| dahell |
Pilot is a recommended SUV on CR and LR3 isn't. I don't know if I should trust CR's information though.
I know they are different SUVs in chassis and drivetrain, but they are similar in size though LR3 seems to have some more cargo space and more comfy 3rd row seats than Pilot.
IMO, SUVs having similar size and weight won't show the big difference in gas mileage no matter it's unibody or body-on-frame.
Even though I've never been on LR3, it looks pretty reliable too and I think it's a great SUV as well as Pilot, or better.
I would drive an SUV for normal use, just plain driving, sometimes on road in snowy condition in winter, no towing, no off-raod. For this use, definitely Pilot is the best choice of SUV that fits me. The big deal is the real world gas mileage plus reliabilty of them. How bad is LR3 gas mileage? I heard LR3 typically got some electrical problems. How bad is it? |
|
|
| rocky |
I've driven both and while I love the LR3 would suggest that its closer to the MDX in price and product.
Second hand the 2005 LR3s are in the high teens. The 2005 had their first year problems but these should be sorted by now. Also the LR3 has very specialist dealer computer needs (forget Robisons in springfield BTW) whereas the Pilot is a simpler vehicle to maintain.
As much as I love LRs (and still have one) for everyday use, the Pilot wins |
|
|
| jl_ss |
Not sure where you got "looks reliable", but here is the CR reliability data based on owner surveys:
Full Red Dot = much better than average
Half Red Dot = better than average
Clear Dot = average
Half Black Dot = worse than average
Black Dot = much worse than average |
|
|
| jl_ss |
| Here's the Pilot reliability data: |
|
|
| macphanatic |
| I work with a guy that has a LR3. He complains about the gas mileage, the maintenance (and cost of maintenance), and the fact that he can't sell it as no one wants it. After he road in my Pilot, he told me that if he could sell the LR3 without taking a bath, he would get a Pilot. |
|
|
| krygny |
| IIRC, JD Powers has also published some pretty dismal reliability ratings on all Land Rovers, as well as other high-end brands including Volvo, Jaguar and Mercedes. |
|
|
| mikey159 |
quote:
Originally posted by dahell
Pilot is a recommended SUV on CR and LR3 isn't. I don't know if I should trust CR's information though.
I know they are different SUVs in chassis and drivetrain, but they are similar in size though LR3 seems to have some more cargo space and more comfy 3rd row seats than Pilot.
IMO, SUVs having similar size and weight won't show the big difference in gas mileage no matter it's unibody or body-on-frame.
Even though I've never been on LR3, it looks pretty reliable too and I think it's a great SUV as well as Pilot, or better.
I would drive an SUV for normal use, just plain driving, sometimes on road in snowy condition in winter, no towing, no off-raod. For this use, definitely Pilot is the best choice of SUV that fits me. The big deal is the real world gas mileage plus reliabilty of them. How bad is LR3 gas mileage? I heard LR3 typically got some electrical problems. How bad is it?
All the car magazine say the LR3 is for snobs that want the look of a SUV but will never take it off road. Not that it can't go off road, just it will get plenty scratched up and the money you pay for one of those things is not worth that. Kind of those that buy Cadillac, or Lincoln, suv's and then think they are "cool". Tons of money and a fire in their pockets! |
|
|
| whizmo |
Land Rovers have been consistently the lowest reliability vehicles of all those surveyed for several years now and by a good margin. They're just miserably troublesome. I wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole. Too bad because otherwise, I like the LR3.
- Mark |
|
|
| panamamike |
The Land Rover pretty much a statement vehicle for someone that has enough money to keep it running.
However, It's supposed to be a capable off road machine. I don't think the Pilot would do as well off road.
I remember seeing a "cheap" practically new land Rover for sale once, it was tempting but after learning about how terrible the maintenance issues are I figured it really wasn't worth it.
Mike |
|
|
| malmon |
Maybe in addition to the LR3, try to consider the Lexus GX 470. It has off-road capabilities with the luxurious quiet ride.
I got one recently and it is day and night, in comparison to the pilot. Before anybody reacts, I know its not a fair comparison in terms of price range but just thought I throw in a little on-hand experience since we own both. Also, they are selling more than $2k below invoice so that is another thing to consider. |
|
|
| sagaliba |
quote:
Originally posted by panamamike
The Land Rover pretty much a statement vehicle for someone that has enough money to keep it running.
However, It's supposed to be a capable off road machine. I don't think the Pilot would do as well off road.
I remember seeing a "cheap" practically new land Rover for sale once, it was tempting but after learning about how terrible the maintenance issues are I figured it really wasn't worth it.
Mike
National Geographic Guys always drive a Land Rover, I always wonder where they got the fund to buy them.:)
LR3, OTOH, is designed for city-dwellers (you are right about the statement, i.e., image), and cannot be confused with the real thing just like H3 is no Hummvee. |
|
|
| 2garfields |
If you want something is reliable, you can't go wrong with Honda Pilot, Toyota 4 Runner with third row, or the Lexus GX470.
United Nation uses Toyota Landcruiser for years, there are some 05 or 06 LC selling at around $30k. |
|
|
| malmon |
Lexus is on top which includes the GX470, while the Rover, which Ford sold this year to India's Tata Motors Ltd., was the worst-performing brand,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26072125/ |
|
|
| jarizzo |
Reading through these replies, it dawned on me that I can't think of a single British vehicle that's reliable with maintenance requirements that are roughly equivalent to the majority of vehicles on the road. They're all fussy, require lots of maintenance with specialized and expensive parts and labor, and you still can't count on them to be reliable.
An old friend of mine loved his MG, and he loved doing all the maintenance and repairs himself. He used to say "It runs like hell, but it runs like hell." You could forget about starting it on a cold day, and that was OK because it wasn't his daily driver. Must be some charm to those things, but I could never figure out what it was.
Same went for another friend with a Sterling. Don't remember what model he had but that thing was constantly in the shop for engine or transmission or electrical problems. A week after he had some bizarre electrical problem fixed, the headlights quit working. Got that fixed and a week later the windows wouldn't roll up or down. Got that fixed and the brake lights quit. He could never quite catch up with everything that was wrong with that car. I never asked him what ever happened to that thing, but every time I mention it he just grumbles about what a POS it was.
I don't know anyone with an LR, but the general consensus among friends and family is that they have excellent off-road capabilities because you will probably have to take a shortcut to the shop.
If you want an upscale SUV with spectacular off-road chops and you don't need it to be reliable or affordable to buy or maintain, or you just can't wait to show one off to the neighbors, the LR might be a fine choice. But for those of us who have to work for a living and depend on a reliable and practical vehicle, in my opinion the LR is a poor choice.
Not that it matters, because if you want a Land Rover, you're going to buy a Land Rover, and I won't hold it against you.
Cheers!
:7:
John |
|
|
| dahell |
| Thank you for all of information and opinions. I know what I need and want, and now I also know what would satisfy what I need and want. |
|
|
|
