Hi,

my Disco 3 TDV6 will maybe go to somebody else and I started initial search for replacement.
As it's virtually impossible to get petrol Discovery here (which would be a keeper for me), L322 is an option, something from years 2006-2010 (dictated by price, RRs are expensive here).

I do not want 3.0 TDV6, so I'm left with 3,6TDV8, (unlikely as there are just few of them available) 4,4TDV8 and petrol supercharged engines.
Is there any difference in reliability between the years? I mean bigger issues. As I already own LR, I got used to smaller things

And for supercharged, how much worse is the fuel economy for longer distances, countryside?
It would be great to drive V8 petrol but with ca 20k km per year, I'm afraid of an impact on family budget...
(On my D3 I'm at 9L/100km over last ca 20k km)

Have a look in the Wiki (links in the top banner), where there are buyers guides.

Mike

I'd say the 4.4TDV8 is better than the 3.6, more power/torque and the 8 speed gearbox which helps with economy, and may also be more robust. I have no experience of the 322 5.0SC, but my 4.4 petrol 322 (rated as having higher emissions than the 5.0SC) returned about 19 - 20 mpg in mixed driving, mainly country roads, including a certain amount of off road and towing and not much town. My 4.4TDV8 is more like 30mpg with the same driving mix.

Later cars can have more corrosion problems - maybe different paint regulations, more recycled content in the steel, LR cost-cutting or a combination, use the search facility to look for where the problems tend to be.

Good luck. Only Range Rovers since 1988

Thnks a lot for both answers.

I know about 4.4V8 vs 3.6V8 but 4.4 is newer and these cars did not drop to my price range yet. With a lot of luck maybe.
(LR is quite expensive in my area - my Disco3 140000km is nearly 20k EUR).

Fuel economy - that could be similar usage patter as mine. I'll do the math (mpg is not intuitive for me ).
And especially comparison between two values for the same driving pattern helps...

Corrosion: what means "later" - starting from which year? But that's something one can find out prior purchase...

not exactly in your neighborhood but it is car from the south - no salt no rust. price seems very reasonable.

https://www.autoscout24.com/offers/land-ro...?cldtidx=2

4.4V8 and 8 speed ZF - excellent combo.

On what is "later", I'm not sure, but can say that my 2004 car suffered much less corrosion than my 2012 one has. If my theory about higher scrap content in the steel is right, then I suppose the turning point might be when iron ore prices got elevated enough to make scrap collection economic, perhaps 2008? Some contributors also think that standards dropped when BMW sold to Ford, so that might be relevant too. Only Range Rovers since 1988

One more question...
By coincidence, today I got a chance to buy RR 2006 (with 2012 conversion kit), "Range Rover 4.4L Black Ed. Ultimate Autobiography". Engine has 125.000 miles, car 200.000 miles.
Price is EUR 10.000 (below 9000 british pounds), which is half of my budget and it would allow me to spend some money on maintenance without much pain.

I can get it checked in a garage of my choice, I can test drive it for as long as I want, I can check the service records, all before purchase, but I have to make the initial decision (interested or not) quickly as the car is on a way to a dealer (and then will likely cost more).
Assuming that the car is in a good shape (which I would get checked by mechanic), is it a good starting point for THE CAR which I'll then take care of for some years?
Is 125.000 miles engine / 200.000 miles car still ok to use for 6-8 more years if it was taken care of?

Strange it needed a new engine at 75,000 ? I guess it happens sometimes...

If it's had a facelift then it might have been "upgraded" to "Black Ed. Ultimate Autobiography". Badges can be bought on eBay.

But if the price is good and you like the car and it checks out with your test drive and mechanic then you have some money left over "in case".

Good luck, Greg
. Cheers, Greg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2011 Vogue SE 4.4 with lots of toys in Stornaway

Have a search for the thread "Fake AB Black" and I think there might have been a similar thread about a car in Germany. It is a thread started by Frank Rizzo and one of my comments included the word "geklaut" which you could search for easily.

My experience with the 4.4 BMW petrol engine was not positive, at 97,000 miles there was a problem with coolant leakage and my choices were to try work on the head, with no guarantee of success, to fit a new engine at a cost in excess of the value of the car, or to get rid of it (I got rid of it).

In general I would say a younger car with a higher mileage is a better bet than an older one with lower mileage. The Euro emissions rating of the car might also be a factor in whether is a good long term proposition, especially if you are based in a city. Only Range Rovers since 1988

Thanks for response.
Based on advises I received (here and elsewhere), I decided to not pursue this option further.
I have time, my Disco 3 is a great car (which I would keep if it's petrol and not TDV6), I can wait for "super" Range.

That part about younger/more mileage is valuable for me, that's actually information I searched for on internet.
I do not have enough knowledge to evaluate what is worse - age (corrosion, decay of gummys) vs mileage (engine wear?).

I still do not know what's usual lifetime of Range engines (e.g. 3.6TDV8).
If one buys e.g. a car with 125.000 miles, can he expect another 125.000 without major issues (assuming proper maintenance)?
Sure, I know that issues can happen anytime, but on average...

Have a look at the thread "What do we call high mileage" and maybe search against the words "high mileage".

There will be plenty of examples of high mileage cars that do well in the hands of skilled maintainers, but they are quite complex cars and so maintenance can be expensive, especially if you are not doing the work yourself. There may well be cars that reach 250,000 miles without too many problems, but I would guess that they would be the exception rather than the rule. They are not like the old E class taxis and S class limos that run all the time and can do 500,000 miles with only routine maintenance. Only Range Rovers since 1988

have a look at this... I'm happy with the 3.6 as a DD and I am used to quick cars.

http://www.fullfatrr.com/forum/topic45311.html

I think the larger diesel would be a good option, but for me the older 3.6 was a lot less £

Corrosion has got worse with every facelift so... 01-05 (BMW owned) good... 06-09 (Ford owned) Not so good!!! 09-13 (Tata owned) poor!

I suspect poor quality of steel (cost cutting) and maybe less “E” coat pre painting!

I have only good things to say about my 3.6 TDV8. It took me a couple of months shopping to find the right one, but the power, refinement and economy have all been better than i expected.

I recently changed from a 3.6 to a 4.4 and while the 4.4 has some stronger points , the 3.6 is a lovely drive. I only changed because of mileage. 2015 4.4 AB
GSXR 1000 K5
R1 1998