It’s not hard to imagine what a five-door version of Land Rover’s LRX concept would look like, but a couple of illustrations might make your future vehicle buying decision even easier. As reported a few days ago, the LRX 5dr is expected as a 2011 model, slated to arrive about six months after the three-door version.
Part of the allure of the LRX concept was its sleek shape, and Land Rover designers are said to be working hard to make sure the five-door version doesn’t lose anything in translation, according to Autocar.
The three-door version of the LRX is slated to hit the market in 2011, but the five-door version will likely hit the market about six months after the initial launch. A hybrid powertrain is also said to be part of the LRX equation.
Land Rover is targeting 70,000 LRX sales annually, with production coming from the company’s Halewood plant.


06/27, 7:08 PM
posted by:
Rafa LL
Almost a day out and no posts when some others articles get 20 in the first minute
I’m posting because I feel sorry for this lame Range, nobody cares for it, don’t even me.
06/27, 10:00 PM
posted by:
DrFill
I love it!
Sweet!
DrFill
06/27, 11:36 PM
posted by:
beatusmongous
It’s a nice looking vehicle, but I don’t care about it, either. That’s probably because I’m a poor @$$ loser and can’t afford it.
06/28, 3:20 AM
posted by:
Brendino
Saw the concept in person and I have to say…that crease in the beltline is no good.
Heck, putting door handles on this thing is gonna ruin the sleekness.
06/28, 11:26 AM
posted by:
nite41
looks HOTTTT!
very sleek and sexy.
06/28, 9:42 PM
posted by:
Rafa LL
It looks sleek but I think that style is burned already, IMO this looks cheap compared to the classic Range Rover.
06/29, 12:56 PM
posted by:
m6-500attouchofabutton
Looks workable. needs a bigger grille and better looking exhaust pipes.
06/30, 7:39 AM
posted by:
JohnnyBlazE
So far no racism…
/me waits…
06/30, 9:47 AM
posted by:
xyunya
Can some one on this planet point to me any car from Land Rover that is NOT 5 door? They all are wagons. I think it is way to radical to be Rover. It is missing “proper” form follows function paradigm.