well Im not an accountant, so you should speak to yours, but if you use the LR3 100% for business, you could deduct the full $50k purchase price. To find the "real dollar" value to you, multiply the 50K times your tax bracket (36%?) to find the real dollars. I do not think that the S Corp has anything to do with it, but I am not sure about that.
Remember, that if you have a lot of deductions, you may not end up in the top tax bracket, and your final tax rate may be lower, reducing the value of your 179 deduction.
If you deduct it 100%, you had better be able to prove that. I think its a red flag for the IRS.
Local dealer had 6 LR3's (chicago suburb, and only 2 were sold). UGLY!!!!! I was going to buy this vehicle, but not anymore. It really is a total let down. It looks like a beefed up Tonka toy. No wood paneling on the inside?? ANother let down. Dash is plastic, similar to Hummer.
However, the BIG improvement is space, space and space. You can actually get into the rear seat now.
I've driven a loaded SE trim a few times now. The bulk of the commercial reviews have said it all. But I'll make a few comments...
Pros: Excellent off-road, and very capable as a street warrior. Engine and transmission smooth and refined feeling. It's heavy, but hides it fairly well. Feels stable even in aggressive maneuvers. Everything feels solid outside and inside. Cargo space with fold-flat seats is great. Roomy interior that feels open; optional 3rd row will even hold normal size adults instead of just kids. It's nothing like the old Discovery.
Cons: It's extremely heavy (gas mileage). $5K (US) too expensive to be an "easy win". Interior could be more "interesting" (well, at least piping on the seats like '04 Disco, and maybe more color choices); is it too utilitarian for $50K? There are also a few gadgets missing that would have been nice options: Auto-dimming outside mirrors [not just inside], Integrated satellite radio support (Sirius or XM), Rear-view backup camera [if equipped with Navigation], & Tire pressure monitoring system. The unlockable fuel filler door is odd, too.
Now, some complaints about Land Rover "mis-information":
The SE only has 6-way seat adjustment for the driver's seat; it's the same as the passenger seat. There is no front "up and down" adjust and this may impact shorter customers. The HSE, with it's memory seats, should have 8-way adjust on driver's seat. The current brochure says both SE and HSE have 8-way adjustments. This is incorrect.
There is also confusion regarding the supposed lack of Touch-screen support for anything beyond Navigation and 4X4 Info... like the [coming in Spring] Phone Integration (PTI) w/ Bluetooth, and the HSE's higher-end Premium h/k radio. (Web sites have conflicting informaton.) We'll see...
I looked at a pair of LR3s tonight at a dealership. One black and one silver. I agree with most/all of the thoughts expressed above about the good seats, space, utilitarian style, pricing (5K too much to be a slam dunk), etc. I think the vehicle is a huge step forward but it may not fly off the lots after the first rush. Expect discounts. (The Infiniti Q56 and Nissan Armada were both at one time red hot. Now they are discounted.)
The one option missing for me would not be Siruis or satellite radio or a backup camera (are we that infirm that we can't turn from the "command seating" and look?) but rather air conditioned/ventilated seats like on the SAAB and Expedition. Speaking of Options, Tincup has mentioned a wood package. I haven't seen this in any brochures or the web. How much is it?
But here's a new perspective on exterior style: the black LR3 when viewed from a 3/4 angle on the side looked no where nearly as attractive as the silver one. The rear area seemed too compressed and shortened and the roof line wasn't smooth. The silver one looked far smoother and the lines flowed better. This surprised me because usually highly waxed dark colored cars always (to my eyes) look better.
I also had a chance to compare the LR3 lines to a Range Rover. The RR looked much smoother (the roofline was of course one level). Interesting difference in engine packaging: the LR3 had covers over covers and it was hard to see the engine. Access was limited. The BMW V8 was out in the open with little in the way of designer covers. The valve covers looked a little like a Ford 4.6 !. Impressively, the RR used some stainless braided hydraulic hose for some oil lines--now thats first class. Only saw one cup holder though in the RR and it looked impossible to use with its cover. The LR3 had enough coffee cup holders to be a Starbucks annex!
Does anyone have any realistic expectation of the service life of the Jag derived V8? I have to believe that the Land Rover mods (better sump, etc.) will give it more life even in just general service. But will it run to 150K like any old American V8 before even so much as a valve cover has to come off? Does the engine have a timing chain or the problematic timing belt? How much is a water pump? Alternator? (Allright, I admit it, our 318s have spoiled us: treat 'em right and they run forever.)
The engine does have a timing chain. The 4.4 V8 has had very good reliability as a 3.9 and 4.2 Litre in the XJ, XK, and S-Types, both naturally aspirated and supercharged. The Armada and Infiniti, while getting good reviews have not been strong sellers from their introduction. However there numbers are disappointing because Nissan is a volume manufacturer and expected much higher numbers. If Land Rover can sell LR3's at the same rate Nissan is selling Armadas, that will be a success for Land Rover.
The Armada and QX are an oreder of magnitude larger than the LR3, so that has something to do with it. My dealer has an LR3 on the showroom floor finally. UGLY. It looks like a POS next to the Range Rover. They did sell at least 4 yesterday at sticker however. I agree with the other comments; if it had been $40K I would have bought one. $47k as normally outfitted was just out of reach. The seats are really good however.
I did pick up my Disco yesterday, and I loved feeling like I was driving an English carriage, repleat with a polite male voice with an English accent telling me to "please turn right in 300 meters." It worked too !
