You are here:
Forums
SUVs
Land Rover
Land Rover LR3

4512 messages, Last post on Aug 06, 2009 at 3:42 PM
You are in the Land Rover Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: tincup47 (Oct 22, 2004 6:16 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: peeete (Oct 23, 2004 7:28 am) I am looking to buy an suv for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
I've put off buying a new Section 179 qualifying vehicle until I saw the LR3. I saw one today and wasn't exactly bowled over. So I'm back to the drawing board and I need help fast. (Or at least before 1/1/05). Here's my current thinking: the XC90 qualifies for the tax break if you get the third row of seats, but the torque steer and lack of performance is a killer. The 45K MSRP Cayennne V6 is nice but you could grow old trying to find one without 8-10K worth of extraneous (e.g., Porche Nav, $1800 Bose surround sound for when you listen to talk radio, etc.) and even wierd (e.g., "soft look" add-on for the standard leather for $600) options. Spending 52 large for a Tourig isn't my idea of a good move. The X5 is getting long in the tooth and you see three on every block. A used X5 may not be a bad idea but even a now 3 year old '02 if Certified (Is there any other way you would buy a used BMW?) goes for 33-34K, hardly a big discount off the new price. The Eddie Bauer Expedition depreciates like a rock and the Denali with its piston slap, 10 year old interior and overall GM slop is a turn off. The Land Cruiser and Range Rover are too much $$ and the Sequoia doesn't do it for me. I could struggle on for another year until a used 2003 Range Rover is down to 45K or so but then won't the law have been changed? Speaking of the Section 179 tax break, my real world feeling is that it amounts to about a 33% savings if you buy a vehicle that qualifies. So, if you can get one third off a nice SUV buying a high performance sedan makes no sense. Do the quantitative types out there agree with my interpretation (max marginal tax bracket, etc.)??
|
|
|
Replying to: shemar (Oct 24, 2004 2:11 pm) My understanding is that the Sec 179 repeal has been passed by both houses, and will likely happen as of 12/31. But it has not happened yet as far as I know. You should speak to your financial advisor. The new law will cap the deduction at $25,000, down from the current $100,000. If you use the vehicle 100% for business, its still good, but if you use it 50% for business, the value is reduced. For example, a SUV that costs $50,000 used 50% for business under current law, has a tax deduction of $25,000. So if you want that $100,000 Hummer, better put it your busineses name Its true that are limited SUV's out there that meet the rules and are affordable. One other one is the Cadillac SRX. Of course, any LR would eat it for lunch So essentially if you are looking for a small under $40 k Suv that meets current law, the Disco is it until the JGC becomes more available. If the dealers wake up, I would not be surprised to see Disco price increases. There are a lot of them still out there, but the highly optioned ones are almost gone. (I got one!) I owuld buy an LR3 over a porsche anyday..I think the interiors look cheap. THe LR3 is new, with no dpereciation. The Disco in 2 years ..well
|
|
|
One big difference in the Discovery and LR3 is acceleration times. Even with the 4.6 the Discovery will not break 10 sec. 0-60. The LR3 will be around 8 sec. As far as sales go, the current Discovery is at 1,800 a month on a good month, recently it has slipped to less than 1,400 a month in the US. Most of this is because that vehicle is just not competative in it's class to a large part of the US population. Land Rover is going from having a non-competative vehicle in the mid-price class to having a class leader in the large luxury class. I agree the interior is a change from the earlier vehicle, but there is a very nice wood trim kit available. I would encourage everyone to drive the vehicle before passing judgement on it. it surpasses the Discovery in every performance category,both On and off-road
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Oct 24, 2004 5:02 pm) I'm no tax whiz but I think it makes sense to initially do what's best for your business's bottom line. That usually means structuring purchase decisions to avoid taxes as much as possible, not looking first to loopholes (for want of a better word) and trying to take advantage of them so they fit your business plan. So if you need a new car for your business, great, but don't wrap yourself in a Hummer just because the write-off may look better on paper initially. You're going to be driving the rig, not Uncle Sam. Steve, Host |
|
|
Replying to: tincup47 (Oct 24, 2004 7:24 pm) Funny thing is I drive a sports car now, so while the Disco is MUCH Much slower than my G35, I dont seem to mind. It is a whole different style of "motoring." Besides, as I age, the fast car stuff is only going to get me killed. I look at the Disco as the Grand Marquis of Suvs. Sounds silly I know, but think of it this way: lousy mileage, slow acceleration, floaty ride, leans in corners, tough to park. Can run for 300,000 miles if taken care of. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, I LOVE Grand Marquis |
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Oct 24, 2004 5:02 pm) As far as your math, the accelerated 179 deduction allows you to take an immediate 100% write off, but you can still take depreciation write offs for other business vehicles. So the 33% savings, while true, should not be compared to 0 for other choices. |
|
|
Replying to: peeete (Oct 24, 2004 6:10 pm) Thank you for your indepth reply. I agree with your comment re: the porsche interior, but have you seen the inside of a Toureag? It qualifies for the Sec 179. Ive never owned a VW. Meanwhile, I continue to wait for the LR3 to arrive at our local dealership.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs
Land Rover
Land Rover LR3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Land Rover LR3



Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats