RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi. First post and hopefully (once a decision has been made regarding which model to buy), the first of many more...

I realise this is bit like, "how long is a piece of string" but I am torn between purchasing a 2013 RR Sport with 98K on it and well maintained versus an equally well maintained 2007 L322 with 116k on the clock. The 2013 is $19k and the 2007 is $10k. I am torn between getting the newer vehicle which (in theory) should be in better shape and have some longevity before things start going wrong or spending half the amount up front (on the '07) and theoretically 'banking' that saved cash for future repairs.

I realize they're different beasts but both appeal and I am stuck between which route to go with. Either one will be a new venture for me as my 'newest' car is an '88 Chev Caprice (and by god, I've sunk money into that over the years along with my '68 Ford Galaxie ragtop and my '69 Impala!).

Given that you've about $20k to play with for the initial purchase, where would pocketbook take you?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I would go with the 2013 because things are less likely to fail plus you will still not want to spend thousands to fix an '07. There is also the updated electronics for music and bluetooth on the 2013
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
I just couldn't get excited about a Sport. I would go with the nicest L322 you can afford. Lots of nice one around for the vicinity of $15k.
 

·
Registered
2010-2012 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
14 Posts
With your budget I'd personally wait until the new Ford Bronco comes out and put money towards that. 20K towards a RR with 100 K on the clock is just a downpayment on potential repair bills. Don't get me wrong, I love my '12 Rangie but repair bills can add up quick.
 

·
Registered
2002-2005 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
85 Posts
Well, one thing's for sure. You have some kewl rides with those 60s beasts! :)

You might read through the "Range Rover Wiki" section on this forum's front page for a VERY comprehensive overview of then-new Rovers. And also Google "Robison Rover Buying" for info on what they're like at the 10 year mark. This all may steer you towards one model or the other.

As Scooby-Doo would say, Gud Ruck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Nah, no new Dearborn donkey for me. I’ve never bought new, can’t stomach the immediate depreciation, high insurance premiums and door ding phobia. Thanks for your advice, I’ll tally it up with the rest of ‘em and y’all informed once I arrive at a final decision. Cheers!


With your budget I'd personally wait until the new Ford Bronco comes out and put money towards that. 20K towards a RR with 100 K on the clock is just a downpayment on potential repair bills. Don't get me wrong, I love my '12 Rangie but repair bills can add up quick.
 

·
Registered
2006-2009 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
531 Posts
Go for 2009 with 4.2 supercharged engine
4.2 engine is more reliable and simple than 5.0, this is my opinion.
Check the cylinder compression before buying, listen charger, check eas system for leaks and done.
Best rovers land rover ever made.
A lot of information on internet now for 4.2 engine. Box is the same. If you like the updated look everything is plug and play. Search front end rear end in junk yard or copart.
If you are handy you can circumcise catalytic converters rebuild charger with a little snout and overwrite the ecu and get more power. Injectors and fuel pump are capable to compensate the difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Cheers. Cool boats indeed but they keep saying, “Feed me, Seymour, Feed Me!’ At least the parts are cheap and available and no electronics.

I’ve scoped the wiki (very informative) and perused the Robison site. Lots of good stuff in both places and at the end of the day I’ll have to come down on one side or the other and make the leap. One would hope there’s still a lot of life left in any RR beast at ten years.



Well, one thing's for sure. You have some kewl rides with those 60s beasts! :)

You might read through the "Range Rover Wiki" section on this forum's front page for a VERY comprehensive overview of then-new Rovers. And also Google "Robison Rover Buying" for info on what they're like at the 10 year mark. This all may steer you towards one model or the other.

As Scooby-Doo would say, Gud Ruck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Thanks. I don’t know about getting an SC. I’ve got an aversion to turbos and superchargers...

Go for 2009 with 4.2 supercharged engine
4.2 engine is more reliable and simple than 5.0, this is my opinion.
Check the cylinder compression before buying, listen charger, check eas system for leaks and done.
Best rovers land rover ever made.
A lot of information on internet now for 4.2 engine. Box is the same. If you like the updated look everything is plug and play. Search front end rear end in junk yard or copart.
If you are handy you can circumcise catalytic converters rebuild charger with a little snout and overwrite the ecu and get more power. Injectors and fuel pump are capable to compensate the difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Thanks. I don’t know about getting an SC. I’ve got an aversion to turbos and superchargers...
Well then '10-'12 5.0 natural aspirated has the power of the 4.2 SC. Updated the timing chain tensioners and I'm not sure there is much difference in reliability compared to the 4.2. IMO, with the pork of these things, 400hp is kind of a starting point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I'd go with the '07 HSE. I'm looking myself, and the '07-'09s are reputed to be the "best" vintage in terms of being dialed-in and reliable (a relative term), and that includes the SC version, which I've found NO appreciable adverse complaints on compared to the 4.4. The RRS, even if it's an '13, will afford no real additional visual pizzaz compared to the '07 HSE, and honest to god they're EVERYWHERE, like Honda Civics. Estimated repair cost difference between an '07 with 116k and '13 with 98k (18k difference, big deal...) is un-determinable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
It is probably all relative but my aversion stems from the acronym "MSTGW" (More s*** to go wrong). Having seen too many raised hoods from friends with turbos etc. I'll stick with natural aspiration. I'm not really into grunt but on the rare occasion when I want to be pinned to the back of the seat as I floor the gas I'll do so in the 390CID powered Galaxie. Now, if I can experience the same feeling in an RR (without the top being down of course!) , all the better!


