Best range rover model for my needs?
Discussion
Hello pH!
Soon I will be looking for a range, with budget up to 20k.
Im looking for the best ride in terms of comfort, cabin quietness and quality.
Id be looking for something max 10yrs old with the hope I can squeeze another 10 out of the bugger!
I most like the look of the full fatty, the sport and velar. However happy to look at other models if ride quality is there.
Thanks
Soon I will be looking for a range, with budget up to 20k.
Im looking for the best ride in terms of comfort, cabin quietness and quality.
Id be looking for something max 10yrs old with the hope I can squeeze another 10 out of the bugger!
I most like the look of the full fatty, the sport and velar. However happy to look at other models if ride quality is there.
Thanks
I have a full fat turbo nutter V8. It's why the autumns are warmer.
Be aware that they are always empty and every service is £1,000 + as there's always 'something'. Filling it with petrol causes a stir and a rise in the oil price.
Other than that - they're great.
I would add that I bought mine new during the time of the dinosaurs and have had 145,000 trouble free miles - apart from the usual 'something' at service.
Be aware that they are always empty and every service is £1,000 + as there's always 'something'. Filling it with petrol causes a stir and a rise in the oil price.
Other than that - they're great.
I would add that I bought mine new during the time of the dinosaurs and have had 145,000 trouble free miles - apart from the usual 'something' at service.
Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8 is the pick.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202009173...
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202011296...
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202009173...
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202011296...
BlackWidow13 said:
legless said:
BlackWidow13 said:
2011 or 2012 FFRR 5.0 SC TDV8.
/end thread
EFA. It’s genuinely better. /end thread
The 5.0 SC is a nice engine, but it really doesn't suit the L322 anywhere near as well as the diesel.
legless said:
BlackWidow13 said:
legless said:
BlackWidow13 said:
2011 or 2012 FFRR 5.0 SC TDV8.
/end thread
EFA. It’s genuinely better. /end thread
The 5.0 SC is a nice engine, but it really doesn't suit the L322 anywhere near as well as the diesel.
I really like the L405 and quite fancy a 4.4 TDV8, because thats all I can afford, but if I could choose between the two at no cost difference, I can't see why I would pick diesel.
For £20k I’d really think about increasing the budget slightly and getting an early L405, I’ve got an L322, I really like them but the L405 is much more modern and drives better.
If you do go that route go for an SDV8 over the TDV6, not for the performance gains but more because there’s no worry about crank issues on the V8.
If you do go that route go for an SDV8 over the TDV6, not for the performance gains but more because there’s no worry about crank issues on the V8.
alec.e said:
Why is that? Not just because 'it makes more torque'.
Basically the 4.4 V8 suits the nature of the car better, unless you intend red light grand prix.alec.e said:
I really like the L405 and quite fancy a 4.4 TDV8, because thats all I can afford, but if I could choose between the two at no cost difference, I can't see why I would pick diesel.
Because it's nine tenths the SC engine, it's much cheaper to run and buy, it's easier to just let the extra lb/ft pull you along, you don't need the wafer thin 22" wheels to compliment the SC handling with a diesel so you can fit 20" alloys with 32" tyres resulting a a much nicer ride quality. Deranged Rover said:
popeyewhite said:
The 2010- diesel also has more torque than the SC, making for more waftable progress... .
I can't say I've ever noticed my own 4.2S/C lacking in waftability torque, so I'm guessing that the 5.0 isn't any worse in this respect.5.0 SC 461 lb/ft
4.4 V8 516 lb/ft.
The leap from the 4.2 SC to the 4.4 diesel is over 100 lb/ft. You may not notice the difference between the 4.2 and the 5, but I think you would the 4.4 V8. The torque curve is also much lower then the 5.0 SC, again contributing to waft. The characteristics of the engines are quite different.
alec.e said:
Why is that? Not just because 'it makes more torque'.
I really like the L405 and quite fancy a 4.4 TDV8, because thats all I can afford, but if I could choose between the two at no cost difference, I can't see why I would pick diesel.
It just suits the character of the car better. I really like the L405 and quite fancy a 4.4 TDV8, because thats all I can afford, but if I could choose between the two at no cost difference, I can't see why I would pick diesel.
From behind the wheel, you can feel the difference in the low-end torque between the two, and when you're driving the petrol one you find yourself burying the throttle harder to access the additional performance that you know it has. The problem with this Is that a Range Rover is about effortless, smooth wafting progress. Driving one hard feels as ridiculous as off-roading an Elise. It'll also make you look a total bellend to anyone outside the car.
Off-road, the diesel feels much more tractable at low speed too. Not that many people will ever find that out mind...
In short, driving a Range Rover in the manner and speeds that suit it best, the diesel actually feels stronger, and uses far less fuel in the process. It's just a better match for the car.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff