellated clamshell bonnet, three plane surfacing of flanks) without descending into pastiche, but built and expanded the design language with new elements – such as the overlapping, cropped circle motif of the headlights and the gill sidevents – that looked perfectly in place. The interior remains one of the best in any car past or present.

As good as RR III was, the Discovery III was even more impressive – although instantly recognisable as a Disco, it was and even bigger and braver step forward. Like the Rangie, it incorporated both the old (stepped roof, proportions, graphics) and added new elements: the most apparent and radical was the simple, almost stark, surfacing lending to what is in fact a pretty complex form an air of minimalism. There was also the character line that 'fades' out in the middle, and whilst the asymmetric windowline of the tailgate is technically carried over from the previous generation, but now that the spare wheel is mounted under the tail it's a vestigial feature – however Land Rover have cleverly realised that this feature is associated with 4x4's generally and have added to their visual repertoire.

They do however need to reign in their detailing: although not alone in this, it has been getting increasingly busy of late. On the Range Rover, the simple grille bars of the original have been replaced by fussy, perforated plasticky items in the facelift. I get it: they're supposed to be redolent of high end cooking knifes. I like the cutlery in question, but it doesn't follow that I'll like low-rent, cheap looking copies: silvered plastic looks like silvered plastic - not brushed metal, even from a distance. LR have also succumbed to the cult of the sidevent; on the original Rangie they fit perfectly (more than can be said for any current Jag) – but less so after the facelift. That it's driver side only on the Disco leads us to assume it's functional, but the RR Sport and especially the Freelander 2 are less convincing – and even if the vents are required, do they have to be so gaudy?

Although I love the design of current Landies, I simply couldn't conscience owning one. I don't do enough towing that could justify a Rangie, and don't think anything can justify the Disco's Integrated Body Frame (“Can't choose between a chassis and a monocoque? Why not have both?” Just don't ask how much it weighs....) The RR Sport, like the X5 & Cayenne, is big and clever only in the most literal of senses - just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should, and isn't as good looking as it should have been (or as good looking as the Rangie or Disco.) I respect the Freelander II but it doesn't appeal personally and whilst glad we live in a world were the Defender is still made, don't need & wouldn't want to own one. So until acquiring a Series 1 Landie and pre-'81 3 door Range Rover for my dream garage I had resigned myself to admiring them from afar - until the LRX: here is a Land Rover that I could see myself owning. So please forgive me if my analysis assumes a production future, but this is only the company's second fully fledged concept but the Range Stormer did herald the arrival of a new model line; let's hope the LRX translates a little better into production than the RR Sport did.

The various Land Rover models are differing ratios of ruggedness and luxury. The Defender is obviously ground zero for rugged, and the Range Rover is a jacked up luxury car that happens to be overbuilt. The Freelander & Discovery are more utilitarian that the Rangie; the Range Rover Sport less so, and tries – with mixed results – to add sportiness to the equation. The LRX feels distinctly sybaritic; this is in no small part due to the interior. What it tells us in literal terms about the production item is hard to say – but the mood, choice and use of materials was significant: this is high end chic not outback utility.

Although there's quite a lot going on at the front of the LRX at no point does it feel cluttered or busy. In fact, given the slight tendency to overdesign regarding detailing on production LRs, they've been remarkably restrained – the bonnet vent being the only offender. The stepped motif used extensively throughout is not truly new (little is) but the fact that the LR team have not only integrated it well but used it in an interesting and skilfull manner, making it their own shows that they're on top of their game generally. The surfacing – good generally is spot on at the front & in conjunction with the superbly judged plan form makes a powerful impression. In conjunction with the lower intakes, the plan form diffuses what would otherwise have been a bluff, unfriendly nose, making it instead svelte & powerful. The oversize honeycomb detail is the best interpretation yet of the current LR grille detailing. The nested 'sump guard' is neatly handled and the nicely integrated intake above forms the lower element of a dog bone graphic which gives it a planted look without feeling too bulky. Again, the lower intakes help here, breaking up an otherwise large expanse. Given the current popularity of faux intakes the blank recessed half of this feature is crisp, refreshing and honest; the front fog lights neatly ties things together.

The clamshell bonnet is a familiar cue, though increasingly common elsewhere (a side effect of ped. safety regs) but lacks the traditional castellation and in truth doesn't need it – the familiar Land Rover badging on the leading edge is more than sufficient. The intrusion of the wheelarch into the bonnet shutline is a subtle detail that helps emphasise the wheelarch without resorting to a larger surfacing feature that could look overblown or clumsy.

The Range Stormer had a whiff of caricature about it and I hope this is the case with the LRX. One thing that will need careful monitoring in the transition to presumed production is the wheels: at 20”, the LRX's rims aren't excessively large for a concept but the full size sidewall does mean that the overall diameter is large and – unlike most concept cars – a proper wheelarch clearance means that there is a real danger of the production version looking overbodied. The combination of falling roofline and rising beltline make the taper of the glasshouse look exaggerated; in addition, a fuselage graphic that doesn't really develop over the cars length – the sill line is essentially parallel to the beltline – make it look a little nose heavy overall. The chrome trim in dark grey of the lower flanks has parallels with the Discovery's rear screen line in that it seems to be a stylistic interpretation of a feature once functional now vestigial – in this case a running board: it adds interest without resorting to inappropriate side skirt forms.

