New Range Rover Questions

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
R

[email protected]

Guest
I'm looking at buying a 2003 Vogue TD6 Range Rover.

Dealer is asking for 34k with 33k on the clock.

Seems like a fair price?

Im upgrading from a 2.3 Ford Galaxy

Just wonder what people think a realistic running costs.

Is service charges going to kill me?

What are the gotcha's?

What happens if I need new tyres?

I'm moving up from a modest family run-about so some perspective from
others who have made the leap would really help me out.

Thanks Richard

 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking at buying a 2003 Vogue TD6 Range Rover.
>
> Dealer is asking for 34k with 33k on the clock.
>
> Seems like a fair price?

It is a fair saving over new I suppose.


>
> Im upgrading from a 2.3 Ford Galaxy
>
> Just wonder what people think a realistic running costs.

Well the fuel consumption is not bad. I get around 26 to 32 mpg from my
chipped engine. Your vehicle will still be under warranty for a while but I
would try for another years warranty in the price. Also make sure that any
modifications needed have been done.


>
> Is service charges going to kill me?

One service every 15000 miles is all it usually needs. Make sure that it has
had a service within the last 5000 miles and you should not need another for
another 10,000.
Services will be expensive at a main dealer but once it is out of warranty
any competent garage can do regular maintenance. There is less to do on
these than some superminis. Make sure synthetic oil meeting BMWLL01 is used
even though LR do not insist on it.


>
> What are the gotcha's?

Possible electrical gremlins and flat batteries unless the mods have been
done. The same problems afflicted the BMW X5 so there is nothing serious to
worry about. Some problems have been encountered with front prop shaft
couplings due to misalignment causing diff pinion shaft failure but these
should have been sorted under warranty.


>
> What happens if I need new tyres?

Visit ATS or similar and buy new ones.

>
> I'm moving up from a modest family run-about so some perspective from
> others who have made the leap would really help me out.
>

I think they are superb and my 20,000 mile example has had no problems.
None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Huw
touching wood.



 
Nice to see you are one of the lucky ones with no problems, but when you do
you won't be touching wood you will be touching cloth ! ! ! !

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm looking at buying a 2003 Vogue TD6 Range Rover.
> >
> > Dealer is asking for 34k with 33k on the clock.
> >
> > Seems like a fair price?
>
> It is a fair saving over new I suppose.
>
>
> >
> > Im upgrading from a 2.3 Ford Galaxy
> >
> > Just wonder what people think a realistic running costs.
>
> Well the fuel consumption is not bad. I get around 26 to 32 mpg from my
> chipped engine. Your vehicle will still be under warranty for a while but
I
> would try for another years warranty in the price. Also make sure that any
> modifications needed have been done.
>
>
> >
> > Is service charges going to kill me?
>
> One service every 15000 miles is all it usually needs. Make sure that it
has
> had a service within the last 5000 miles and you should not need another
for
> another 10,000.
> Services will be expensive at a main dealer but once it is out of warranty
> any competent garage can do regular maintenance. There is less to do on
> these than some superminis. Make sure synthetic oil meeting BMWLL01 is
used
> even though LR do not insist on it.
>
>
> >
> > What are the gotcha's?
>
> Possible electrical gremlins and flat batteries unless the mods have been
> done. The same problems afflicted the BMW X5 so there is nothing serious
to
> worry about. Some problems have been encountered with front prop shaft
> couplings due to misalignment causing diff pinion shaft failure but these
> should have been sorted under warranty.
>
>
> >
> > What happens if I need new tyres?
>
> Visit ATS or similar and buy new ones.
>
> >
> > I'm moving up from a modest family run-about so some perspective from
> > others who have made the leap would really help me out.
> >
>
> I think they are superb and my 20,000 mile example has had no problems.
> None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
>
> Huw
> touching wood.
>
>
>


 

"Andy Sargeant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nice to see you are one of the lucky ones with no problems, but when you
> do
> you won't be touching wood you will be touching cloth ! ! ! !
>

Well I listed the most common faults and they are pretty well known to be
mostly in common with BMW X5's.
AFAICS it is an extremely well built vehicle that performs superbly. It is
just as good as my daily drive which is a Land Cruiser Amazon as you know.
That is high praise which is not given lightly.

Huw


 
I'll stand next to Huw on this one. Damned fine vehicle. Well screwed
together, and THOUGHT has gone into the design of a lot of it, i.e. the dash
is not anywhere like the bitch the P38a was to take apart, there's access to
a lot of the normal stuff you'd expect, and it's not all poxy plastic
clips.....

