Howdy, Stranger!

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





Land Rover LR3

12357220

Comments

  • 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.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,985
    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
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,985
    btw, if it happens again, can you email me?

    Steve, Host
  • 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.
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    It's possible there are slight differences between US and UK V8 engines... but it's probably just a conversion thing:

    The UK Discovery 3 V8 is rated at 220 kw, which is ~295 bhp SAE. 220 kw is also ~300 bhp DIN, which matches the US marketing.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Where did you get that figure?

    If that's correct, that works out to a mere $26,000 per vehicle based upon 50,000 units. And for that, I'm not even getting a new engine?? Needless to say, I'm highly skeptical. The LR3 isn't exactly a new joint strike fighter by Lockheed Martin.

    For what it's worth, the Honda S2000 was cited in a report I read a couple of years ago as the vehicle with the most ground up, new technology and innovative engineering of any Japanese vehicle at the time. I forgot what the R&D costs were, but it wan't something with a "b" in the number, that's for sure. Had the S2000 cost $1.3 billion to develop, the price per the first 4 years of limited production (25,000 vehicles) would have been $52,000. It sells for $32,000.

    If Ford spent $1.3 billion on R&D for it's entire lineup, I'd be surprised. I'd also make sure none of my mutual funds had Ford stock in them. But please, quote me a source if I'm wrong.
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    Forbes reported that the new T5 platform that the LR3 uses (and the next few vehicles, like the Range Sport will, too) supposedly cost $1 billion (US) to develop. The engine modifications for the Jaguar engine design supposedly cost $13 million (US).

    Anyway, these numbers are a bit silly to discuss. We don't know how they were calculated and, quite honestly, why does it matter?
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    blckislandguy,

    Thanks for pointing out my miss.

    The power to weight ratio does make a difference. I have an X5 4.4i that I wanted to replace. It's got 282hp but weighs only 4828lb. I drove it and the LR3 back to back. The BMW is A LOT more responsive even though it has only a 5-speed tranny.

    From the engine development stand point, it's not bad to borrow an engine as long as it's a good proven one. There is nothing wrong to keep the cost down.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    Apparently Land Rover de-contented the LR3 on the Bluetooth integration with the Navigation system comparing to Range Rover.

    Instead of the large color Nav display, LR3 owners would have to use the small LCD radio display.

    More info can be found:
    http://lrchroniclepub.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=land22&- num=1096054593&action=display&start=0

    If you are knowledgeable about the MOST data bus that are used, could you comment on whether it's possible to software enable the NAV system back into the game?
  • I currently own a 2003 GX470. Like the vehicle except I have three kids and the 3rd row is almost useless when you factor in a stroller. Everything else has been great. Considered the XC90 and almost leased a 2005 2.5T last weekend. As I was walking through the parking lot at Disney World tonight, I saw an XC90. IMHO, it does not evoke the same feeling when looking at Lexus or a Land Rover product.

    Has everyone been paying MSRP or are they dealing already? I know where I live Nashville, TN they plan to sell at MSRP for a long time. Just curious as I consider a LR3. Need new tires on GX and don't want to shell out the $$ if I can get a good deal on an LR3 HSE.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    xchicagoan5,

    I am not sure how long they are going to be able to hold the MSRP. Infiniti QX56 was going for MSRP for 2-3 months then people started discounting it. And that truck was selling pretty well.

    With the gas price as it is today and with the competition being much more intense, I wouldn't be surprised to see LL discounting LR3 after the new year.

    By the way, I am struggling between the GX and LR3. Coming from the X5, both are softer rides.

    I am interested in your perspective comparing the GX with the LR3. GX appears to be a better value/luxury/logical choice while LR3 is newer to me.
  • grommetgrommet Posts: 445
    "Land Rover de-contented the LR3 on the Bluetooth integration with the Navigation system"

    I wouldn't say "decontented". It was a design choice. The LR3's Navigation Touchscreen is optional, so the controls for the forthcoming PTI/Bluetooh option were designed into the radio head unit.

    The '05 Range Rover doesn't even have a separate radio interface. The Touchscreen is integral to the design.

    I was hoping they'd at least have supplemental Touchscreen support if the LR3 was equipped with Navigation, but it wasn't meant to be.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    The HSE model has NAV standard instead of optional.
  • ypshanypshan Posts: 103
    USA Today review at the end shows their around town mileage:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-11-04-lr3- _x.htm

    10.6 miles per gallon is worse than the 450hp Porsche Cayenne Turbo!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.