| Paul S. |
I'm thinking of replacing our MDX with an LR3. Here are some of the LR3's advantages over the MDX:
- Can fit adults in the third row. Our twin toddlers take-up most of the second row and we sometimes need to transport more adults. (Taking the kids & in-laws to a nearby drive-on beach)
- Full-time AWD with locking differentials for snow & sand travel.
- Better headlights. I generally use the MDX headlights AND foglights just to see better on really dark roads.
- Air suspension self-levels when loaded. The MDX gets sag-butt when loaded then the headlights annoy oncoming drivers.
- The interior leather and other materials seem nicer on the LR3.
- Full maintenance for 4 years/50,000 miles
Concerns:
- Reliability. But not a real concern until the 4-year warranty is over and I'm paying to fix it. However, dealers are complaining that the LR3 is too reliable and they're not making money from warranty work they can bill back to Land Rover. Plus Ford spent 1.4 billion on the LR3 production facility before it went into production.
- Gas mileage. Only 18 mpg highway due to weight & AWD.
- Cost: About $10K more than a Touring MDX. However, I can justify about half of that in increased off-road capability.
Anyone else think the LR3 deserves a good look? |
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
| Honestly, it seems like you're already sold on the LR3. :) It's a matter of deciding whether a vehicle fits your own needs or not and stays within your budget. |
|
|
| Paul S. |
| dj-you're right...I think the LR3 would be a good fit for us...about the same overall size as the MDX but with more interior space due to it's taller height. I really don't want a large SUV like a Sequoia, Suburban, Armada or Expedition. I'm just curious what made other MDX buyers that looked at the LR3 choose the MDX. |
|
|
| purpleporsche |
| yeah, i considered it but it got a terrible reliability ratiing and it is a box on wheels. |
|
|
| Paul S. |
| purpleporsche...Land Rover has always had terrible reliability reviews, especially on the Discovery. However, the two people I know that own an LR3 have had absolutely zero problems after one year of ownership. Even the car magazine long-term tests have had few if any problems with the LR3. Go figure. I certainly couldn't say that about my rattlebox '04 TL. That car should have spent another year in R&D before it was put on sale. |
|
|
| Dog |
| Take the LR3 for a drive and let us know what you think. Some of the key reasons I went with the MDX over other choices were the handling and the ride quality. I didn't strongly consider the LR3 at the time due to the significant price difference and the legendary unreliability. |
|
|
| screbr |
quote:
Originally posted by Paul S.
purpleporsche...Land Rover has always had terrible reliability reviews, especially on the Discovery. However, the two people I know that own an LR3 have had absolutely zero problems after one year of ownership. Even the car magazine long-term tests have had few if any problems with the LR3. Go figure. I certainly couldn't say that about my rattlebox '04 TL. That car should have spent another year in R&D before it was put on sale.
If you plan on keeping your new car past 50k miles, I'd think the long term reliability of the Honda/Acura line (less certain transmissions) would be a significant differentiator. Or, if you can buy an extended warranty on the LR3, and can still remain in your budget, then like dj says, it might be your best choice.
Edit: And as you've pointed out, the LR3 should be a much better performer off of the pavement. If you've spent time researching on this forum, I'm sure you have seen that the MDX can't go too far off the beaten path for fear that you'll leave part of the undercarriage on the trails.... If you want to spend more time in the back woods, the LR3 would be a much better choice (or a Toyota). |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Paul S.
I'm thinking of replacing our MDX with an LR3. Here are some of the LR3's advantages over the MDX:
- Can fit adults in the third row. Our twin toddlers take-up most of the second row and we sometimes need to transport more adults. (Taking the kids & in-laws to a nearby drive-on beach)
- Full-time AWD with locking differentials for snow & sand travel.
- Better headlights. I generally use the MDX headlights AND foglights just to see better on really dark roads.
- Air suspension self-levels when loaded. The MDX gets sag-butt when loaded then the headlights annoy oncoming drivers.
- The interior leather and other materials seem nicer on the LR3.
- Full maintenance for 4 years/50,000 miles
Concerns:
- Reliability. But not a real concern until the 4-year warranty is over and I'm paying to fix it. However, dealers are complaining that the LR3 is too reliable and they're not making money from warranty work they can bill back to Land Rover. Plus Ford spent 1.4 billion on the LR3 production facility before it went into production.
- Gas mileage. Only 18 mpg highway due to weight & AWD.
- Cost: About $10K more than a Touring MDX. However, I can justify about half of that in increased off-road capability.
Anyone else think the LR3 deserves a good look?
What is an LR3?
You must have a problem with the lights on your MDX. The high beams are very good. I have considered making improvements to the lows. Running high beams and fogs together will do you absolutely no good unless you want to see what you are about to pass on the side of the road. If properly adjusted the fogs provide no light for any distance down the road.
G |
|
|
| carguy1234 |
I liked the LR3 quite a bit, but the things that kept me away were:
- I didn't really need a full blown truck
- 14MPG or worse (do some searches, I think your 18 MPG is very optimistic)
- no dealership is very close to me
- abysmal reliability (it got noted as one of the least reliable vehicles in CR for last year)
- vehicle is too heavy, negating the horsepower (feels ponderous and heavy to drive). I like sporty better than tank like handling
- cost and depreciation are both high
So we ended up with MDX. The LR3 definitely has more room and better seats though (especially 3rd row if you will be using it often). And like others said, the MDX is not really for off pavement - the LR3 will be much better in that respect.
If I were you I'd get a Sequoia or Land Cruiser (or LX470 if you want more upscale). |
|
|
| hammermdx |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
What is an LR3?
You must have a problem with the lights on your MDX. The high beams are very good. I have considered making improvements to the lows. Running high beams and fogs together will do you absolutely no good unless you want to see what you are about to pass on the side of the road. If properly adjusted the fogs provide no light for any distance down the road.
G
Land Rover: http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/V...te_cnn_20050131 |
|
|
| pianoman41 |
| We've got a LR parts manager on another car forum and he says the LR3 is the best thing that ever happened to his business! In other words, people are constantly buying parts for it. He says he wouldn't own one if you gave it to him. |
|
|
| flafrank66 |
If you need the air suspension and off road capability of the LR3 then it's not really a choice between an LR3 and MDX. A better comparison might be the Lexus GX470.
The LR3 is a unique vehicle within the Premium Midsize SUV category given its capabilities vs. other cars in the category. The other models either give up something in size (2 rows of seating vs. 3) or offroad prowess. The GX470 comes the closes but is somewhat smaller in wheelbase and length.
Checked on the depreciation of the LR3 with the Automotive Lease Guide and it's rated 4 Stars out of 5. Interesting this is the same rating for the MDX. Guess the LR3 has improved things at Land Rover.
http://www.alg.com/deprratings.aspx
Any concern about safety and crash test results? NHTS and IIHS have no ratings for the LR3. |
|
|
| Paul S. |
| I guess that is why I'm looking for feedback here...the LR3 has only been out for a year and it doesn't have an established track record (good or bad) yet. It appears to have decent build quality, which would be something new for Land Rover. It even won Motor Trend 2005 SUV of the year. The crash test results are unavailable. But it does have full curtain airbags and electronic anti-roll stability. When I test drove it, the brakes were amazing for such a heavy vehicle. My second choice is a Q7 but the "way back" may be too small. Maybe I'll wait and see what Acura does with the '07 MDX as well. Although, my '04 TL was junk so I'm reluctant to buy another first year Acura product. (I replaced the TL with a 3.2 6MT A4 that I love) Oddly enough, I owned a '90 Accord, '94 Accord and '98 Accord that were all first year models and perfect over 150K miles. |
|
|
| wmquan |
If reliability is a major consideration, I would still not go near it. As many have pointed out, there's a history of poor reliability with Land Rover vehicles. They've got to establish a track record rather than claiming they've got their quality problems fixed.
If you believe Consumer Reports:
quote:
First-year reliability has been well below average.
That's not a good sign given the past history.
But it's all relative. CR just indicates that you have a higher statistical probability of having problems. You could get an LR3 that has very few issues.
In the absence of crash tests, I would also apply the same "company history" criteria. Companies which make vehicles with weak crash test results usually don't suddenly become top-tier with a new model.
However, there is a chance that IIHS have LR3 front/side impact test results pending. They have released their rear-end result (to test the head restraints) and the LR3 received a "Good" score.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_re...land_rover.html |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| You sure about the MPG? I thought it was closer to 15 MPG. . . |
|
|
| SuperTech |
quote:
Originally posted by Paul S.
- Full maintenance for 4 years/50,000 miles
Concerns:
- Reliability. But not a real concern until the 4-year warranty is over and I'm paying to fix it. However, dealers are complaining that the LR3 is too reliable and they're not making money from warranty work they can bill back to Land Rover. Plus Ford spent 1.4 billion on the LR3 production facility before it went into production.
Believe me...we'd rather not do warranty work. And if anything, Land Rover dealers should be griping that the factory paid maintainance is hurting their bottoms lines. We make much more money on service and repair that the customer pays for...not the factory. Since we charge FULL labor book time and suggested prices on parts to customer paid jobs, but the factory only gets to pay a fraction of that. |
|
|
| Paul S. |
| SuperTech, that story I was told was probably just a sales tactic to show that the LR3 is reliable. Reading the LR3 owners forum is downright scary, but I realize that forums are often complaint centers. Nobody posts about another trouble-free day of driving. |
|
|
| SuperTech |
I've seen a few Discoverys in my time. Every damn one of them has had a laundry list of problems inside and out. Oil leaks are at the top of the list.
Personally, I'd never consider the LR3. That asymetric looking tailgate just bothers me way too much. Same reason I'd never want the 1st generation Lincoln Navigator or any Nissan Xterra. The Range Rover Sport on the other hand...I'd look at. But it's way too much money for what you get.
If you wanted a somewhat small SUV that has good off road ability like Land Rovers do...I'd look at a Hummer H3. Other than it's anemic five cylinder engine, it's actually really nice. But the engine is a pretty big selling point. I drove one, and it's just too gutless for my tastes. |
|
|
| Fireblade6 |
I was going to say...I like the SPOR T a lot. Since my MDX is a 2001...I am thinking about getting a new SUV and one of the ones that I was looking at is the SPORT.
The other one that I was looking at is the FX45 |
|
|
|
