# Need recommendations on new SUV



## civic34 (Nov 6, 2007)

We are actually is the same process of looking at a new SUV to replace our full size Denali and our short list is the same as yours...
- Audi Q7 - like the looks and the inside material is high quality. The test drive was awful! In fact, one of the worst driving vehicles I have ever been in at that price range. It was loud, had some vibration coming from the rear seat that would drive me insane, and was very rough riding. Lease deals are insulting. Money factors and residuals are the worst of the group.

- Lexus GX - looks very plain jane with the small wheels that Lexus really needs to upgrade. Very nice and plush on the inside, high quality material. Very boring to drive, no feedback and very "floaty". The third row seat would be annoying is you needed to go back and forth between using it and not using it. Lease deals okay, but very high maintenance cost on any Lexus.

- BMW X5 3.0 - also looking at the 3.0 to save some dough. Feels a tad underpowered, but not bad(I won't be the one driving it and my wife doesn't care as much about performance as I do). 100% BMW inside and out. Third row is very small, but if you need it for small children, it'll do just fine. They may have to perform an acrobatic feet to make it to the third row though!
Best lease deals around.

- Buick Enclave - surprisingly nice inside. Has alot of nice new technoloy for being a GM product. The biggest and roomiest of the bunch by far. The cheapest also. Until they put a V8 in them, it will continue to be way underpowered! Not underpowered like the 3.0 x5, underpowered like a kia. Being a 30 year old, I have a problem picturing myself or my wife in a Buick though. Other than that, it's a very nice vehicle that 

Hope some of this info helps and good luck with your search!!


----------



## Frank Rizzo (Aug 2, 2003)

I'd seriously look at the Acura MDX.

I beat my Acura (RDX) like a rental car daily and it has give me no problems and has not developed any squeaks or rattles. The SH-AWD drivetrain is interesting.

I understand why they sell so many of them.


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

civic34 said:


> We are actually is the same process of looking at a new SUV to replace our full size Denali and our short list is the same as yours...
> - Audi Q7 - like the looks and the inside material is high quality. The test drive was awful! In fact, one of the worst driving vehicles I have ever been in at that price range. It was loud, had some vibration coming from the rear seat that would drive me insane, and was very rough riding. Lease deals are insulting. Money factors and residuals are the worst of the group.
> 
> - Lexus GX - looks very plain jane with the small wheels that Lexus really needs to upgrade. Very nice and plush on the inside, high quality material. Very boring to drive, no feedback and *very "floaty"*. The third row seat would be annoying is you needed to go back and forth between using it and not using it. Lease deals okay, but very high maintenance cost on any Lexus.
> ...


That best describes Lexus. Doesn't feel as solid as a BMW. I turn down every time she offers for me to drive it.:eeps:

Great review.:thumbup:


----------



## SailinSand (Aug 24, 2007)

I love my X5! Great car!


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

Frank Rizzo said:


> I'd seriously look at the Acura MDX.


+1


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Audi Q7 is a very overpriced VW Toureg.

Lease deals are horrible.

Not sure why some are claiming Lexus are really expensive to maintain, that just isn't true.

All the guts are Toyota parts, and most independent Toyota shops can service them.

The only thing you'll need in warranty is standard fluid changes, etc.

Audis, Range Rovers and BMWs are just as expensive, or more so, to maintain than Lexus, and statistically speaking, are much more likely to require more, expensive repairs then the Lexus/Toyota.


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

Add the Acadia and the Enclave to your list. 

Both are very well built, solid if uninspiring drive train, with room to spare. Toss in a lower price, excellent warrenty and great interiors, and you might be surprised.


----------



## civic34 (Nov 6, 2007)

pilotman said:


> Audi Q7 is a very overpriced VW Toureg.
> 
> Lease deals are horrible.
> 
> ...


The Audi Q7 is nothing like the VW toureg....I don't understand that comparison.?

Lexus service is expensive! It's not just oil changes and air filters...if you follow their maintanence schedule, and if you lease you have to, then they have intervals of difference service needed. The first service done on a new Lexus runs $200-350 at the dealership. Who wants to take a brand new Lexus to an independent shop??? Not me..

BMW's are very inexpensive to maintain if you buy a new one...FREE maintenance!! How much cheaper than that can you get??


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

civic34 said:


> The Audi Q7 is nothing like the VW toureg....I don't understand that comparison.?
> 
> Lexus service is expensive! It's not just oil changes and air filters...if you follow their maintanence schedule, and if you lease you have to, then they have intervals of difference service needed. The first service done on a new Lexus runs $200-350 at the dealership. Who wants to take a brand new Lexus to an independent shop??? Not me..
> 
> BMW's are very inexpensive to maintain if you buy a new one...FREE maintenance!! How much cheaper than that can you get??


Uh, ok. You know Audi is simply a division of VW, right? And you know that the Q7 is based upon the Toureg, right? It shares many common underpinnings, etc. Look at them side by side, many many parts are the same.

In fact, they are built at the same factory. The Toureg, Q7 and Cayenne are jointly developed vehicles.

"The Volkswagen Touareg is built in Bratislava, Slovakia. The manufacturing plant shares production with Touareg-cousins Porsche Cayenne and Audi Q7."

And I didn't suggest taking your Lexus to an indy shop, but you can get the same maintenance done at a Toyota dealer. Also, you do NOT need to follow their PREMIUM recommended maintenance on a lease, that is BS.

BMW maintenance isn't that great, you get two oil changes and maybe a brake job. The brake job is expensive, but that is it.

Lexus may have a better warranty, not sure, so that issue is about even.


----------



## civic34 (Nov 6, 2007)

I'm well aware of the fact that the Q7 and the Toureg and built in the same factory...they are still nothing alike! They may share some parts, but they are a different beast. Drive them both back to back and then tell me they are the same!

I must have been feed a line on the Lexus service...if you don't need to follow those guidelines then their service isn't too pricey at all. That would be worth checking on....

Let's agree to disagree on the BMW service....I have had them cover and have heard of them covering alot more in their service and warranty if you push the issue with them. They will not just offer, but some dealers will change their oil and fluid more than the recommended interval, etc...


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

90K service plus some extra work I wanted done at the same time while they were already in there on my LX470 was $2,400 at my local Lexus dealer. It as only $200 less at the Toyota dealership...and no RX loaner from there.

I would consider that expensive. Shortly after was $1,600 for a 120K.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

Why not the CX-9?

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=120069


----------



## milobloom242 (Dec 28, 2004)

LuvThatSam said:


> *The reason I would avoid a Lexus is because of maintenance cost. My cousin has a 04 ES 350 and her maintenance is expensive.:yikes: *
> 
> At least with a BMW, you will be covered for maintenance and repairs for some time. You may pay out a lot now, but in the long run, you will be paying more out to maintenance and repairs.
> 
> ...


This is what I don't understand about people buying Lexus and having maintenance done by a Lexus dealer. Take that ES to a Toyota dealer (if you insist on a dealer) and pay the Camry rate for the dino oil change and you'll save a bundle.


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

jetstream23 said:


> Looking for something in the mid to large size category, but not gigantic. Would like to stay under $60K, must have a 3rd row of seats and looking for something slightly rugged rather than "grocery hauler."
> 
> My current list includes the *Land Rover LR3, Lexus GX470* and *BMW X5*. Each one has some concerns for me. The *Land Rover *seems perfect with decent power, lots of tech in the HSE configurations, "stadium seating" with a panaormic sunroof and excellent offroad manners. However, I've heard lots of complaints about reliability and build quality. There also isn't an iPod adapter or rear DVD for the kids that I would like.
> 
> ...


I considered the same options (and a few others) and decided on the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland (5.7L Hemi).

Based on my research (and test drives, etc. . .) there simply was not another SUV out there that matched its performance, utility, feature content, value, and appearance (inside and out).

Good luck with (and enjoy) your search :beerchug: .

-j


----------



## Ugly Bear (Dec 27, 2006)

jim said:


> I considered the same options (and a few others) and decided on the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland (5.7L Hemi).
> -j


And how is service/reliability? Does GC still hunts at 70+ mph? No Jeeps for me after dealership suggested to my wife it was OK to drive car home with leaking brakes because they didn't have time to fix them before weekend and didn't want to keep the car. And after Chrysler failed to admit for 5 years that their brake rotors were faulty and instead insisting that vibration comes from us doing "too much offroading"


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

milobloom242 said:


> This is what I don't understand about people buying Lexus and having maintenance done by a Lexus dealer. Take that ES to a Toyota dealer (if you insist on a dealer) and pay the Camry rate for the dino oil change and you'll save a bundle.


Who said we go to the dealer??
She doesn't. She goes to a independent shop. Still expensive though.


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Ugly Bear said:


> And how is service/reliability? Does GC still hunts at 70+ mph? No Jeeps for me after dealership suggested to my wife it was OK to drive car home with leaking brakes because they didn't have time to fix them before weekend and didn't want to keep the car. And after Chrysler failed to admit for 5 years that their brake rotors were faulty and instead insisting that vibration comes from us doing "too much offroading"


Service so far has been great, as has reliability.

-j


----------



## milobloom242 (Dec 28, 2004)

LuvThatSam said:


> Who said we go to the dealer??
> She doesn't. She goes to a independent shop. Still expensive though.


Lolz didn't mean you specifically but Lexus drivers in general - seems most of them (that I know anyway) go to Lexus dealers and pay $110-120+ for dino oil changes.


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

I just found this discussion as I was looking for a SUV myself, and test drove a bunch of them yesterday.

The requirement for us is a 7 seater. We already have a truck so we don't need more cargo space. So the bigger car has to have 7 seats to fill an unmet need.

Audi Q7 - We looked at the 3.6 premium. Great car and surprisingly affordable given the brand and the options included in the price. Test drove the car and it felt solid. The car was huge but didn't feel like it when driving. Decent response, handling, and road feel. Lots of technological gadgets that will help the wife (and me occasionally ). Roomy third row seat for adults. To the poster who thought the Q7 was a glorified Toureg, you have obivously not seen / driven a Q7. The Cayenne is a glorified Toureg, the Q7 is completely different.

BMW X5 - Didn't test drive it because none of the sales people had time to tend to us. I will test drive it when I pick up my new car in a week or two. Fudamentally I see a delima here - I can go with the 3.0 engine and try to have 225hp power a close to 6000 pound car, or I can pay another 10k for the 4.8 engine. When I add up the comparable options on the Q7 for the 4.8 engine, the X5 comes to high 60k, about 20k more than the Q7 (although not directly comparable) No thanks.

Lexus Offerings - Didn't like any of their styles so I didn't even bother to test drive any of them. Their 3rd row seats were the removable bench type which really doesn't fit my need.

Infiniti Offerings - same deal, didn't like their style, and the price tag for what I get.

Land Rover LR3 - Surprisingly good car. It was shaped like a brick and it felt like it. The car didn't feel under powered as it had plenty of torque. It was very stable (probably due to weight) and the ride was very comfortable. Lots of interior room. Sales guy did a great demonstration on their mini off road course, and it was very impressive. In the rear seat I liked the stadium seating. And the third row seats were even more roomy than the Q7 - I'd say it's comparable to the backseat on my 335i.

Acura MDX - Very good car as well. 3rd row seat really for kids. Handles very well. Lots of great electronic gadgets. Built quality not as good as Q7 / X5 / LR3. Engines sounds kinda weak - similar to my dad's highlander.

Other cars that I would like to drive: Mazda CX9, Volvo XC90.

Conclusions: My thought on gas guzzling SUV is that they will have a steep depreciation curve, and the depreciation curve will continue to steepen given gas prices. So I don't really want to buy a new SUV and rather let someone else take the blood bath on depreciation. Unfortunately that means the Q7 is out, as much as I like the car. The X5 had no third row seats before 2007, so that's out as well. So that really leaves me the Acura MDX and Land Rover LR3. Based on my research, sure the Land Rover has plenty of reliability issues, most of the issues are covered under warranty, so I should be good as long as I find one that has an extended warranty.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

if we needed 3 rows and were less concerned about mileage, i don't think there's any doubt we'd get the mdx. i drove the mdx back-to-back with the rx350 (our other leading candidate) and it was no contest. (we've since decided that a cr-v, or maybe a hybrid rx is more our speed).


----------



## jetstream23 (Mar 9, 2004)

Glad to see this thread is still alive and well. My hunt for a new SUV has been delayed as the wife recently fender-bendered our current Infiniti QX4.  It's in the shop now and I'll likely hold on to it for a few more months before trying to trade it in. Cosmetic damage only and no injuries to anyone thank goodness.