QUOTE="NorCal RR, post: 2293492, member: 1268"]
Well then '10-'12 5.0 natural aspirated has the power of the 4.2 SC. Updated the timing chain tensioners and I'm not sure there is much difference in reliability compared to the 4.2. IMO, with the pork of these things, 400hp is kind of a starting point.
[/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Cheers. Yes, I have read the same things regarding the 07 to 09 and that's why I am mulling that 07 (as well as the 13 RRS). I suppose one could argue that a 13 year old car with 116k has had less wear and tear than a 7 year old car with roughly the same mileage and that upcoming repairs will be no more or no less 'traumatic' on either vehicle. If that is the (admittedly alleged) case then it does come down to aesthetics and 'uniqueness' - if RRSs are as ubiquitous as Civics...


I'd go with the '07 HSE. I'm looking myself, and the '07-'09s are reputed to be the "best" vintage in terms of being dialed-in and reliable (a relative term), and that includes the SC version, which I've found NO appreciable adverse complaints on compared to the 4.4. The RRS, even if it's an '13, will afford no real additional visual pizzaz compared to the '07 HSE, and honest to god they're EVERYWHERE, like Honda Civics. Estimated repair cost difference between an '07 with 116k and '13 with 98k (18k difference, big deal...) is un-determinable.
 

·
Registered
2002-2005 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
85 Posts
Off-topic, and I have no experience with the Rover SC, but I too was averse to turbos, at least, for a long time. But my 2008 2.0 turbo VW and my sister's 2000 (or thereabouts) Saab 4 cylinder turbo changed that. Both forced air systems seemed quite durable and reliable, with all the bugs worked out. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a turbo or blower in the future, at least with a new or lower mileage ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Interesting....normally I would not be able to comment, however as a relatively new owner of a 2008 L322 and someone who drove a 2020 RR Sport for two days I will offer up an experience for this thread. Also, we just moved on from an 18 year relationship with a RRC. The L322 retains the "classic" commanding driving position of the RRC - it feels like Range Rover, drives like a Range Rover - and that is all good. Also the air suspension provides an outstanding ride, of course. As a RR nut I support the L322.

The RR Sport was honestly amazing to drive - luxury like I will never afford until well past a decade of use - not super special on straight roads but in the corners of a winding section of road I take, it held the road like a sports sedan, maybe better... Did not have a Range Rover "feel" - huge laggy and esoteric touch screens did not impress. Comfortable though. Felt like an Audi Q5 we used to own... The only physical relationship I could find with the L322 was the Sport used the exact same arm rests - LOL

Are there issues with an L322? uh, yeah and I will be posting some unfortunate news I received after picking up my L322 from the dealer that loaned me the RR Sport while airbag and front brake line recalls were addressed..

I think the RRC immunized me against too high of expectations for any kind of Toyota reliability with Land Rover products. Whatever, I'm not changing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Well having just had a walletful of pain from a local shop for repairing the other half's 2003 Cooper, I don't feel so bad about any potential upcoming bills for a future RR purchase. Sure, I'd rather not have that pain (and will make every effort to mitigate it!) but it seems that anything on wheels made in the 21 century and has complicated electronics is going to clack one in the nuts all too often. (This is why I still have my '88 Caprice...).

I'd like the 'commanding position' of the L322 but I think I am leaning towards the newer RRS. Time will tell - test drive this weekend!



Interesting....normally I would not be able to comment, however as a relatively new owner of a 2008 L322 and someone who drove a 2020 RR Sport for two days I will offer up an experience for this thread. Also, we just moved on from an 18 year relationship with a RRC. The L322 retains the "classic" commanding driving position of the RRC - it feels like Range Rover, drives like a Range Rover - and that is all good. Also the air suspension provides an outstanding ride, of course. As a RR nut I support the L322.

The RR Sport was honestly amazing to drive - luxury like I will never afford until well past a decade of use - not super special on straight roads but in the corners of a winding section of road I take, it held the road like a sports sedan, maybe better... Did not have a Range Rover "feel" - huge laggy and esoteric touch screens did not impress. Comfortable though. Felt like an Audi Q5 we used to own... The only physical relationship I could find with the L322 was the Sport used the exact same arm rests - LOL

Are there issues with an L322? uh, yeah and I will be posting some unfortunate news I received after picking up my L322 from the dealer that loaned me the RR Sport while airbag and front brake line recalls were addressed..

I think the RRC immunized me against too high of expectations for any kind of Toyota reliability with Land Rover products. Whatever, I'm not changing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
the 4.2 SC still has way more torque then the 10-12 NA HSE and I really feel the difference when driving them both. Plus you don't have to worry about timing chain BS.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top