Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Land Rover LR3

13567147

Comments

  • If you're the kind of person that buys a vehicle, cares for it and keeps it for 10 years, which would you rather have in your family fleet, a 10 year old Explorer or a 10 year old LR3? If your answer, like mine, is LR3, then the price difference today amortized over 10 years won't matter. (And if you are a Section 179 buyer, the Explorer is MORE money initially.)

    As an additional thought about styling, I think that the LR3 will wear well over the years. Much better than the FX35/Armada/etc. group.
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    I personally don't see it. It's about the same width & length, and it has a basic SUV/truck shape... beyond that, nothing. The LR3 has a clean & rugged utilitarian look. What do you want, an Infiniti FX?
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    I agree, besides the same basic two box shape that almost all SUV's share I see virtually no similarity. The LR3 is sharp edged and has the stepped roof with the wrapover quarter glass. The front end is most similar to the Range Rover. I wonder if this comparison would be made if Land Rover were still owned by BMW instead of Ford?
  • davidc1davidc1 Posts: 167
    I doubt too many people will think it's an explorer. Even then, so what. You know what you are getting for your money. Boxy designs wear better than curvacious ones. Isuzu trooper looks similar too. But it's not the same thing now, is it?
  • sam818sam818 Posts: 127
    The ONLY element of the LR3 that has a "hint" of Explorer is the wide trailing edge frame on the rear passenger door.
    While this is a significant styling element on both cars, the two cars are otherwise as different as chalk and cheese.
    The LR3 being much more crisp and folded. The Explorer, while attractive is simply not as architectural in its surface treatments.
  • You could probably make the argument that they share the basic design of the "canted" headlight look, which is originally from the Range Rover, and Ford robbed the look for the Explorer right after buying Land Rover.

     What I find interesting, is that according to the SUV/Year article, is that going by the data, the LR3 weighs MORE than the MUCH larger Infiniti QX56. It also has 90.7 cubic feet of max cargo capacity, whereas the QX has 97.0. (that's also a lot more than a Range Rover) That's pretty impressive considering the overall size difference. I would imagine most of that is due to the height of the roofline on the Rover. My Armada (same as QX) has a very high load floor due to Nissan's folding seat design, and not a lot of height. I could barely get a lawn mower in the back. Seems like they came up with a pretty useful cargo space in a not so huge package. Only thing I do not understand is why they didn't come up with crossbars for the roof rack?
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    Cross bars are available, they are a dealer (or owner) installed accessory. Land Rover has traditionally offered them this way.
  • I think its interesting that most of the key components of the LR3 are superior to the Range Rover. The LR3 Jag-derived engine is more powerful, more modern, and parts and service should cost less than the out sourced BMW engine. (I wonder how much longer BMW will want to/have to supply Rover with the engine and if they will eventually use the 5.4 three valve Ford V8 in the RR?). The LR3 ZF tranny has six speeds (Unlike the Disco II, is there a dipstick and can you change the ATF fluid without taking a Porta-Power to the frame rails?) vs. the 5 speeds in the RR. One (of many benefits) of this is a higher (lower numerically) final drive ratio in the LR3. LR3 has Terrain Response, RR doesn't, LR3 has body/frame intergral architecture, the RR doesn't, LR3 seats fold flat and the LR3 has more cargo room, etc.

    I guess in this case, less ($$), is more.
  • I'm glad to hear that. I was going by the article, which said they were not offered. I was hoping something as vital as a roof rack was missed on the redesign.
  • traded in 1 yr old lincoln aviator for LR3 which should arrrive in mid november. Lr3 is so much more rugged and solid and even more comfortable( great seats) handling was also much tighter. Option of manual shifting is a plus for those who love to drive. Outer body design is simple yet classy and understated. The black beast is a little off beat, powerful, safe and can handle all road conditions!
    Let the 60-70 yr old crowd enjoy the Lincoln line of boring suv's.
  • teamkteamk Posts: 8
    Debating what to get for a car...

