I was looking far and wide for a clean LR3 until I started watching full size L322 videos and got curious.

Someone somewhere told me the Range Rovers may be easier to wrench on and somewhat more durable?

Their higher price makes me wonder if initial buyers may have taken better care of them?

I'd be looking to do 20K miles a year or so. Looking for 2007-09 trucks with about 80-100K.

I know maintenance history is key but do these hold up "better" than their cheaper brothers?

Thoughts?

 

I was looking at an LR3 and ended up going for an M62 BMW Powered 2003 L322. I love it. I don't regret it, other than there is hardly any aftermarket off-road support for the Range. "hardly" is being nice.....you have Johonson Rods, and that's it.

But no big deal, because I have a D2 for the harder trails.

I can't comment on the "wrenching" because the drivetrain and 4wd system will be identical between the jag units. But the L322 is BMW-derived not Ford-derived.

We took a test drive awhile back of an L322, Range Rover Sport, and LR4.

The L322's ride and performance blew the other two away. The LR4 (and likewise LR3) has the best aftermarket support, but wasn't the best on the highway and has the longest wheelbase. I wanted to LIKE the Range Rover Sport the best...even though it has less ground clearance, it had a narrower wheelbase AND you can still get off-road mods. We ended up liking it the least (inside mainly, it's still nice looking on the outside).

At the end of the day, the L322 is the BEST overall car I have ever driven (it was a 2011), and my 2003 comes close, it just lacks the "modern tech".

But if I could only have one Rover, I'd get the LR3.....since it has the aftermarket support. But since I can have two? I daily drive the Range and explore with the Disco.

Clear as mud?