Looking for a bit of advice in Iceland...Freelander 2 vs. Discovery 3

Hello everyone. I am an American photographer who moved to Iceland a few months ago. When I moved here, prices were staggeringly high, so I had to bring my old VW with me here. Now that the currency has crashed, I can actually afford a vehicle that is suited to this country! I have narrowed it down to a Land Rover. My ideal car would be one that is comfortable and practical for getting around the city (it is more like a big town...parking is easy, traffic is not bad etc), but can really handle the Icelandic countryside -- that means river crossings, lots of rough roads and trails. I don't need it to go on the glaciers or the really heaviest terrain, but I want it to take me deep into the countryside along the mountain roads.

In my basic survey of the options, it sounds like the Freelander 2 is the best choice for me -- it is fairly small which is easier for the city, but it is still very good offroad. I am just a single guy, so I do not have the need for 7 seats like in the Discovery, and given the price of fuel here, the better economy of the Freelander 2 is attractive. Same for insurance and tax -- the vehicle tax here is by weight.

There are a few problems though -- there are not many Freelander 2's on the market here. It is a small country and at the moment, I think there are two used Freelander 2's in the country...maybe 1. They are both very low mileage, nearly new (which is great), but that means they are fairly expensive. There are, however, a lot of Discovery 3's, some of which are cheaper than the Freelander 2's. I know the Discovery 3 will be better off road, but how much of a difference is there? What about on road? How much larger does it feel in use? Is it a pain to park, see out of etc? Is the Freelander 2 significantly better on the road? I am sorry for the basic questions, but it is a bit hard to find one to test drive here. My first two cars were land cruisers though (88 and 97), so I do know how bigger cars drive.

I appreciate any advice or comments that people might have. I realize it is a very open question and that I am a complete neophyte in this stuff. I really just want a car that is easy to live with, but can still take me to the places I want to go for my landscape photography. I will probably have it off road every week or two, so it will definitely get some non-tarmac use. A large number of the roads in this country are gravel or dirt as well, so that is another consideration.

Thanks in advance!
Stuart

Iceland? We have one o them in Newry (Ireland) does loads of Ice cream. Stay away Ratty the chips are ****e.

d3 all day long

?.can u afford it?

Thanks for the advice guys. I will be sure to avoid the Iceland in Newry.

As for the D3 versus FL2, yes, I can afford them these days. The issue is that since the banking crisis here, all the bankers that owned these cars are stuck with big loans on them, and they are all selling the cars for cheaper ones. It's a buyer's market.

The reason the D3 and FL2 are comparably priced here is that there are not many FL2's, and they all have around 2-10 thousand miles. There are a lot more D3's, many of which are 2005-2007's that have 20,000+ miles on them. Those are similarly priced to the FL2's.

goonarmy -- you say d3 all the way, but what are your reasons?

Stuartr said:

goonarmy -- you say d3 all the way, but what are your reasons?

Click to expand...

Ever been in one? Will do motorways piece of weewee, ok they are big for town but everyones got fourbiesnow any way.Also nuff space for any thing you ever wanna carry, and enough power to tow anything that dont fit. Will off road quite merrily and although you sed you dont need all the seats, well you could be a part time cabby.Useful to have. The fl is cheaper and smaller and will feel it.And it dont share a chasiss with the rr sport so no raging it

Ok, cool. Thanks for that...

freelander 2's eat power steering pumps. Some have been known to fail as often as every 6 months.

forget the gaylander , they look ****e they eat parts , they've got poor ground clearance for your rough trails and rockybottomed river crossings , go for D3 much sleeker more accessories available etc

errr aren't the D3's just a bit heavy 3ton +




likely to fall straight through the ice.


get yourself a nitrous powered hybrid

D3 are excellent allround offroaders. Straight out of the factory they will be better than a standard defender - dare i say it. If you want to venture further into the interior of your residing country i would stongly suggest you think of the D3. Yes it is heavy, probably worse on fuel than a freelander BUT it will go places the freelander wont. depends on your roadffroad %.

G

why is that stupid face there...

Road : Offroad %

The thought of plunging into a deep Icelandic Fjord in a 3 ton vehicle isn't appealing

Don't go for the FL2 either

Thank you all for the advice. It sounds like there is definitely a clear preference here for the D3. I had the chance to test drive them both yesterday and it did feel a lot more capable. It did feel huge as well! But they both drive on road better than I suspected, the seating position is very different from what I am used to, but quite nice. The main impression of the D3 was solidity and massive space -- there seemed to be cavernous amounts of room, and the whole thing felt like driving a extraordinarily comfortable battleship. The FL2 felt more car-like, I liked the visibility better, but it did not feel as refined. However, for on-road use I did like it better. At least that was my first impression. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to drive them off-road. But the D3 did give the impression that it would be more competent on the trails. So while the FL2 may feel a bit better on-road for me, that is only one consideration of many. It will really depend on what kind of deal I can get on a D3 -- especially since all the other associated costs will be higher (fuel, insurance, parts, service etc).