I have been looking closely at the 2003/2004 Discovery for a winter vehicle, and I seriously don't want a stupid internet argument, but this is worth reading:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/off-...e-rover-2.html

 

Flex has a nice interior. But I would never buy one, they look fugly and are definitely not an suv. I would be worried about grounding out on a speed bump, let alone going off road. I'm sorry but RR wins. Ford recently compared the new taurus SHO (my friend calls it "shoe") to a Lexus LS. Ford makes a good vehicle, but they honestly need to stop trying to be something they are not. I also love how they confuse Range Rover and Land Rover. Thinking Range Rover is the brand, and then later finding out it is the model.

 

FWIW, note that Some Cop Magazine did a full-up test of a Flex as a cruiser -- they took it out for several full duty shifts under a sworn officer -- and they were actually quite impressed. Clearly, it's not an off-roader... but apparently, it's not at all a bad replacement for the CVPI.

There are probably enough keywords in this posting for anyone who wants to read the article to find it...

 

Being that this came from a Corvette forum, I guess this would be like comparing a new Corvette to a Ferrari Enzo. Sure, I guess to the average person, they are both nice sports cars. So why is the Corvette affordable to the average American and the Ferrari is not? It is of course in the details. The bottom line is if you can't tell the difference, and you can easily afford either one then you should buy the cheaper vehicle that meets your needs. Of course, I seriously doubt that a couple shopping at the local Land Rover dealership for a new RR, is going to look across the street and say "look honey, the Ford dealership has the same thing for $50k less!" The bottom line is that the Ford and the RR are not even comparable just as the Corvette and the Enzo are not comparable.

 

Thank you for the laugh.

The Flex has a hideous exterior and the interior is no where near comparable. While the Flex is a nice car for its price point it's hilarious to even try to compare it to LR's cheaper models let alone the RR. It always cracks me up that people speak about LRs reliability when they've never owned one.

I also totally agree with you LRScott, the Flex is NOT an SUV. It has zero clearance and resembles a mini-van more then an SUV. Hideous.

 

Buy what you want and like. It is just like anything else. I can show you a top of the line full suspension mountain bike that costs over 2K, and then show you a full suspension from Wal-Mart, now explain to me how they are the same other than getting you from point A to B. It is in the details and the experience of the vehicle, for the most part that is why we own the Range Rover. Every manufacturer is going to have issues with their vehicles, many of them come from the fact that the owner does not maintain them properly, so maintain the vehicle and you should be ahead of the curve.

 

If you don't need to go off road, and the Flex interior works for you, then why spend extra for the premium materials and greater capability of the Ranger Rover?

OTOH, if you want a luxury SUV...

 

call me ignorant but i will never own an american car.

 

the disco was a big step for me. were a sworn German auto family

 

What are you gonna do with it? How bad is the snow where you live?

If you are just shuttling to soccer practice and the grocery store and don't get much snow where you live, and are not interested in the status aspect of a Land Rover, then the Flex makes sense if you like the styling and handling of the vehicle.

If you want something a little more unique, with better off road and crappy road capability, as well as spending much less for a used LR than a new Flex, then the choice seems obvious.

Apples and oranges really.