    Drove the LR3, the GX470 last night, and the GX470 again today. With the LR3 we love everything but the passenger footwell -- it is really tight near the seat and the console / floor cutouts for the transmission definitely encroach on the passenger "space", so much that we will probably not purchase it.

    My wife has short legs and doesn't like to extend her legs up against the firewall (lots of room there on the LR3). Instead, she likes to have them flat on the floor in front of the seat -- with the big cupholder on the door, and the cupholders in the big console, and the floor contours from underneath transmission/transfer, there is little/no flat space for her feet. Has anyone else noticed this?

    Here's our current thinking on the cars we're evaluating -- any other thoughts welcome:

    LR3
     -- love everything about the interior except above issue. A bit heavy as others have noticed, but it's an SUV and is completely acceptable (I wouldn't call it sluggish). The flexibility of seating/etc is amazing...you can have flat cargo floor and still recline the passenger seat to sleep.

    GX470
    Under-horsed engine doesn't feel weak with the high torque -- felt like it hauled [non-permissible content removed] pretty well. Don't love the 3rd row seat configurations, but figure we could pull one out and be pretty happy.
    Very skeptical on the swing-door. We live in the city (SF) on a hill, and parallel parking or parking on hills we think the swing door would be a real pain. We tried this at length today and have ruled it out because of the swing-door.

    XC90
    Waiting for the V8 to come in...we want to order one for Overseas Delivery, but afraid to order a car we've never driven....what if they didn't get this new Yamaha V8 / 6 speed transmission right? What if the shifting is wacky or something bizarre? (Anyone get a chance to drive it this weekend in Long Beach?)
    The back of the second row isn't flat (knee-cutouts for third row make it a contoured floor) and it doesn't get totally level when folded down.
    Not too concerned about the seat deployment issues others raise, really just the new engine issue...

    Anyone have similar thoughts / experience / ideas?
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    I am debating exactly between the two trucks you mentioned.

    I also feel the GX470 accelerates faster. The test result below confirms it (7.7 sec to 60 for GX and 8 sec for LR3).

    http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/- 37668
    If the LR3 quality is decent, I may still go that way. If there are a lot of initial build problems, then Lexus will be my next truck.
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    Can anyone really feel the .3 of a second? Also how often does anyone actually accelerate like this other than magazine road tests? Obviously if you do not like the vehicle during a test drive or feel it's acceleration doesn't meet YOUR needs, then you shouldn't purchase it. I just can't see basing a purchasing decision on a number from a magazine's road test.
  • Has anyone driven the HSE version yet? I am amazed to see every unit of the LR3 delivered to my local dealers has been stock with possibly the navigational system add on. I am interested in any opinions of the 3rd row as well as the Logic7 Stereo system. Also, with regards to the nav. system an you pinpoint a particular restaurant or with my wife the nearest Starbucks? We are currenly in a 2001 Lexus LX470, but we want something with side airbags and a 3rd row. The LX's version of a 3rd row just does not cut it. Any feedback would be great!
  • TeamK, RE: the GX470: "Underhorsed" and "high torque" are logical inconsistencies. They can not co-exist. In any case HP is a construct, i.e., it doesn't really exist. It is measured (as I recall, dimly) by observed torque X RPM/5252. So, one can't have overall an engien that produces uniformly on the curve, low torque and high horsepower. RE: the XC90: The V8 is a long way away, will be significantly higher in price than the other two vehicles you are looking at, and if you are as detail oriented (I'm being tactful) as you sound, I don't think you'll like it because it will be a new application with a new engine, with inherent teething problems. Buy the LR3 and have the footwell altered by Jimbo at the body shop.

