Originally Posted by binvanna

I realize the Jeep guy wasn't really addressing the basic/common sense in personal finance, but if you don't have that base covered, a 4x4 of any brand doesn't make sense. You know, I mean, pay off your debt first before you spend more unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that Land Rover (or any 4x4) expense can be justified much by the value of a dependable vehicle. It makes sense to maintain an operable vehicle rather than a neglected one for sure, but many other brands and types of vehicle can be dependable for considerably less expense than a Land Rover 4x4. A Jeep is rarely a good alternative though. A compact pickup, even 2wd, has most of the utility that a Land Rover does for much less total cost of ownership.

Land Rovers are rare, very rare compared to pickups, or even Toyota Camrys. Because for most people, what they offer beyond pickups, camrys, or any of the car models at the airport rental places, just doesn't have value enough to justify the expense. For most people, they don't make sense.

If a four-seat, 4x4 SUV with a fairly high level of off-road capability really "makes sense" at all in your world, then you can make a comparison with alternatives that meet those criteria. But many people have 4x4 SUV's just for the looks, the image. So if you actually use it's capability, does that justify it?

The Land Rover isn't really justified by it's capability. A 2WD compact pickup can be made to go most places that Land Rovers are actually taken. And there aren't many Land Rovers that will go through the Fordyce Creek trail at all, while plenty of Jeeps and Toyotas will. You just can't say that you need a Land Rover to do a certain level of terrain that lesser vehicles can't. The fact is lesser vehicles will do it, and they'll even do more than the Land Rover can.

The Land Rover "makes sense" when it meets your desires, you have the resources to afford it, you value it enough to do what it takes, and it's enough of a priority that it gets acquired and built. Financially, it's not really more costly than any other project 4x4. If you look at well-built Jeep or Toyota projects of any model era, they're often much costlier than what most well-maintained Land Rovers are. I've seen solid-axle swap Toyotas, built-up JK's with tons on coilovers and 4-links, clean FJ resto's, lifted, locked and with everything from on-board air to suspension seats. Whether those builds made financial sense or not, none of them were a bargain at a discount far below the cost of a well-maintained Land Rover. "You get what you pay for." So whether it makes sense or not depends on what you value.

For me, the Land Rover does poorly as a cheap 4x4. There are some other 4x4's that will wheel for just a few hundred bucks, and die hard. Doing that to a Land Rover is possible, but it's a very short term prospect. You could find one cheap, wheel it a couple weekends and part it out. But if you wanted to go any further than that, it becomes more costly than the alternatives.

The Land Rover is also a bad choice for an extreme project. If you want to end up stretched on 40's with a four-link, tons, and all the bad-*** parts, that just isn't the Land Rover's forte.

Where the Land Rover does well is as a modest, full-body, four-door, hard-roof 4x4. If they're in good condition they will be more comfortable than any Jeep ever built, any model. Even a D1 or RRC is more comfortable than any solid axle Jeep ever, and the independent suspension models are much nicer than the latest Grand Cherokees. Likewise, they're more comfortable than any Toyota 4x4, ever.

Land Rover themselves recognized this strength and built on it something that no other 4x4 even attempts to compete with in the late model Range Rovers. While I think they took the comfort aspect to an absurd extreme for a 4x4, the kind of comfort my comparably modest D1 offers is very practical. Most guys I know with built-up CJ, TJ, K5 and other radical builds, they have a different daily driver because those rigs are noisy, cold, hot, drafty. I mean, you can't even carry on a conversation in them. They suck 95% of the time, and just 5% of the time, yeah it's nice to be topless and crawl over the rocks without worrying about your doors, or to bust through a mud bog with a 454 on 42's when you've got nowhere else to be. Any other time, I'd rather be in a Land Rover. Even a JK, you pay a lot more for a stock one than you will for a well built older Land Rover and they're not even more comfortable. You can take their capability a lot farther than a Land Rover, but not without spending double again.

The Land Rover is more costly than most people that acquire them first believe. After a little experience, I believe the D1 and RRC are the best values, but that they will cost well over $10K in the long-term (not counting fuel), and as much as twice that with modifications and the expense of offroading. From what I can tell, D2's and P38's could cost as much as $10K more than a D1 or Classic. I see a lot of new Discovery owners with budgets below $10K, expecting to go offroading. I think those are mistaken expectations. If that is what a person is thinking, I will tell them it doesn't make financial sense. In that budget range, a compact pickup and a used ATV or dirt bike make more sense.

If someone has been driving a Land Rover and offroading it regularly for more than a few years and not spent at least $10K on it, I would like to shake their hand.

