Calling LR3 and LR4 lowers, loyalists, cool aid drinkers and skeptics...
- Thread starter Jwestpro
- Start date
Jwestpro
Explorer
Yes, but currently that model, 2013+, is roughly $80,000 - $90,000 for a used HSE. A full aluminum platform would be nice as would next year's tdv6 for North America but then that's $100,000 new.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Yes, the comparison of the LC200 to LR4 is merely one of price point. In a sense I think you actually get more for the $ in the LC when $ is about the same. New LC may list/msrp for $82k, but anyone savvy finds out soon that some dealers even go ahead and list new LC200 for around $72k. I'd say in my experience that while new Land Rover pricing can be negotiated, it isn't usually 10% off right up front unless nearing the end of the year model and/or plenty are available in a given market region.
Now, looking at used pricing and depreciation, the Land Rovers, all of them, drop much more dramatically in the first few years than LC. This is mostly due to market volume I'm guessing.
"Value" wise though, the LC wins by a mile. Functionality wise, well, it's a tough decision because of how well laid out the darn Lr3/4 interior has become.
Back when the Discovery II was the choice, it was far more functional inside than the LC 80 or 100 due to the height inside. I still think it's so darn cool to have the rear operable sunroof and the "alpine" windows at top edge of roof in my Disco II.
Going forward, the inertia of doing nothing may present me with an additional choice for comparison, a new LR5 in aluminum frame and body? with a TDV6 ???? Sure, optioned out it will push $80k right! But no rust and 800 mile range with only factory tank would be very enticing.
I used to like getting the newest "thing" the moment it came out (like a computer or mtn bike). I've since grown toward getting the last of the best fine tuned design when it's ending. Thus the 2004 Disco II I bought used in 2006 in it's last year in a very rare color combo (Aspen interior), Audi S4 Avant mt6 2008 bought new with almost 20% discount, 2006 Land Cruiser 100, maybe now a V8 LR4 or next year a LC200 before it gets neutered (still currently has solid rear axle but I bet it'll go to independent and/or air).
Which ever new to me thing happens, it is likely to become the "primary" travel/exploration vehicle with the lr3 becoming a stripped out work only vehicle or go to a family member. I've kind of invested too much $ into it to sell away the investment for next to nothing while also getting hit with a big "recaptured loss" in my business.
Hmmmmm ..............
Narratives
WHY THE LAND CRUISER IS THE WORST SELLING SUV IN AMERICA
Predictions of its demise are being floated.
Land Rover, Toyota big winners in ALG top resale value awards
".....Land Rover's overall win among Premium manufacturers is its first, and comes as a result of having consistently delivered a stream of hot, new vehicles for which customer demand far outweighs supply.
"With some models like the Range Rover Sport, we're seeing vehicles on the dealer lot for just 13 days on average – far below the industry's 65-day average," said Dominique. "Some Land Rover models are in such high demand that they're selling above MSRP – a remarkable achievement that's only possible with manufacturer restraint and a tightly controlled supply chain.".....
Seen numbers of +3% to +5% for RR, not -20% of most used cars.
Narratives
WHY THE LAND CRUISER IS THE WORST SELLING SUV IN AMERICA
Predictions of its demise are being floated.
Land Rover, Toyota big winners in ALG top resale value awards
".....Land Rover's overall win among Premium manufacturers is its first, and comes as a result of having consistently delivered a stream of hot, new vehicles for which customer demand far outweighs supply.
"With some models like the Range Rover Sport, we're seeing vehicles on the dealer lot for just 13 days on average – far below the industry's 65-day average," said Dominique. "Some Land Rover models are in such high demand that they're selling above MSRP – a remarkable achievement that's only possible with manufacturer restraint and a tightly controlled supply chain.".....
Seen numbers of +3% to +5% for RR, not -20% of most used cars.
MARKSMONTE
EXPLORER
We just puchased a 05 LR3 SE with 65k miles on it. It has 2 1/2 " Rino lift and 32" Duratracs on it. all stock other wise. We love it! Sorry to say it will be afew years before it sees much off road, I still have my Montero for that. There is no price compairison. Can't touch anything like it for the price.
Jwestpro
Explorer
That is a nice solution but one of the things I do love about the lr3 is the ability to lift up for high clearance or drop very low for garaging, even parking garages. With the LLAMS tool I can instantly drop -20mm or lift +30 or +50 on the fly. This is against whatever you already have set as the base through the IIDtool.
