Range Rover Velar Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Threw the three in the compare tool on for shits n giggles and was shocked to see the Velar has the largest loadspace capcity by volume with back seats up! Would not expect that given the sloped roof and smaller overall footprint & height. Then it got complicated...

I went to the UK site and saw the numbers don't match! 673 litres is 23.76 cu ft., not 34.4 as the US site states.

Even more alarming and confusing is that it's incorrect outside of just the compare tool showing 632 litres (22.31cu ft) and 1690 litres (59.68 cu ft) with seats down in the UK marketing site but then a completely different 34.4 cu ft (974 litres) and 61.1 cu ft (1,730 litres) with seats down on the US marketing site :( those numbers differ in the brochure and PDF generated from the configurator as well!

What gives?! Either someone can't do math, is just plain careless, or this is intentionally misleading. I could understand if it was close, but these numbers are crazy off and inconsistent.

JLR, please fix this and clarify what the real numbers are...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Certainly possible and you may be right, though that wouldn't account for it being inconsistent across the marketing site and the compare tool and the PDF when you configure. The marketing site shows 61.1 cu ft with seats down and then the specs show 70 in the PDF and compare tool. If it truly is 70 that is the same size as the full RR standard wheelbase, which would be amazing. If it's not, then it's misleading and should definitely be fixed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I've read articles that its a bit difficult to accurately determine cargo volume depending on shape and space available. Car and Driver in US has even started to resort to ping pong balls measurements for cargo areas in their tests. That being said, JLR promo materials for their dealers are using 70 cu Ft as the cargo capacity for Velar. Makes sense they'd use the largest size.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I can see how it's not an exact science. You'd think theyd have consistency at least and call it 70 cu ft in all US marketing though. I personally find it far fetched the loadspace is the same as the RR... but maybe they pulled it off? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thanks for the review link.. nice one.

**Edit: actually, no.. they didn't. The UK compare tool above shows the Velar as almost 300 litres smaller than RR with seats down and 70 litres smaller with them up.. 70 x 1L water bottles is not negligible. The US version is just being marketed with an incorrect # lol

JLR?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top