    Toottoot: RE: Lexus 470. The Lexus 470 doesn't have side bags? Who woulda thunk that Lexus would want to copy GM? RE: The usefullness of NAV. As a non-Nav owner and one of sedentary habits (work, gymn, then home during the week) I can't see the usefullness of the option. I'm not a complete Luddite though. If I really want to find where a restaurant is, I'll use a cell phone while en route. This may not be best, but it works for me. Starbucks?? Follow the Volvos.
  • I had the same problem with the rear side opening door on the Lexus. I really liked the rig as a whole, but that side opening door (with stationary glass, yet) has a LOT of limitations. I drove the Volvo with the 6, and really wanted to like it, but it just felt TOO carlike to me, more like a wagon. I'm more of a truck based person, so it's just my personal opinion. The Lexus definately felt more substantial to me, as well as more luxurious. I really think the Volvo is more competition for the RX300 Lexus.
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    The Nav system does have Points of Interests including Restaurants. It will direct you to any point you choose.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    The HP is also related final drive ratio. Yes there are high torque low HP cars (like many of the diesel models). There are also examples of low torque and high HP, like the Formula 1 race cars.

    0.3 sec probably won't be very noticeable. However, the 05 GX is rumored to have a 270hp engine. That will likely make it much more noticeable since it's ~15% increase from 235hp.

    Two situations come to mind when HP matters: merging traffic and towing.

    No, 0.3 sec. won't sway the decision alone. However, GX being cheaper, better reliability, has tire pressure monitor, and has backup camera makes it a tough choice. I don't like the swinging rear door either.
  • I put down money to order a LR3 HSE loaded - but I'm having second thoughts on a few issues:
    - I just don't think I really need the cold weather package in eastern North Carolina. But I want the jets for the front lamps. I think the gentleman who did not like the vertical lines in the windshield may have tipped me into not getting this option. ($1250)
    - I really do want the Bluetooth phone option... my Sales Guide believes it may be available earlier than advertised, and indicated since my vehicle may well not be in until Feb/March, it could be an available option. (Can it be an aftermarket?)
    - I'm rethinking my choice of silver... the only model they had on the lot was Black, and it looked really good. I'm not an ostentatious guy, and currently own a silver Trooper, but the Black seemed to be really sharp. My partner and the sales guide both said they felt the black did not show off the detailing of the vehicle as well as the silver. - Its obviously a personal thing.

    I liked the vehicle, it handled nicely for me, and I liked the height. I wanted gadgets and had looked at the Trailblazer XLT, VW Toureg among others. Have yet to find a dealer with navigation in the Trailblazer, but really liked the XM Radio/OnStar deal. With the options I looked at (ordering), the sticker price was $8K different from the base of the LR3. With the tax break, the fact that I keep vehicles for a reasonable period, a personal desire and options that I want, I put the money down to order one... and have until Monday to modify the order.
  • teamkteamk Posts: 8
    Blckislandguy, thanks for the reply and thoughts. Detail oriented? I'll admit it -- anal / over-analytical. At least I'll admit it... ;)

    I think the same concern applies to the LR3 that you raise for the XC90 V8 -- new engine (okay, re-worked Jag, but definitely re-worked) and new design on the LR3 -- could definitely have teething issues as well. Also, the Overseas Delivery pricing is around 46 loaded with MSRP being 49K loaded so pricing on the XC90 isn't that different.

    We're thinking about the "Jimbo at the body shop" as a VERY viable option -- has anyone ever done this? Is it a good/bad idea to try to re-work a footwell to flatten it out? If we don't encroach on key mechanicals, is there a fear of creating a heat/fire concern by moving things too close together?

    You got me on the Horsepower/Torque comment -- shows I'm not an engine guy. However, from a practical perspective, I didn't feel like the GX had only 235HP. We felt it had plenty of pep and we pushed it hard -- comparing the 235HP GX470 with the 268 XC90 T6 was a non-comparison -- the GX feels much stronger.

    It has been frustrating looking at these cars -- nothing is perfect and we don't want to compromise :(

    We have a large dog, we tow a boat, and we go skiing a lot hauling a lot of gear plus the dog.

    XC90 and LR3 are our finalists...not sure we can wait for the V8 and not sure if "Jimbo" can hlep us on the LR3....
    We have already ruled out:
    VW Touareg / Cayenne: Too small cargo-wise
    Cadillac SRX: Too long for the city (tough to parallel park 195"), felt too cheap inside.
    Jeep Hemi Grand Cherokee: Too short (vertically) in the cargo bay for our dog
    Range Rover: Won't fit in our garage
    X5 / RX330: slanted back window leaves no cargo space for big dog
    GX470 / Disco II: Swinging Door incompatible with City life
    ML500: too many maintenance issues, pending redesign
    Ford Explorer: this may make it back into the mix....
    Any other ideas?
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    "The GX470: "Underhorsed" and "high torque" are logical inconsistencies. They can not co-exist."