I was rather shocked to hear the new LR3 has, for one service, to have the
body removed from the chassis?!?! Much annoyance to the dealers who needed
new modified ramps....not sure that much thought went into that, unless of
course it was designed to maximise the wallet beating of the customer :(

--
Neil


 

"Neil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I was rather shocked to hear the new LR3 has, for one service, to have the
> body removed from the chassis?!?!

You can't be serious? Are you? Nah......surely not?
There must be more to that than meets the eye. For one thing it is a
monoqoque. Perhaps a subframe has to be removed for some reason?

Huw


 
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:23:31 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Neil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I was rather shocked to hear the new LR3 has, for one service, to have the
>> body removed from the chassis?!?!
>
>You can't be serious? Are you? Nah......surely not?
>There must be more to that than meets the eye. For one thing it is a
>monoqoque. Perhaps a subframe has to be removed for some reason?
>
>Huw
>

It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
weighs as much as it does I suppose.

There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
same line, without a welded bodyshell....

Still, cannot imagine why you'd need to lift the body to do a service.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 

"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
> welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
> weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>
> There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
> chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
> same line, without a welded bodyshell....

Is the chassis rigid enough for this? I shall have to craul under one of
those new Discoverys to have a look at how they stick them together. Anyone
know of a web cutaway drawing or similar that will save my wife wearing the
washing machine out? She has enough dirty clothes to wash from the crawling
under the other cars in adoration.

>
> Still, cannot imagine why you'd need to lift the body to do a service.
>

Neither can I. The mind boggles. In fact I cannot believe it to be true.

Huw


 
Huw wrote:
> "Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
>>welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
>>weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>>
>>There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
>>chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
>>same line, without a welded bodyshell....
>
>
> Is the chassis rigid enough for this? I shall have to craul under one of
> those new Discoverys to have a look at how they stick them together. Anyone
> know of a web cutaway drawing or similar that will save my wife wearing the
> washing machine out? She has enough dirty clothes to wash from the crawling
> under the other cars in adoration.
>
>
>>Still, cannot imagine why you'd need to lift the body to do a service.
>>
>
>
> Neither can I. The mind boggles. In fact I cannot believe it to be true.
>
> Huw

A Land Rover project engineer is quoted, in an article in European
Automotive Design magazine - "We did this principally because we believe
this is the best solution for this type of product, but also because it
gives greater flexibility for platform development".

Huw - after the obvious deletions is your e-mail address good? I may be
able to send something.
 

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote >
> A Land Rover project engineer is quoted, in an article in European
> Automotive Design magazine - "We did this principally because we believe
> this is the best solution for this type of product, but also because it
> gives greater flexibility for platform development".
>
> Huw - after the obvious deletions is your e-mail address good? I may be
> able to send something.

Yes. Thanks. Please do.

Huw


 
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:10:34 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
>> welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
>> weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>>
>> There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
>> chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
>> same line, without a welded bodyshell....
>
>Is the chassis rigid enough for this? I shall have to craul under one of
>those new Discoverys to have a look at how they stick them together. Anyone
>know of a web cutaway drawing or similar that will save my wife wearing the
>washing machine out? She has enough dirty clothes to wash from the crawling
>under the other cars in adoration.
>

Doesn't matter. RR Sport and Discovery have different chassis - still
go down same line. Any future model could have a different, stronger
chassis.

The line was called T5. Guess how many models were originally planned
for it?



--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 

"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:10:34 -0000, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
>>> welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
>>> weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>>>
>>> There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
>>> chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
>>> same line, without a welded bodyshell....
>>
>>Is the chassis rigid enough for this? I shall have to craul under one of
>>those new Discoverys to have a look at how they stick them together.
>>Anyone
>>know of a web cutaway drawing or similar that will save my wife wearing
>>the
>>washing machine out? She has enough dirty clothes to wash from the
>>crawling
>>under the other cars in adoration.
>>
>
> Doesn't matter. RR Sport and Discovery have different chassis - still
> go down same line. Any future model could have a different, stronger
> chassis.
>
> The line was called T5. Guess how many models were originally planned
> for it?
>

4?
Is a Defender or several defender types included?

