Anybody Considered a Range Rover ?

[Dave Docwra]

Range Rovers are great if you can afford two new ones, then you can use one whilst the second is in for repair then hopefully change round on a frequent basis..

 

[Dave2000]

I had a Discovery 200tdi, absolutely brilliant off road, and in competition but alas, regular maintenance on a Land Cruiser is opening the bonnet a couple times a year, on the Discovery it meant opening the bonnet twice a week!

I have two Discovery 3's and one D4 on my books, both are absolutely fantastic to drive, one of the 3s is a 6 speed manual and is very quick, that one is now up for sale, I would love to own it and could I afford to buy it, yes but, could I afford to 'run' it, definitely not. Both have needed plenty f repairs but one of the D3's has had thousands spent on repairs, clutches, the turbo crossover tube, front differential, EGR valves (two) electronic this and that....and.....and....... I simply could not absorb the repair bills, I can do the labour but the parts cost is on another planet compared to the LC, nufff said.

Genuine experience counts, OP take note.

regards

Dave

 

[frank rabbets]

I understand Chris's answer. .

 

[Pumpy]

I've been tempted a few times over the years, luckily I never really had the wodge to get a decent one, last time I was tempted (15yrs ago) I went to an old customer of mine who runs one of the oldest independant LR garages in the country, one of the few "proper" LR garages still going, and I asked him. I got the verbal equivilant of a slap round the head with a wet trout for even considering one over a Defender

After many tales of woe and far too much time spent on the spanners, I wised up and got an 80! I've still got my LR90, don't really want to part with it as it's probably the best play site motor out there for ease and cheap cost of much maintenance. The 80 is far too good to go wrecking it at playsites every month, the 90 is a good sacraficial motor

 

[fatboynotsothin]

Guys, im not trolling anybody, as i said i had a Landcrusier LC5 years ago and liked it, now i find myself in the fortunate position to be able to replace my ageing 1997 Range Rover P38 4.6 and 1997 Vauxhall Monterey with something a bit newer, Im looking at all the options including Range Rover L322, im looking to spend about 10k otr 25k depending on if i decide to keep my 2011 Ford Mondeo 2.2 Tdci Titanium Sport or not. Id buy an LPG vehicle as my Monetery is LPG and i quite like it, good power and cheap to run. Ive considered both petrol and diesel Range Rover L322 and LC 120. It would seem to be the case that the Diesel Range Rover is even less reliable than the petrol, early L322 use a BMW 4.4 wich would seem to be more reliable than the TDV6.

 

[frank rabbets]

Trouble is they don't make a decent Landcruiser anymore. Too much polish and computers.

 

[Philip A]

"Land/Range Rover" and "reliable" should not be used in the same sentence. It's against nature.

 

[Shayne]

How about a 100 series LC

 

[Chas]

I did consider getting a Range Rover a few years ago but then I woke up and had to go to work.

 

[Ben]

Trouble is they don't make a decent Landcruiser anymore. Too much polish and computers.

They do, its just not sold in the UK!

 

[Dave2000]

A LC 105 would do the job nicely, 80 running gear including the SFA, and just more modern looking. Apparently it does not meet EU emissions rules...cough...more...cough..bullshit...cough!

regards

Dave

 

[wobbly]

I choose a Range Rover every time.

Its perfect for my work and really looks the part, important considerations as being a mobile hairdresser can be a pressured job.

 

[chadr]

Like others have said, if I was buying new or within the warranty period, it would be a FF Range Rover every time. IMHO it has an unbeatable combination of grace, space and pace. The 200 certainly has the latter 2 qualities but if completely deficient of the former.

However, if I had to choose an older vehicle, Land Rover products wouldn't even make the shortlist.

 

[Shayne]

So why does the new RR beat a 200 ? is it because the 200 retains just a smidgen of what a 4x4 should be and the RR is more car like ?

I honestly don't get it , i drove my brothers 120 and all i can say is it was a nice drive , it compared to my sisters old diesel BMW saloon . I couldn't wait to get back into my 4x4 .

 

[frank rabbets]

RR beat the LC's on comfort, road holding and style. Toyota copied the chassis and suspension design of the first RR' released in 1968/9 but did not quite get the road holding right. The first RR's were no more unreliable than any other UK built car in the 70's 80's. Cheap parts were partly to blame. eg Water Pump, Alternator etc,etc.

"It's endless" were the words used by MD of Landrover Carlisle answering my friends question as to why his new RR was always going wrong.

 

[Ben]

Toyota copied the chassis and suspension design of the first RR' released in 1968/9 but did not quite get the road holding right.

I'm sorry Frank but I have to disagree.

Toyota made and sold the 60 series from 1980-1989 and it was obviously leaf spring suspension and not coils like the Range Rover.

It wasnt until 1984 with the introduction of my model Toyota, the LJ70, that Toyota first built a 4wd with coil suspension all round.

By this point Toyota were still lagging behind massively with the 60 series against their nearest rival Nissan with their mighty Patrol, which had coil suspension all round, disc brakes all round and was considerably cheaper than the 60.

In 1990 Toyota released their first coil sprung luxury wagon, the 80 series.

So if they copied the chassis and suspension from anywhere it would have been Nissan's Patrol not Range Rover.

 

[Towpack]

I had a 1994 (95 model year) 300Tdi Disco, which is basically a RR without the jewellery, and I have to say the ride was pretty good. Although I suffered no serious breakdowns I had a very near miss with the timing belt issue and the gearbox (2nd gear) was dying when I sold it at just over 100k miles. Also, bearing in mind it was only 4 years old when I bought it, corrosion wasted no time in rearing it's head, both rust and the dreaded electrolytic corrosion on the body. The general build quality wasn't that great either IMO. The alpine windows leaked from the day I got it and the panel gaps were all over the place.

 

[chadr]

I think quality is what has set aside the Landcruisers (and in fact IMHO most Japanese vehicles) of the last 50 years apart from their British rivals.

The term seems to be synonymous with "luxury" nowadays - so stick some soft touch plastics, a bit of leather and a touch screen display on the inside and a snazzy colour and body kit on the outside and you have a "quality" motor. Desirable? Certainly - the sales figures are proof of that.

I don't mean quality it in that sense - I mean it in the sense of the post-war Japanese quality revolution and fixation on quality control, which has lead to vehicles like the 60/70/80 series and others being designed and built.

I'm no expert on the topic and have only touched the surface.............

 

[clivehorridge]

I think the RR should take credit for its innovation of coil spring suspension in 1970, no other (to my knowledge) capable 4x4 could boast that at that time.

It was a simple 2 door machine, but scored a degree of luxury, although the first off the line had hard plastic seats and other less luxurious features. It wasn't crammed with ECUs and such like so it was relatively user friendly.

If you wanted luxury in your RR in those days you could order the Monteverdi which had 4 doors, fabric interior and leather seats with aircon (the first ones were a funny and cumbersome box on the roof style) but later progressed to in-dash conversions. They cost a fortune and were prepared ex-works, staring life as a bog standard 2 door off the production line.

 

[frank rabbets]

The pre production RR's were driving around Birmingham in 1968. If the Patrol had all coil springs and those giant leading front arms holding the front axle on pre 1968 then yes RR were behind the Patrol. I don't know.