Article Comments - 2007 BMW X3 vs. 2008 Land Rover LR2

67 messages, Last post on Mar 10, 2008 at 6:51 PM

You are in the BMW X3 & X5 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? BMW X3, Land Rover LR2, SUV

Article comments for Comparison Test: 2007 BMW X3 vs. 2008 Land Rover LR2 - We've brought together two modern approaches to combining the comfortable wagon with the multifunctional truck: a 2007 BMW X3 3.0si and 2008 Land Rover LR2 SE. We've already had a look at the features of each, so this is a comparison of performance, not appearance. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 7: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; Prev; Next; Last

#8 of 67 Re: Another Land Rover breaking down... [bstoecker] by desmolicious May 09, 2007 (7:05 am)
Replying to: bstoecker (May 07, 2007 5:17 pm) "Well I've had my LR2 for 4 days now and I have not broke down" Get back to us by the end of the week... Replies to this message: bstoecker (May 09, 2007 7:34 am) mburkel (May 09, 2007 10:13 am) desmolicious (May 09, 2007 12:44 pm) and 1 more...
#9 of 67 Re: Another Land Rover breaking down... [desmolicious] by bstoecker May 09, 2007 (7:34 am)
Replying to: desmolicious (May 09, 2007 7:05 am) Ya All are scaring me. LOL Replies to this message: mburkel (May 09, 2007 10:13 am) desmolicious (May 09, 2007 12:44 pm) mburkel (Aug 16, 2007 11:16 am)
#10 of 67 Headroom specs are baloney by bgsntth May 09, 2007 (7:56 am)
This is more of a pet-peeve with Edmunds and every other automotive group that prints misleading specifications. Edmunds lists the LR2 as having 40.2" of headroom. When I sit in an LR2, my head is firmly into the headliner surrounding the sunroof. When I sit in my LR3 with 40.4" of headroom, I can stack both hands on top of my head under the headliner. My Cayman which is listed at 37.8" has about a finger of clearance under the headliner. I suspect that the measurements for the LR2, and the RRS for that matter, are for the Euro-only sunroofless versions; which of course cannot be had in the US. Thus the specifications are baloney. By the way, I have about a finger of clearance in the X3-though this was a 2005 model. Replies to this message: steve_ (May 09, 2007 8:34 am) yeomancavalry (May 13, 2007 2:00 am) bgsntth (May 13, 2007 4:47 am) steve_ (May 13, 2007 8:10 am) yeomancavalry (May 25, 2007 12:02 pm)
#11 of 67 Re: Headroom specs are baloney [bgsntth] by steve_ HOST May 09, 2007 (8:34 am)
Replying to: bgsntth (May 09, 2007 7:56 am) Most likely Edmunds and the other sites get their dimension information from the manufacturer (I know Edmunds gets width dimensions from the manufacturer for example - link). You can always use the Contact Us form and someone will doublecheck your sunroof/height question.
#12 of 67 Re: Another Land Rover breaking down... [bstoecker] by mburkel May 09, 2007 (10:13 am)
Replying to: bstoecker (May 09, 2007 7:34 am) 4 weeks and 1,700 miles, and my LR2 hasn't had a single problem. Getting around 23mpg, at 70+mph on the highway. Wish it came with a cigarette lighter thou... Replies to this message: desmolicious (May 09, 2007 12:44 pm) mburkel (Aug 16, 2007 11:16 am)
#13 of 67 Re: Another Land Rover breaking down... [mburkel] by desmolicious May 09, 2007 (12:44 pm)
Replying to: mburkel (May 09, 2007 10:13 am) So how many problems has it had? Replies to this message: mburkel (Aug 16, 2007 11:16 am)
#14 of 67 Low end Torque by lrguy44 May 10, 2007 (1:18 pm)
and the engine's lack of low-end thrust Another example of a design feature being mislabeled a fault. In the LR version of the new V6, 80% of torque is available at startup. In the Volvo version, more HP is available at startup. I'm sure the X3s torque curve is more Volvo like. Replies to this message: bstoecker (May 10, 2007 4:40 pm) british_rover (May 12, 2007 8:59 am) lrguy44 (May 12, 2007 9:10 am) british_rover (May 12, 2007 9:25 am) and 1 more... yeomancavalry (May 13, 2007 2:16 am)
#15 of 67 Re: Low end Torque [lrguy44] by bstoecker May 10, 2007 (4:40 pm)
Replying to: lrguy44 (May 10, 2007 1:18 pm) As a previous X3 owner for 2 years, I can tell you that if you want the zoom zoom of taking off super fast then you best stick to buying an X3, esp since BMW increased the power this year. On the other hand, I'm enjoying the nice ride that the LR2 has over the X3. Today I peaked at 24mpg on the freeway for a 15 miles run I had to do during work. Not bad at all.
#16 of 67 Why didn't you test the RDX? by baccus49 May 11, 2007 (3:30 pm)
Why didn't you test the RDX and compare it to these two vehicles? Replies to this message: bstoecker (May 14, 2007 4:54 pm) yeomancavalry (May 25, 2007 12:15 pm)
#17 of 67 Re: Low end Torque [lrguy44] by british_rover May 12, 2007 (8:59 am)
Replying to: lrguy44 (May 10, 2007 1:18 pm) Exactly the LR2 has tons of torque down low. It has more peak torque the the X3 and more over all torque as well. Lots of things about this article bother me. The LR2 does not have an adjustable suspension. So why does the article say that it does? If you are missing such clear bits of product knowledge on a vehicle how can we trust everything else you said? Land Rover's "Terrain Response" offers four combinations of ride height and electronic mapping for the throttle, transmission and traction control. Then there is the 0-60 time of over 9 seconds????? A LR2 will do mid 8 seconds 0-60 all day long. Did you guys forget to take the parking brake off? Replies to this message: lrguy44 (May 12, 2007 9:10 am) british_rover (May 12, 2007 9:25 am) yeomancavalry (May 13, 2007 2:27 am) yeomancavalry (May 13, 2007 2:16 am)