Lr3 Vs RR Sport

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

roverman

Full Access Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
1,667
Reaction score
108
Jesus, what a topic. If the Lr3 had 450 hp to compensate for it's weight, then you all would be complaining about it's $65k price tag. Or you'd be complaining about the 7 mpg that you were getting. If you really really can't merge on an xpressway with this thing, I'm not sure what's wrong with your driving, but get an Armada (which with that roofline looks like Homer Simpson was involved in designing it). Just don't try to follow me off road. For a vehicle in the $50g category, the LR3 is the best all around SUV available, IMO.
As an aside, I'm not sure how, with the declining value of the dollar and all, they managed to sell this for $10g less than my '99 RR. It excels over the '99 in every category.
mbc, completely agree about the 540i and probably will end up doing the same by summer. 6 speed of course....
 

Wayfarer

Active Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Posts
32
Reaction score
0
I for one would consider 65k a great price tag. The RRS is what? 75k I think? 10k cheaper, more room, more off road and some solid acceleration, that would be perfect. Is it a nice, modestly priced luxury SUV with real off road capability as is? Sure is. I use it for my daily drive but I still wish it had a little more acceleration. It seems many here are willing to defend that little 4.0 litre to the grave, and that is just fine. I guess it is all in your expectations and past/current driving experience to provide your frame of reference. I am sure if you are coming from a Disco 1 the LR3 seems like an Indy car. For me, coming out of a Titan for daily commuting and my weekend dream car that does 0-60 in under 4 seconds in street tires, the LR3 seems a bit slow. Obviously I did not find it so slow coupled with its other attributes I did not find it unleaseable, but I will forever think it needs a better weight to horsepower ratio.

Cheers
 

roverman

Full Access Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
1,667
Reaction score
108
An optional LR3 SC would probably not be a bad idea. I was just thinking that if pricepoint was the same, I wouldn't want to sacrifice anything else the LR3 offers for the bigger engine. I haven't had a fast 4 X 4 since an old jeep CJ7 with over 500 hp. I used to smoke everything from chevelles and 'vettes to ferraris. I guess it's just out of my system. I do love the new engine though. Having had 4 of the old engines, it's a night and day difference.
 
D

dry_fly

Guest
LOL! This thread is hysterical... it's like debating who's hottest from baywatch... Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra... the fact is who cares... most men would give thier left nut to be with either of them. Find satisfaction that we get to experience the either of these two everyday, and most people are envious. And if even one of you throw an Hasselhoff comment out there, I'm resigning my membership from this group:) Cheers!
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
36,319
Posts
218,638
Members
30,520
Latest member
Cummins
Top