I've modified the list a little, adding the MDX. It just seems to scream value for a luxury SUV with 300HP, lots of bells and whistles, and Honda build quality behind it. Looks like you can get one loaded for about $45K which seems pretty good compared to other vehicles. Still need to do the test drives but it may come down to the Acura MDX and the BMW X5. I am seeing great lease deals on 2007 X5's right now and my dealership has at least 12 2007's sitting on the lot. I usually buy rather than lease so I'm wondering at what point they really want to start unloading 2007's and I can possibly grab one at invoice price and snag a really low finance rate. Time will tell.

Can anyone compare the 3rd row of seats between the MDX and the X5? What about the interior room? Does the X5 just feel more roomy inside than the MDX? Some have told me that the MDX can feel a little claustrophobic.


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

During my test drive spree yesterday we only tried the MDX, but I've been in the X5 before. When you talk about interior room I assume you are only talking about the third row. The MDX seemed to be better than the X5 in the third row. I did not drive the X5 yesterday but I saw one with the third row seats up, and I remember thinking how can that be a real seat. It reminded me of one of the rear facing third row seats in a station wagon back in the good ole days, and also reminded me of the back row in my 911. I climbed into the back row of the MDX and I would describe it as not comfortable but not miserable either. I am 5'7". The MDX certainly did not feel claustrophobic in the front and second row.

I would strongly encourage you to add the Audi Q7 to your list of options. If you have not driven / seen the car, I think you will be pleasently impressed.


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

Galun said:


> Conclusions: My thought on gas guzzling SUV is that they will have a steep depreciation curve, and the depreciation curve will continue to steepen given gas prices. So I don't really want to buy a new SUV and rather let someone else take the blood bath on depreciation. Unfortunately that means the Q7 is out, as much as I like the car. The X5 had no third row seats before 2007, so that's out as well. So that really leaves me the Acura MDX and Land Rover LR3. Based on my research, sure the Land Rover has plenty of reliability issues, most of the issues are covered under warranty, so I should be good as long as I find one that has an extended warranty.


Surf the Rover boards for recommendations on aftermarket extended warranties on the LR3. If you buy from LR you should be able to get the factory extended warranty. It will add either two or three years (can't remember since I always use up the miles first) or 100K miles. I think I paid $2700 for it on my Discovery when I bought it new. You can get it as long as you have either one month or 1,000 miles left on your original warranty.

http://www.discoweb.org
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/
http://www.roversnorth.com

...that should get you started 

I prefer aftermarket ones so I can use them at independent shops rather than being forced to use the dealer. Find out where the local indy is in your area and ask them who is the easiest to work with on warranty...then check how the company is doing financially. I've lucked out that all of the ones I've had have stayed in business...but some of those eventually did close their doors after my warranty expired.

My local dealer has $10K off leftover '07 LR3s...I considered picking one up last week when I was in the dealer to drop off something and saw the "red tags"

I've owned lots of Rovers and I've never had a warranty claim denied - neither by the dealer when under original manufacturers warranty or LR extended or at the dealer or indy by an aftermarket warranty. I've been fortunate that all of mine have been reliable. The only one that has been pricey is my Range Rover 4.6HSE that just turned over 100K miles and decided to get hot and blow a head gasket. Got the heads done and a bunch of other stuff for $2,300...runs like new again.

As far as a "real" 4x4 I wouldn't own anything else. A crossover AWD for the wifey - X5 or Q7 would be real high on the list.


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

Great, thanks for your feedback TXE39!

In my area (SF bay area) there are currently no discounts at all. Are you sure they are not dealer demos that had some miles on them? In my area I guess the good selling season for the rover is right around now since it's ski season and people may want to get a SUV to go to Lake Tahoe. Sort of like how convertibles sell well ahead of summer I guess.

I checked with my local LR dealer. The CPO extends the warranty to 6 years / 75k miles. That extra 2 years of warranty is worth around $3000 bucks if I were to get a third party car and buy an extended warranty myself - so I guess with some appreciation from your $2700, the quote wasn't bad.

In your area, what would be the ballpark price for a 2005 LR3 with 7 seats, nav, and heavy duty package? How about the same for the 2006? In the bay area, dealers are asking mid 30's for the 2005 and high 30's / low 40's for the 2006, all CPO'ed. If you are telling me that the 07 has 10k off, that's right there in the low 40's.


----------



## black99bimmer (Jun 3, 2006)

jeep grand cherokee srt-8. enough said........go get you one!