The combination allows the very, absolute lowest possible setting onto the bump stops or the very highest but all at twist of the switch and without stopping. It's particularly good for parking in city garages. First lock the lr3 factory "lowered" lever, then drop another 20mm via the LLAMS.
It allows most garages even with the full length Hannibal rack and 32" tires. A larger tire would probably run too much in the rear fender liner.
The combination allows the very, absolute lowest possible setting onto the bump stops or the very highest but all at twist of the switch and without stopping. It's particularly good for parking in city garages. First lock the lr3 factory "lowered" lever, then drop another 20mm via the LLAMS.
It allows most garages even with the full length Hannibal rack and 32" tires. A larger tire would probably run too much in the rear fender liner.
Jwestpro
Explorer
I actually find the G quite comfortable on the highway and paved roads in general. The seats alone are quite far superior to the lr3 and lr4 seats but I agree the air suspension does soften things out a lot. Comfort can mean different things to everyone though. For example, I'm only 155 lbs, built for cross country skiing and mountain biking. I find my 2004 Disco to be fine in terms of contact points but it's a little less adjustable in some aspects compared to the lr3 and 4. I find the added width in the lr3/4 to be too wide for my preferences so the G is really the perfect fit. Well, a perfect fit for me is an x5 with the 20 way comfort seats, like in my wagon, but the x5 is just a taller car so kind of irrelevant.
The full size range rover seats and overall dimensional ergonomics are far better than the other models and the new multi articulated seats are even better but they're only available on Autobiography models and that's quite a bit past the price range established above.
In many ways, the G is ideal, rugged and not too many fancy frills where they don't matter but just enough where it matters to me, in the seats blowing warm or cool air and very supportive, great view and sight lines, etc. If the next G retains what it is but comes with a diesel, well, then that might just be the one, of course 10 years from now when it could be bought for $60k !
Colin Hughes
Explorer
I was really surprised with the difference in height from the D1/D2 to the LR3. I can put my canoe on the top of the LR3 and still park it in my garage, even at standard height. Couldn't do that with either of the other ones. Looks, it appears, are deceptive.
mhiscox
Expedition Leader
I'm going through very similar decision making and after having many Toyota/Lexus products, all with superb reliability, I'd like to try something different, like a few-year-old Range Rover or Range Rover Sport. I am, however, afraid to change totally problem free ownership for what seems to be (J.D. Powers, Consumer Reports, etc.) one of the least reliable brands.
Anyone want to dissuade me of that belief? If not, seems to me the 200 Series is the way to go. Thanks.
Anyone want to dissuade me of that belief? If not, seems to me the 200 Series is the way to go. Thanks.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Just do 200 or lx570....don't even go for test drive in the RR 
No, seriously, I really cannot imagine how a fellow person who travels with "stuff" could make sense of the Sport. You get all of the worries of an Lr3 or LR4 but NONE of the functional space. The Range Rover is at least a different vehicle in most ways from the Lr3/4 and RRS. RR has different platform, etc. RRS is pretty much identical frame, body, etc to lr3/4 unless it has a supercharged engine. Comfort features are equally lacking in the RRS.
RR however, great comfort for all passengers, much, much quieter inside due to tripple layer glass on front and double on front side windows. Knee airbag in RR, arm rest are better, seats are way better, air venting is quieter.
You could maybe appreciate that the RR has better continual ground clearance over the lr3/4/rrs due to a differently laid out chassis and differential structure. RR HSE had option for locking rear diff but ALL supercharged land rovers come with locking rear standard, even RRS.
These are incredible machines while everything is working perfectly Really, the only way to answer your question better is to narrow down the year to year or cost range. In RR, there are some really problematic years. I'd talk with a trusted service manager. Lr3's are crazy cheap but lr4 have much nicer feeling engine and transmission.
No, seriously, I really cannot imagine how a fellow person who travels with "stuff" could make sense of the Sport. You get all of the worries of an Lr3 or LR4 but NONE of the functional space. The Range Rover is at least a different vehicle in most ways from the Lr3/4 and RRS. RR has different platform, etc. RRS is pretty much identical frame, body, etc to lr3/4 unless it has a supercharged engine. Comfort features are equally lacking in the RRS. RR however, great comfort for all passengers, much, much quieter inside due to tripple layer glass on front and double on front side windows. Knee airbag in RR, arm rest are better, seats are way better, air venting is quieter.
You could maybe appreciate that the RR has better continual ground clearance over the lr3/4/rrs due to a differently laid out chassis and differential structure. RR HSE had option for locking rear diff but ALL supercharged land rovers come with locking rear standard, even RRS.