    Actually, they can co-exist and do in the GX470, due to it's extraordinarily low redline (about 5,000 rpm, I recall). In the case of my former S2000, the opposite exists - high horsepower, low torque, due to it's 9,000 rpm redline. My prediction for the 2005 GX is that they will get most of the 15% increase in horsepower from 235 to 270 by way of engine modifications (i.e. VVti) that increase the redline (and allow a for a more freely revving engine). The torque is unlikely to increase much, if at all.

    With regards to the XC90 V8 vs. LR3 Vs. GX470 debate, I am going through that debate myself and am surprised that anyone would rule out the GX on the matter of the swinging tailgate. To me, there are some much more significant differences between the vehicles:

    GX - Heads and shoulders above Land Rover either of the others in long term reliability, probably well above Volvo, in spite of the XC90 being touted as the best Volvo ever made.

    XC90 V8 - Promises to be the most athletic of the bunch in terms of on road handling, accleration, overall performance. But the least capable when it comes to off roading. And I might still be concerned about towing, even with the V8. I'm sure it will have the power, I just don't know if a FWD based AWD system is as appropriate for heavy towing as a RWD based system, like the GX or LR3.

    LR3 - The most useful cabin of the bunch, with plenty of space and fold flat seating. But who wants to be the first owner of any Land Rover product? Hell, they had to go to Ford/Jaguar to borrow parts and improve quality? That's like going to Hannibal Lecter for a lesson in mealtime etiquette. I just can't accept Land Rover as competition for the Japanese in no hassle ownership.

    I don't care for the reverse swinging door on the GX470 either, however, the XC90 and LR3 are significantly different vehicles in their on-road / off-road match up.
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    US press release from Land Rover regarding accessories attached.

    The UK site has some pictures and a configuration tool: http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/Discovery/Accessories/All- _new_discovery_accessories.htm

    LAS VEGAS, Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the already admired 2005 LR3 gets even better as an all-new line of specialized vehicle kit is launched. On display at the 2004 Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) annual trade show, a highly accessorized LR3 showcases a range of products available for owners to customize their LR3 vehicles.

    image

        The accessory program for LR3 follows the tradition of other Land Rover vehicles, offering customers a range of purposeful and rugged items to outfit their SUV. Each item is specially designed and tested to Land Rover's exacting quality standards, ensuring proper performance and durability.

        "Consumers interested in LR3 appreciate its innovative design and recognize it as a true Land Rover from the inside out," commented Sally Eastwood, vice president Marketing, Land Rover North America. "This exclusive line of vehicle kit will boost LR3's appeal, allowing consumers to personalize their vehicle to their individual tastes."

        An entirely new range of Vehicle Kit accessories have been specially designed and engineered for LR3. The selection includes soft-touch polyurethane front protection bars, modular steel brush bars, an expedition roof rack and WARN® winch. Other new items include a wood trim kit for the fascia, a slide-out floor for the loadspace, a DVD-player and a fitted screened tent.

        Land Rover expects to have full availability of these Kit accessories by launch in November.

        Key items featured at the SEMA show include:

         * 'A' Frame Protection bar
         * Driving lamps
         * WARN® winch
         * Front lamp guards
         * Rear lamp guards
         * Door rubbing strips
         * Expedition roof rack
         * Raised air intake (G4 specific)
         * Rear access ladder (G4 specific)
         * Goodyear™ tires (G4 specific)

        All Land Rover accessories are available at 164 U.S. Land Rover retailers. When purchased with a new vehicle, kit items are covered under the same warranty.
  • Can anyone answer why the US version (LR3) claims 300 HP but the European version (Discovery 3) claims 295 HP? All stats are the same (bore, stroke, RPM, displacement, etc.)

