Range Rover vs LR4

[Jwestpro]

I'm hoping we can drive the RRSC tomorrow. We tried the LX570 last weekend, and she found it too "big". I'm hoping the more aggressive and sporty driving nature will offset the fact the RR is not really any smaller than the 200 series.

True, comparing with the lx570, a RRSC does feel more light and nimble, but in truth it may not be all that different. I find that the seating position in the RR contributes to how it seems smaller even though it isn't so much bumper to bumper.

If you said interior cargo volume was a priority, then I'd suggest the LR4, with LX 2nd, then RR.

I think you should have her drive also a 2013 Mercedes G550, or an 09/10. It has the best sight lines of all of them but the least car-like handling.

 

[MTSN]

True, comparing with the lx570, a RRSC does feel more light and nimble, but in truth it may not be all that different. I find that the seating position in the RR contributes to how it seems smaller even though it isn't so much bumper to bumper.

If you said interior cargo volume was a priority, then I'd suggest the LR4, with LX 2nd, then RR.

I think you should have her drive also a 2013 Mercedes G550, or an 09/10. It has the best sight lines of all of them but the least car-like handling.

Cargo volume isn't a big deal because it's just the two of us with a single dog, although we do have a lot of things like bikes and skis we like to bring with us (some might say the RR Sport would be a good option but neither of us is crazy about it). I like using roof racks or hitch racks for that stuff too, so it keeps the interior free. I absolutely love the G550, but they are still very expensive compared to the Range Rovers and like you said are the least "on road" refined. I've found quite a few 2010-2012 Range Rovers with 35-50k miles for low $30s, but you can't really find a G550 for less than $50k which is more than we want to spend.

 

[Jwestpro]

Cargo volume isn't a big deal because it's just the two of us with a single dog, although we do have a lot of things like bikes and skis we like to bring with us (some might say the RR Sport would be a good option but neither of us is crazy about it). I like using roof racks or hitch racks for that stuff too, so it keeps the interior free. .

With those parameters, why the rover in the first place when you already have the 4x4 side very well covered? The Range Rover for sure if it must be a rover, but there are other ideas that come to mind like some of the fun wagons out there, especially in the used market which opens up model specifics that are not available any more.

As for the Range Rover Sport models, I agree that there's pretty much no reason to bother with one of the previous generation as they were basically overpriced LR3 with only slightly nicer interior finishes yet much less usability. The new RR Sport though is quite another machine in all aspects which the price will also reflect.

I enjoyed my 2007 RRSC but it was ultimately too small and non-functional inside when compared to the LR3 so I sold it within a year and bought my current LR3 in 2007. I use the rover mostly in the summers because in the winter, the snow is too deep for a wheeled vehicle anyway and most of the winter travel is to an indoor place with my nordic skis so not nearly as much space is needed. In the summer it's bikes and outdoor camping gear that is much more bulky and meant for living outside so the rover makes more sense with sometimes the root tent, awnings, outdoor cooking, etc.

The wagon is WAY more comfortable for long drives and is plenty of space for winter toys. I spent more on my used wagon though than you are talking for the used RR so good for you! The RR IS kind of wagon-like in that the cargo area is not all that huge so if I were doing it over, the RR could be a nice alternative too. I really just wanted something more sporty including a 6 spd, great handling, more comfortable than the RR, and decent fuel economy with the ability to pass easily on the highway and outrun 90% of the other vehicles if necessary

 

[vasily]

I'm 1 to 2 years from this decision. Subscribed!

 

[mpinco]

Cargo volume isn't a big deal because it's just the two of us with a single dog, although we do have a lot of things like bikes and skis we like to bring with us .......

Ah, same here. Two of us + Husky + Misc depending on what we are doing. Can't imagine less space.

LR4 is perfect as you can level out the 2nd and 3rd row seats and have room for dog + stuff. In fact our 2/3rd row seats were in cargo mode for the last 2 months. Just reconfigured it last night for a weekend event.




..... LR4

 

[99Discovery]

I've mentioned this on similar threads:

We have a Disco II, but my wife was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in her back at a young age, so the solid axles on washboard roads really take the fun out of off-roading. So I went against my religion and decided to try out the IFS/IRS combo of the modern rovers. We tested a 2011 RR non-supercharged, a RR Sport, and an LR4, all on the $tealership's off-road course and on the highway.

The skinny:

Range Rover Sport: Most car-like of the bunch. I loved the looks, my wife hated the seats, they hurt her back the most. Definitely sports-car seats. It was out for us because of that, but I loved the interior, although it was much smaller (especially cargo wise).

LR4: Nice quiet drive, exhibited some body rolls on the highway (no big deal), was extremely comfortable off road. Most "Safari-like" of the three, and it's aftermarket support advantage is already noted. My wife would have loved this vehicle had the salesman not had her drive the L322 first...