WHO SAID IT FIRST??? My dealership in town finally got a silver SE yesterday..I pulled into the lot as someone was coming back from a test drive. Seeing it drive through the lot at low speed, all I could think was "that thing looks like an Explorer". Upon closer look, the black interior is just bland. Lots o' plastic. One color plastic to boot. Totally agree with pricing..it just does not scream "$50k". While I am NOT a fan of the GX, I can see the "value" in that vehicle. Quite frankly, if I really want something that is decent offroad, VERY reliable with most of the latest in technology and does not scream "look at me" I might reconsider a Land Cruiser....
This year's contenders were: Chevrolet Equinox, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford Freestyle, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Infiniti QX56, Land Rover LR3 and Nissan Pathfinder.
Now that several people mentioned it, LR3 starts looking like an Explorer to me as well. I looked at an Explorer parked at our YMCA last night and found a lot of resemblance.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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'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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Comments
Remember, that if you have a lot of deductions, you may not end up in the top tax bracket, and your final tax rate may be lower, reducing the value of your 179 deduction.
If you deduct it 100%, you had better be able to prove that. I think its a red flag for the IRS.
However, the BIG improvement is space, space and space. You can actually get into the rear seat now.
Pros: Excellent off-road, and very capable as a street warrior. Engine and transmission smooth and refined feeling. It's heavy, but hides it fairly well. Feels stable even in aggressive maneuvers. Everything feels solid outside and inside. Cargo space with fold-flat seats is great. Roomy interior that feels open; optional 3rd row will even hold normal size adults instead of just kids. It's nothing like the old Discovery.
Cons: It's extremely heavy (gas mileage). $5K (US) too expensive to be an "easy win". Interior could be more "interesting" (well, at least piping on the seats like '04 Disco, and maybe more color choices); is it too utilitarian for $50K? There are also a few gadgets missing that would have been nice options: Auto-dimming outside mirrors [not just inside], Integrated satellite radio support (Sirius or XM), Rear-view backup camera [if equipped with Navigation], & Tire pressure monitoring system. The unlockable fuel filler door is odd, too.
Now, some complaints about Land Rover "mis-information":
The SE only has 6-way seat adjustment for the driver's seat; it's the same as the passenger seat. There is no front "up and down" adjust and this may impact shorter customers. The HSE, with it's memory seats, should have 8-way adjust on driver's seat. The current brochure says both SE and HSE have 8-way adjustments. This is incorrect.
There is also confusion regarding the supposed lack of Touch-screen support for anything beyond Navigation and 4X4 Info... like the [coming in Spring] Phone Integration (PTI) w/ Bluetooth, and the HSE's higher-end Premium h/k radio. (Web sites have conflicting informaton.) We'll see...
The one option missing for me would not be Siruis or satellite radio or a backup camera (are we that infirm that we can't turn from the "command seating" and look?) but rather air conditioned/ventilated seats like on the SAAB and Expedition. Speaking of Options, Tincup has mentioned a wood package. I haven't seen this in any brochures or the web. How much is it?
But here's a new perspective on exterior style: the black LR3 when viewed from a 3/4 angle on the side looked no where nearly as attractive as the silver one. The rear area seemed too compressed and shortened and the roof line wasn't smooth. The silver one looked far smoother and the lines flowed better. This surprised me because usually highly waxed dark colored cars always (to my eyes) look better.
I also had a chance to compare the LR3 lines to a Range Rover. The RR looked much smoother (the roofline was of course one level). Interesting difference in engine packaging: the LR3 had covers over covers and it was hard to see the engine. Access was limited. The BMW V8 was out in the open with little in the way of designer covers. The valve covers looked a little like a Ford 4.6 !. Impressively, the RR used some stainless braided hydraulic hose for some oil lines--now thats first class. Only saw one cup holder though in the RR and it looked impossible to use with its cover. The LR3 had enough coffee cup holders to be a Starbucks annex!
Does anyone have any realistic expectation of the service life of the Jag derived V8? I have to believe that the Land Rover mods (better sump, etc.) will give it more life even in just general service. But will it run to 150K like any old American V8 before even so much as a valve cover has to come off? Does the engine have a timing chain or the problematic timing belt? How much is a water pump? Alternator? (Allright, I admit it, our 318s have spoiled us: treat 'em right and they run forever.)
Rear-view Backup Cameras are very useful for tall vehicles, like the LR3, to avoid children, pets, etc. They disappear and can't be seen normally.
The Armada and Infiniti, while getting good reviews have not been strong sellers from their introduction. However there numbers are disappointing because Nissan is a volume manufacturer and expected much higher numbers. If Land Rover can sell LR3's at the same rate Nissan is selling Armadas, that will be a success for Land Rover.
I did pick up my Disco yesterday, and I loved feeling like I was driving an English carriage, repleat with a polite male voice with an English accent telling me to "please turn right in 300 meters." It worked too !
Upon closer look, the black interior is just bland. Lots o' plastic. One color plastic to boot. Totally agree with pricing..it just does not scream "$50k".
While I am NOT a fan of the GX, I can see the "value" in that vehicle.
Quite frankly, if I really want something that is decent offroad, VERY reliable with most of the latest in technology and does not scream "look at me" I might reconsider a Land Cruiser....
http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news041027_suvoty/
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.
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.
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?
I guess in this case, less ($$), is more.
Let the 60-70 yr old crowd enjoy the Lincoln line of boring suv's.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Towing is not just a hp thing. How the car is setup and the ability for the rear axle to handle load matters.
Do you?
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.
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.
Steve, Host
Steve, Host
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, these numbers are a bit silly to discuss. We don't know how they were calculated and, quite honestly, why does it matter?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!!!