These are incredible machines while everything is working perfectly
Really, the only way to answer your question better is to narrow down the year to year or cost range. In RR, there are some really problematic years. I'd talk with a trusted service manager. Lr3's are crazy cheap but lr4 have much nicer feeling engine and transmission.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Facts: I've owned my 2007 lr3 since new. I am the "type" to have the best tech work on it or pay a little extra to know things get done properly. So, it's only been touched by trained rover techs. I have a warranty up to 100,000 miles (it's at 99,850 this week!) so there has been no reason anyway to try "saving" a few $ by going to anyone other than a dealer I find to be better than another dealer or an indy shop such as Flying Circus in Durham NC or Columbia in Portland.
Oh, Mike, I forgot, chat with them about rovers.
Ok, I was about to go off on an "opinion" tangent
More facts:
You like going places where tire choice and sidewall profile comes into question....there are tire and wheel size limitations on any vehicle in the world, but some are found quicker
LR3: factory stock vehicles came with 18" and 19". Minimum rim size for stock vehicle, using factory wheels: 18". Lucky8 is trying to develop a 17" steel with offset similar to adding a spacer on an 18" alloy. This 17" is still not readily available. Offset on lr3/4 actually can introduce other problems so just pushing the wheel out is not an entire solution. (when wheel is turned, the added offset actually brings a wider tire into certain contact points sooner...)
LR4 comes factory with 19" or 20". Stock vehicle can only fit factory 18". OR, "Compmotive" 18" aftermarket wheels can be bolted on directly. They are apparently forged so in some ways, an "upgrade" from factory alloys. Keep in mind, with heavy vehicles (my lr3 is 7000-8000 lbs when fitted for trips) wheel load rating is something to remember. The factory alloys are all suitable and so is the compmotive, but nobody has found a suitable alternative for the lr4 yet that I've read.
Why the size restrictions? Front brakes. Rotors and calipers. Some people have fitted v6 model sourced brake parts onto lr3 to allow fitting the v6 spec 17" wheel that other parts of the world have available. North America basically only ever had v8 ordered with a very few v6 floating around. Similarly, I thought Scott Brady looked into fitting lr3 spec brakes onto the lr4 build to allow simplest use of factory 18" wheels.
The compmotive 18" may be "better" because they're forged, but they do not look at all like they match the Land Rover. They're not terrible like the rockstar wheels on toyotas
but they aren't rover-like. Also, as I mentioned, the offset can become it's own problem creator if trying to use wider tires.The upper control arms, and some weird frame steel "horns" behind front wheels, cause contact points on wider tires. For example, a 285/65x18 will rub UCA flange metal whereas 285/60x18 will just barely work without touching. The front independent suspension is an interesting thing I've seen when on a lift with tires drooping fully. It's at full extension that the UCA becomes the tightest. Makes sense when you think of basic geometry. I have 275/65x18 and they just barely work without rubbing the UCA. I suspect that a 265/70x18 MIGHT work but then it's tall enough that it could also slide into the danger zone. You think "add a spacer", well, maybe for that aspect but then the width of the tire will now rub at approximately 70% turn onto the frame "horns" or front fender lining or ARB bumper trim metal (which can all be cut away). I think my 275/65x18 would rub the frame horn for sure if using a 25-30mm spacer. I may test this soon. I have the spacers but my frame horns are removed.
Maximum tire size on lr3 or 4, stock vehicle 31.5", period. Modified 32", getting goofy and riding too high all the time, I suppose 33" could work, but you'll actually be stuck on yourself if the computer system ever decides to drop to the bump stops. 33" tires will actually make so much contact inside fender liners the vehicle would rip itself apart trying to move. So, annoying mods allow 32" tire.... but, the way the air suspension works, you can get quite the ground clearance even under center, all the way through, with just the 31.5" tire and no mods at all.
In the Land Cruiser, a stock lc200 or lx570 can fit a 33" tire no problem. That's a 275/70x18 (too wide would also cause similar troubles with UCA but that's about the only really tight spot in the fenders. Also, 17" TRD wheels can bolt right on over the brakes. Sweet right?!
That's before the straight forward OME 2" lift.
ARB has lockers for lr3 or lc so that aspect is basically the same.
mhiscox
Expedition Leader
Is this one of the threads you found on Mud?
http://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/can-you-run-33-tires-on-lx570-20-wheels.823864/
Lots of discussion on Mud for something that seems like it should have a pretty straightforward answer.
Last edited:
Jwestpro
Explorer
I'll look one up. I know someone in the area who's on there with that size in Duratracs. Fit is perfect and he had it stock otherwise.