----------



## civic34 (Nov 6, 2007)

I think the third row in the X5 is better than the MDX. The X5 seats are kind of miniature seats themselves, but you have plenty of headroom. The MDX cuts all the headroom off making it feel very clausterphobic. 
I think the MDX is okay inside....nice tech features...but the quality is not there. Even if you could get over that fact, how do you ever ignore the outside? Does anyone think it actually looks nice??


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

Galun said:


> Great, thanks for your feedback TXE39!
> 
> In my area (SF bay area) there are currently no discounts at all. Are you sure they are not dealer demos that had some miles on them? In my area I guess the good selling season for the rover is right around now since it's ski season and people may want to get a SUV to go to Lake Tahoe. Sort of like how convertibles sell well ahead of summer I guess.
> 
> ...


Let me check with the dealer. I think those cars were new...but I guess it's possible they were demos. I'll be sure and let you know.

I've bought cars from this place before...this one looks pretty good...and if you aren't in a huge hurry they will locate the exact car you want for you. $999 of the price should be built in for shipping - that is how they used to have their prices setup.

http://www.bvlr.com/browse.php?page=os&car=2854

Around here it looks like prices for V8 7 seaters are anywhere from the high $20Ks to the high $30Ks depending on trim (SE or HSE) and mileage.

Looks like the dealer cars are low mileage demos and are high $30Ks to low $40Ks on asking prices. In my experience though at the end of the year Rover dealers will deal on demos. Once I bought a Range Rover demo with 4K miles for $20K under sticker in January.


----------



## BMW.Nick (Jun 16, 2006)

If you are buying or leasing, and want the truck to bring a smile to your face every time you drive it, its a no brainer:

1. BMW
2. Lexus
69. Land Rover, in that order. (hilarious)

The X5 is a great all arounder. Very competent on the pavement and good for light duty off roading. Fantastic looks and ergonomics and 50k of covered maintenence.

The Lexus is a very reliable SUV obviously, but no fun to drive. Again, good for light duty offroading and not too hard on the eyes.

The LR3 is...well...an Explorer that breaks a lot and drops in value like nothing you've ever seen.


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

BMW.Nick said:


> If you are buying or leasing, and want the truck to bring a smile to your face every time you drive it, its a no brainer:
> 
> 1. BMW
> 2. Lexus
> 69. Land Rover, in that order. (hilarious)






BMW.Nick said:


> The X5 is a great all arounder. Very competent on the pavement and good for light duty off roading. Fantastic looks and ergonomics and 50k of covered maintenence.


:rofl: Good for light duty off roading??? It doesn't even have low range. I wouldn't even take an X5 loaner car on a bumpy gravel road. First...you probably would be left with no teeth...and second...I would imagine it would need a serious service (but fortunately would most likely be covered under the free maintenance :thumbup: ) I would choose an X5 if I just wanted to sit high driving on the pavement.



BMW.Nick said:


> The Lexus is a very reliable SUV obviously, but no fun to drive. Again, good for light duty offroading and not too hard on the eyes.


GX 470 and LX 470 / 570 are Land Cruiser based (Prado for the GX and UZJ-100/200 for the LX). You can do a lot more than light duty offroading with those. Just have to be mindful of the plastic running boards :doh:



BMW.Nick said:


> The LR3 is...well...an Explorer that breaks a lot and drops in value like nothing you've ever seen.


:blah:

You obviously haven't even laid eyes on an LR3. It shares absolutely nothing with the Explorer. I'm not sure how I can have so many Land Rovers that don't break yet this always seems to come up. The Range Rover Sport won the ALG's best residual value award in '06 in its class. The independent mechanic who looks after my cars is friends with some techs at the local dealer. They tell him business is slower than ever...just normal service on the cars coming in...that the new cars aren't breaking and they aren't making any money. As the cars are getting better the residuals are getting higher.

Also if you are buying used there's nothing better than a car that drops like a rock its first two years. That was how I picked up my first BMW.


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/04/01/0401vow.html


----------



## emPoWaH (Dec 26, 2002)

Car and Driver's long-term LR3 test...

http://www.caranddriver.com/longroadtests/11886/land-rover-lr3-hse.html

broken fuel door latch
faded door trim
air suspension switch problem
fuel tank recall
expansion tank sensor problem
liftgate rattle
buzzy speaker grille
broken glovebox door
flickering nav screen


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

Hmm..sounds pretty good to me. Outside of my BMW I haven't ever owned anything that didn't always have something I either wanted or needed to get done during scheduled service visits or a few times in between. I don't think though I ever have had to take the BMW in at any point between services.