Huw


 
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:17:27 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:10:34 -0000, "Huw"
>> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
>>>> welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
>>>> weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
>>>> chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
>>>> same line, without a welded bodyshell....
>>>
>>>Is the chassis rigid enough for this? I shall have to craul under one of
>>>those new Discoverys to have a look at how they stick them together.
>>>Anyone
>>>know of a web cutaway drawing or similar that will save my wife wearing
>>>the
>>>washing machine out? She has enough dirty clothes to wash from the
>>>crawling
>>>under the other cars in adoration.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter. RR Sport and Discovery have different chassis - still
>> go down same line. Any future model could have a different, stronger
>> chassis.
>>
>> The line was called T5. Guess how many models were originally planned
>> for it?
>>
>
>4?
>Is a Defender or several defender types included?
>
>Huw
>

Haven't been near the place for a long while, but last news I heard
was that it was now going to be 3 models at most.

I would now not be surprised if no further investment took place in
Solihull, but I cannot back that up with any facts - it's just an
opinon.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 
On or around Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:50:53 +0000, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>It's not really a monocoque in the usual sense. There is a 3 piece
>welded bodyshell, mounted on a ladder frame chassis. That's why it
>weighs as much as it does I suppose.
>
>There can only be one sensible reason for a vehicle to have two
>chassis , and that is that another vehicle is going to be built on the
>same line, without a welded bodyshell....
>
>Still, cannot imagine why you'd need to lift the body to do a service.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a welded body shell, either, provided
the bits on the outside that are easily damaged such as wings are bolt-on
for easy replacement. This seems to be the way a lot of manufacturers do
it, with monocoques, as well - the basic body is all one piece with bolt-on
wings and suchlike. The "meccano" approach on the series LRs and 90/110 is
not exactly ideal, really - it makes for flexibility, true, but in the end,
the number built without the back body is vanishingly small. Retaining the
ability to make a pickup or a hardtop/SW on the same basic back body would
be good - but from the factory POV, you could still weld the top on. And
let's face it, how many owners actually bother to remove a hardtop? I've
never done one, it looks like too much work.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
I have spoken to the person who informed me of this requirement. Sadly he
could give me no further information, other than his nearest dealer was
hopping mad about the expense of the new ramps.....I would assume it's for
the equivalent of the 24,000 service. Are there not cars that require the
engines to be removed for such services nowadays .... ISTR some are Fords?

As I understand it there was a problem in early production (i.e. prototype)
that they never managed to fully overcome. That of what to bolt the
magnesium sub frame to the shell with....obviously you have to coat the
bolts or they will soon make a mess of the magnesium.....

If they hadn't fully sorted this issue, it's conceivable that the bolts
would become a service requirement - and the subframe removal a
necessity....

This isn;t gospel .. just pieced together from information I have gathered
from good sources. It's also one of the reasons that even if I did like the
LR3, I'd not buy one until the model was at least 3 years in production....

--
Neil


 

"Neil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have spoken to the person who informed me of this requirement. Sadly he
> could give me no further information, other than his nearest dealer was
> hopping mad about the expense of the new ramps.....I would assume it's for
> the equivalent of the 24,000 service. Are there not cars that require the
> engines to be removed for such services nowadays .... ISTR some are Fords?

Nope. Maybe a model of Ferrari but that is a different kettle of fish.


>
> As I understand it there was a problem in early production (i.e.
> prototype)
> that they never managed to fully overcome. That of what to bolt the
> magnesium sub frame to the shell with....obviously you have to coat the
> bolts or they will soon make a mess of the magnesium.....
>
> If they hadn't fully sorted this issue, it's conceivable that the bolts
> would become a service requirement - and the subframe removal a
> necessity....
>
> This isn;t gospel .. just pieced together from information I have gathered
> from good sources. It's also one of the reasons that even if I did like
> the
> LR3,

Being the new Discovery of course.

I'd not buy one until the model was at least 3 years in production....
>

Hmmm. We need a service schedule for this model. IIRC the LR web site allows
registered users to download service schedules and indeed the workshop
manuals for these vehicles for a small fee. Who is interested enough to find
the correct information on this?

Huw


 
Hmmm...my business partner has a Ferrari 360 Spider...I'll see what the
service schedule on that is :)

--
Neil


 
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:35:04 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Brownlee"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hmmm...my business partner has a Ferrari 360 Spider...I'll see what the
>service schedule on that is :)

I'm sure the 355 had an engine out service somewhere on the schedule,
somewhere in the region of £2-3K for that one. Don't know about the
360.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Range Rover Classic colors
Replies
1
Views
444
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
W
l322 range rover braking issue
Replies
6
Views
1K
roythebus
R
rebeccaSP91
Range Rover vogue stuck in low range UPDATE
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
A
Range Rover L322 Td6 2004
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
backinblack
backinblack
WoodyO
L320 - 2012 Range Rover Sport SDV6 HSE
Replies
0
Views
1K
WoodyO
WoodyO
Back
Top