Range Rover L322: Good Crap, is this how the other-side (rich) live? Interior was night and day above the LR4 and RRS, the highway manners resembled my old V8 BMW 540i more than any SUV, it defied physics and hugged corners it shouldn't be able to hug. Off-road it there is no other way to put it than a member of another forum put: "It coddles your butt like no other" or something like that. Simply amazing. It even out-articulated the LR4, seats were comfier, and felt the best on my wife's back during all the tests.

Aftermarket will be an issue for us (should we get one, we are still a few years out), but the RR is simply in another league. No other vehicle is like it. Others might be more utilitarian, others more luxurious, but I don't think there is anything that really compares for an all-in-one package.

In short, if you don't need the capacity/7-seats of the LR4, go Range Rover.

 

[racehorse]

Range Rover would be my vote. Would love to have one in a year or so. I have a built LR3 for camping/wheeling but no way I would buy an LR4 instead of a RR if it was going to see mostly road use. The RR is the top of Land Rover's line for a reason - just another level of refinement. And while I love my LR3, stock they look like milk man trucks. The Range Rover is just an aesthetically beautiful shape/machine stock.

 

[nwoods]

From behind the wheel the RR is hard to beat in comfort. When it comes to versatility, the LR3/4 is impossible to beat. If you have kids, or periodically haul things, (for horses as an example), or have large dogs, the LR3/4 is just way more versatile in interior space and load out configurations.

 

[greynolds]

Cargo volume isn't a big deal because it's just the two of us with a single dog, although we do have a lot of things like bikes and skis we like to bring with us (some might say the RR Sport would be a good option but neither of us is crazy about it). I like using roof racks or hitch racks for that stuff too, so it keeps the interior free. I absolutely love the G550, but they are still very expensive compared to the Range Rovers and like you said are the least "on road" refined. I've found quite a few 2010-2012 Range Rovers with 35-50k miles for low $30s, but you can't really find a G550 for less than $50k which is more than we want to spend.

Roof rack options, whether you want Thule / Yakima, or a full blown expedition rack, are VERY limited on the Range Rover. There are numerous options available for the LR3/LR4. If you plan to keep it bone stock other than installing the factory roof rack if the one you buy doesn't come with one, the Range Rover would be fine. If you want to make ANY mods at all other than getting Weathertech floor mats, the Range Rover will be frustrating to own.

 

[evilfij]

Big Range Rover, not the sport (the brand new sport is nice) or LR3/4.

It really is a much better vehicle. I enjoyed the ones I had. I don't think supercharged really hurts much with reliability. I was confident enough to buy the jag with the same or similar supercharged V8. And it is a BIG upgrade in speed and power.

 

[ntan]

Go for the RR. I had a 2010 RR Supercharged that had sliders, a slight lift (rods and computer), AT tires, etc., and I never had any issues with it... and it went through its fair share of rough trails. Anyone who says not to get it because it's a supercharger/unreliable/etc. likely hasn't owned one. I've had 4 Mk3s, and nothing drives like it.

 

[Jwestpro]

Roof rack options, whether you want Thule / Yakima, or a full blown expedition rack, are VERY limited on the Range Rover. There are numerous options available for the LR3/LR4. If you plan to keep it bone stock other than installing the factory roof rack if the one you buy doesn't come with one, the Range Rover would be fine. If you want to make ANY mods at all other than getting Weathertech floor mats, the Range Rover will be frustrating to own.

Eh? Most can fit the RR. Your post doesn't sound like you have actual first hand information.... it's so simple I cannot understand how you got to that conclusion. My Hannibal would fit no problem. Front Runner, Safety Devices, all will go on the RR including any Thule or Yakima towers and bars.

"Mods" ? Any? Bigger tires, no big deal. Aftermarket tire carrier, they exist. Bigger/better tires, pull the rear seats, add a LLAMS unit and IIDtool, good to go. Older supercharged models come with locking rear diff and full size spare so that's a start too but the brakes on non-supercharged model will allow 18" wheels by Compomotive.

Best solution is SC model with HSE brake swap for 18's and 32" tires. That thing would be killer. You have to also remember that the RR has higher continuous ground clearance than the LR3/4 due to a different design in the chassis and rear diff/exhaust routing.

 

[Jwestpro]

Anyone who says not to get it because it's a supercharger/unreliable/etc. likely hasn't owned one. I've had 4 Mk3s, and nothing drives like it.

Amen! :beer:

 

[Ray_G]

Pulled from a for sale thread on the UAE Land Rover owner's facebook page...clearly RR's can get modified. Like all things it is a matter of budget and desire, not necessarily in that order.

 

[greynolds]

Eh? Most can fit the RR. Your post doesn't sound like you have actual first hand information.... it's so simple I cannot understand how you got to that conclusion. My Hannibal would fit no problem. Front Runner, Safety Devices, all will go on the RR including any Thule or Yakima towers and bars.

I owned a 2014 L405 Range Rover and the options for roof racks that weren't based on using the factory rack were extremely limited. Options for the previous generations are probably different.

The RRC obviously has gutters which opens up lots of options, but that's probably a bit older than the OP has in mind .

I own a 2014 G550 now.