The rear end also needs a little work – the light units could be a little bigger and the brightwork fails to convince: it doesn't pick up the detail in the light unit itself clearly and as a consequence looks isolated. The surfacing lacks the sophistication shown elsewhere, particularly in the lower part of the tailgate – surely some variation of the stepped motif depolyed at the front could have been used? Some interest needs adding in the lower corners – but production will dictate fog / reversing lights & reflectors, etc so this should take care of itself.
Overall, the LRX is a well executed concept that hopefully signposts the way to a production reality.

Chevrolet Volt III - production Volt analysis

At the macro level, the Volt seems torn between two opposing forces – the mechanical packaging and attempting to stay faithful to the concept. Regardless of your position regarding the latter, it's difficult to deny that the Volt is the most distinctive of the new mass-market hybrid trio: the Prius is closer to a monovolume than the Volt and it's front and rear overhangs are pretty balanced, the same is true of the Insight but it sits on a shorter wheelbase. The Volt by contrast has a more long-nose-short-tail proportions and a definite bustle at the back.

The only way that the Volt could be developed in the reasonable timeframe was by using an existing platform (in this case the Delta II) plus as many standard components as possible, which has dictated certain fundamentals of the mechanical package, such as the engine. As much as we share, there are times when the differences between Britain and the States couldn't be clearer: speaking on The Colbert Report, Bob Lutz referred to the 1.4l engine as a 'tiny little four cylinder engine' (what is it with Americans and cylinder count?) Would this be the same 1.4l engine that will be used in it's non-hybrid sister Cruze? Granted, it's detuned in the Volt and turbocharged in the Cruze, but let's hope they drop in a smaller engine asap: the 1.0l engine in the current Corsa produces more power than the Volt's version of the 1.4l and at the very least this has to be more compact and lighter, making it even more efficient. Beyond that, there are even smaller and more efficient units out there – they could even (whisper it) use a diesel unit.

The Prius' engine is bigger than the Volt's (by 400cc) and has to accommodate a drivetrain for the IC engine which the Volt doesn't – but it has a noticeably bigger nose: that this isn't immediately apparent at first glance is something that should be praised in the styling. The nose itself is pretty 'square', i.e. the bonnet height and front overhang are about the same, and the difference between the overhangs also emphasises the nose. However it assumed this is all fallout from having to use existing components and additionally packaging the hybrid gubbins, with maybe a dash of aero on top.

Although the nose works quite well at a macro level, closer examination reveal some problems. The surface detailing is a bit timid and the surfacing a little vague – it might be assumed that there is an aerodynamic reason for this, but both the new Prius and especially the Insight have more form in the front. Of course, neither of them has the big, bluff nose of the Volt but this is one area where staying more faithful to the Volt concept might have been beneficial, or even more in line with current Chevy saloons. The grille needs work; it looks cheap, and while it may be non-functional does it really have to broadcast the fact so obviously?

Given that the internal combustion element is an overgrown battery charger why have what appears to be a conventional bonnet? Surely an access panel for fluids and charging socket would have been sufficient. Given the limited possibilities for home maintenance on modern engines bonnets are an anachronism: a light removable panel would suffice – and who might be more accepting of this than owner of a hybrid? - and would save weight. Given that it's a four seater, why keep the lower rear screen? Although this obviously references the concept, it's also a feature shared with both the Prius & Insight.

Overall, the Volt has a more planted stance than might be otherwise expected, subtly helped by the relatively large wheels and the classic stepped lower body mouldings, rising towards the rear. But it's a close thing - the Volts we've seen thus far have been shown on 18” rims (the Prius rolls on 15”s); let us hope someone makes energy efficient tyres in this size as it'll look overbodied on anything smaller. The DLO extension is a clever and unique feature: without it, the Volt would look more bloated & heavy as the DLO area is actually quite small. The matt finish & underlining chrome trim means it should work for darker colours too. The only question is how it will age, especially if it's component parts are made from slightly different plastic compounds: it may end up looking tatty.

The base of the A-pillar was fussy to start with and unfortunately the few changes evident in the pre-production spyshots have not improved matters, making this area even more cluttered. The new diagonal fender / A-pillar cutline jars, the original horizontal position was better. The bonnet is now a clamshell and the shutline doesn't quite align with the charging area trim. Which is no longer the charging point: a standard circular fuel filler cap has been inserted.

Given the aerodynamic sophistication & attention to detail evident on the upper surfaces, it's almost inconceivable that the same rigour hasn't beem applied to the underbody, especially since this in a relatively easy win, but GM have given few details about this and it's something manufacturers normally like to crow about.

At this stage I've yet to sit in a Volt, but the interior certainly looks finished to a high standard generally, and particularly for an American car. Although it might seem churlish to criticise it on that basis, if interior quality was an issue for the US consumer they wouldn't stand for some of the crap out there so one does have to question whether GM will see a return on it's additional investment here.

Which brings us neatly onto what I think is the elephant in the corner: price

The Volt is significantly more expensive that both the Prius and Insight II. As the first series hybrid it offers the potential for largely petrol free driving – and therefore lower running costs – but will this, and being US made, be enough on the forecourt? Time and time again, consumers the world over have a habit of choosing the option that's initially cheaper, even if they know it's costlier in the long term: witness the poor take up of energy efficient light bulbs.

Either way, it will take more than the Volt to save GM. As much as the big three have frustrated with their mismanagement and disregard for all except the shareholder, they have produced – almost in spite of themselves – some great products that make the automotive world a more interesting place. Hopefully they now realise that they can't subsist on pickups and SUVs and need once again to focus on making cars the world needs and desirable enough to want.