----------



## BMW.Nick (Jun 16, 2006)

TXE39 said:


> :rofl: Good for light duty off roading??? It doesn't even have low range. I wouldn't even take an X5 loaner car on a bumpy gravel road. First...you probably would be left with no teeth...and second...I would imagine it would need a serious service (but fortunately would most likely be covered under the free maintenance :thumbup: ) I would choose an X5 if I just wanted to sit high driving on the pavement.
> 
> GX 470 and LX 470 / 570 are Land Cruiser based (Prado for the GX and UZJ-100/200 for the LX). You can do a lot more than light duty offroading with those. Just have to be mindful of the plastic running boards :doh:
> 
> ...


Actually, I work at a large high line auto mall and deal with these cars everyday and yes...they are terribly unreliable (LR3's). Of course a tech at a local dealer is going to make it seem as though the cars aren't having problems, they work for Land Rover.

My opinions are based on real world experience as well, not what I read and regurgitate on the internet.

Oh, and yes the X5 is very capable for LIGHT DUTY off roading. Ive driven X5's not only down several trails and off road courses, but also across Land Rover's trial course, which it had no problem with. The X3 as well.


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

BMW.Nick said:


> Actually, I work at a large high line auto mall and deal with these cars everyday and yes...they are terribly unreliable (LR3's). Of course a tech at a local dealer is going to make it seem as though the cars aren't having problems, they work for Land Rover.


Why would the tech care? He's a tech...not a salesman. I already own four Land Rovers. No one I know that has a newer Rover (with the Jag based V8 engine) has had any problems other than nitpicky squeaks and rattles. Nothing anyone would term "unreliable"



BMW.Nick said:


> My opinions are based on real world experience as well, not what I read and regurgitate on the internet.


I've done about three quarters of a million miles behind the wheel of a Land Rover. How many miles have you done in them?



BMW.Nick said:


> Oh, and yes the X5 is very capable for LIGHT DUTY off roading. Ive driven X5's not only down several trails and off road courses, but also across Land Rover's trial course, which it had no problem with. The X3 as well.


What LR trial course?


----------



## pww71 (Jun 1, 2005)

*Volvo XC90 anyone?*

(enjoying the thread, don't want to hijack the Landrover reliability discussion, but...)

is a Volvo XC90 really not worth considering?

My wife really likes them and we need to replace our ageing Ford this year.

Thanks!


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

pww71 said:


> is a Volvo XC90 really not worth considering?


I have a few relatives that have them...all love them. We've had three Volvos (no XC90s though) and all were great cars. We'd probably go with one if we were after that type of SUV.


----------



## BMW.Nick (Jun 16, 2006)

TXE39 said:


> I've done about three quarters of a million miles behind the wheel of a Land Rover. How many miles have you done in them?


How many miles have you done behind the wheel of an LR3? My ex-fiancee had one and it was horribly unreliable. From transmission troubles down to the glove box latch breaking...3 times and MANY points in between. Not to mention that everyone I have attempted to trade in has been riddled with problems.

I am sure that your LR's have been great as you say, but you can't act as if the LR3 being unreliable is news to you.


----------



## MB330 (Oct 18, 2005)

jw said:


> +1


+2 MDX! :thumbup:


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

BMW.Nick said:


> How many miles have you done behind the wheel of an LR3? My ex-fiancee had one and it was horribly unreliable. From transmission troubles down to the glove box latch breaking...3 times and MANY points in between. Not to mention that everyone I have attempted to trade in has been riddled with problems.
> 
> I am sure that your LR's have been great as you say, but you can't act as if the LR3 being unreliable is news to you.


I haven't heard anyone complaining about their LR3s. I don't particularly care for them so I haven't bought one. There are at least 10 of them in our local club and no one has complained about problems. I was with a client who has an '05 with 40-something thousand miles on his and he says it's the "best" car he's ever had...not one problem with it so far. Same goes for everyone I know who has bought a Range Rover Sport (which I'm sure you know is based on the LR3's platform).

My bragging backfired on me though. The ignition switch went out on my '92 Range Rover yesterday. It's stuck in the driveway and won't start. I was very thankful it broke at home since the choice is to either a) have it towed...or b) use a screwdriver


----------