    Was that a convenient ‘round-up’ for the power hungry US consumer?

    http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/Discovery/Specifications/- Discovery_engines.htm

    http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Vehicles/LR3/Specifications/Veh- icle%20Construction.htm
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    TeamK, You may want to check out the towing ability of XC90. Depending on the size of your boat, 5,000 lb may not be enough.

    Towing is not just a hp thing. How the car is setup and the ability for the rear axle to handle load matters.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    When I spell check before I post, I got redirected to eBay when I click the post my message button.

    Do you?
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    "Hell, they had to go to Ford/Jaguar to borrow parts and improve quality?"

     Where were they supposed to go for the engine? Ford owns both Land Rover and Jaguar, it's not like Land Rover could pick any engine it wanted to. Just like when the Range Rover was developed the choice for the engine was made by BMW who owned Land Rover at the time.
     Land Rover sells less than 200,000 vehicles a year world wide, how much money do you think they have to develop a completely new engine? The LR3 cost 1.3 Billion dollars to develop as it sits. The Jaguar V8 that the LR3 engine is based on has been very reliable and is light years ahead of the engine in the Discovery in both power and reliability.
  • Ypshan: Maybe we should be talking horsepower curves. That must be meant when you said that an engine's HP is related to the final drive ratio. I don't think that you really meant that when you change the rear end ratio you can change the HP. Yes, I too get redirected to Ebay. Is it a scammer?? Does Edmunds know about this? Is it a source of revenue for them?? (Like a paid ad?)

    Midcoast: Don;t forget the present-value-of-money idea. If you don't buy your LR3 until '05 you will be paying on it for about 12 months before you see the tax benefits. Maybe, better to grab one now in '04 and throw the savings into the stock market?

    TeamK: I think that the Jag V8 as modified for the LR3 will be a real strong engine with an American V8s life (but not cost) expectancy. The mods they did to improve the off road ability (high angularity of the sump, etc.) of the engine will pay off even in normal use (e.g., cold mornings when the sump is a quart low). I feel strongly that the XC90 with whatever engine you choose is absolutely the wrong vehicle for your towing needs. Your duty cycle (boat, gear, people, ski trips, large dog) really calls for something with a body on frame, a robust cast iron V8 with maybe an blue oval logo on the hood. Have you considered a Land Cruiser? A Denali? An F150 Crewcab (really)?

    Habitat1: Great reference to Hannibal Lechter. Your thoughts on the GX470 are probably right on, but consider the fun factor. In a way a Lexus is like an affluent person's Saturn: the owner wants no real involvement with the car or even driving and he wants to be removed from sensory inputs. Additionally, he wants a lot of hand holding by the dealer. Some Lexus owners like some Saturn owners are afraid of the hurly burly of a car dealership and want a hassle free process and in turn will pay a premium for it. The LR3 on the other hand is going to demand some involvement, is going to be fun, and you won't see every other 40 year CPA in the 'hood driving one. With respect to Ford's quality, I think Ford at least tries. Lets look at GM: lowest common denominator engineering consisting of old fashioned pushrod, two valve V8s with piston slap, solid rear axles in the SUVs, few side air bags, and no safety canopies. Chrysler? The JGC reliability is abysmal, the front end survivability in a crash is poor, etc.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    Ypshan, the eBay bug happened to me earlier today and it's been reported (as has your difficulty). It sounds like some java script is getting confused somewhere.

    Steve, Host

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    btw, if it happens again, can you email me?

    Steve, Host

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • I currently own a Honda Pilot that accelerates to 60 mph in 8.0 seconds. I am considering trading it in on a HSE. Motor Trend recently tested the LR3 and got a 0-60 time of 8.7 seconds.

    Based on my test drive and seat of the pants feel compared to what I am currently driving the LR3 is much slower than the estimates and closer to Motor Trend's number. Yes, you can feel a .7 second difference.

    Does anyone know if the LR3's have a governed break in period? My SE test vehicle had around 400 miles on it.

    Overall I am very impressed with the features, space, and its vault like feel. Regardless of its 0-60 time it is quite a package and one I may soon own.
Sign In or Register to comment.