Originally Posted by binvanna

I realize the Jeep guy wasn't really addressing the basic/common sense in personal finance, but if you don't have that base covered, a 4x4 of any brand doesn't make sense. You know, I mean, pay off your debt first before you spend more unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that Land Rover (or any 4x4) expense can be justified much by the value of a dependable vehicle. It makes sense to maintain an operable vehicle rather than a neglected one for sure, but many other brands and types of vehicle can be dependable for considerably less expense than a Land Rover 4x4. A Jeep is rarely a good alternative though. A compact pickup, even 2wd, has most of the utility that a Land Rover does for much less total cost of ownership.

Land Rovers are rare, very rare compared to pickups, or even Toyota Camrys. Because for most people, what they offer beyond pickups, camrys, or any of the car models at the airport rental places, just doesn't have value enough to justify the expense. For most people, they don't make sense.

If a four-seat, 4x4 SUV with a fairly high level of off-road capability really "makes sense" at all in your world, then you can make a comparison with alternatives that meet those criteria. But many people have 4x4 SUV's just for the looks, the image. So if you actually use it's capability, does that justify it?

The Land Rover isn't really justified by it's capability. A 2WD compact pickup can be made to go most places that Land Rovers are actually taken. And there aren't many Land Rovers that will go through the Fordyce Creek trail at all, while plenty of Jeeps and Toyotas will. You just can't say that you need a Land Rover to do a certain level of terrain that lesser vehicles can't. The fact is lesser vehicles will do it, and they'll even do more than the Land Rover can.

The Land Rover "makes sense" when it meets your desires, you have the resources to afford it, you value it enough to do what it takes, and it's enough of a priority that it gets acquired and built. Financially, it's not really more costly than any other project 4x4. If you look at well-built Jeep or Toyota projects of any model era, they're often much costlier than what most well-maintained Land Rovers are. I've seen solid-axle swap Toyotas, built-up JK's with tons on coilovers and 4-links, clean FJ resto's, lifted, locked and with everything from on-board air to suspension seats. Whether those builds made financial sense or not, none of them were a bargain at a discount far below the cost of a well-maintained Land Rover. "You get what you pay for." So whether it makes sense or not depends on what you value.

For me, the Land Rover does poorly as a cheap 4x4. There are some other 4x4's that will wheel for just a few hundred bucks, and die hard. Doing that to a Land Rover is possible, but it's a very short term prospect. You could find one cheap, wheel it a couple weekends and part it out. But if you wanted to go any further than that, it becomes more costly than the alternatives.

The Land Rover is also a bad choice for an extreme project. If you want to end up stretched on 40's with a four-link, tons, and all the bad-*** parts, that just isn't the Land Rover's forte.

Where the Land Rover does well is as a modest, full-body, four-door, hard-roof 4x4. If they're in good condition they will be more comfortable than any Jeep ever built, any model. Even a D1 or RRC is more comfortable than any solid axle Jeep ever, and the independent suspension models are much nicer than the latest Grand Cherokees. Likewise, they're more comfortable than any Toyota 4x4, ever.

Land Rover themselves recognized this strength and built on it something that no other 4x4 even attempts to compete with in the late model Range Rovers. While I think they took the comfort aspect to an absurd extreme for a 4x4, the kind of comfort my comparably modest D1 offers is very practical. Most guys I know with built-up CJ, TJ, K5 and other radical builds, they have a different daily driver because those rigs are noisy, cold, hot, drafty. I mean, you can't even carry on a conversation in them. They suck 95% of the time, and just 5% of the time, yeah it's nice to be topless and crawl over the rocks without worrying about your doors, or to bust through a mud bog with a 454 on 42's when you've got nowhere else to be. Any other time, I'd rather be in a Land Rover. Even a JK, you pay a lot more for a stock one than you will for a well built older Land Rover and they're not even more comfortable. You can take their capability a lot farther than a Land Rover, but not without spending double again.

The Land Rover is more costly than most people that acquire them first believe. After a little experience, I believe the D1 and RRC are the best values, but that they will cost well over $10K in the long-term (not counting fuel), and as much as twice that with modifications and the expense of offroading. From what I can tell, D2's and P38's could cost as much as $10K more than a D1 or Classic. I see a lot of new Discovery owners with budgets below $10K, expecting to go offroading. I think those are mistaken expectations. If that is what a person is thinking, I will tell them it doesn't make financial sense. In that budget range, a compact pickup and a used ATV or dirt bike make more sense.

If someone has been driving a Land Rover and offroading it regularly for more than a few years and not spent at least $10K on it, I would like to shake their hand.