uk_vette

uk_vette

Well-Known Member
Hi all.

Its all about engine and gearbox choice.

We have had our 120 series Land Cruiser, and it was impeccably reliable.
Sold it with 272,000 miles, and about 10,000 miles was towing our 2 ton, 4 wheels caravan all over Europe several times.
We sold the caravan, then reluctantly sold the Land Cruiser.

Now she wants another 4x4.
She wants a Range Rover Sport.
About a 2006 to 2008 year.
Petrol or diesel, as she does only 4000 miles a year.

Most of the RRS seem to be 2.7L V6.
Some are V8 diesel, and a few are V8 petrol.

She drives very carefully, and gentley, no more caravans.
With that in mind, I feel the 2.7L would be more than adequate.

Sure a V8 could be nicer to drive, but also cost more to buy.

Any good reason not to buy a 2.7L V6 ?

If there was just a handful of things to look for when viewing one, what would they be?

Many sincear thanks.

PS, for my money, we should get another Land Cruiser, but she really likes the shape of the RRS.

Graham
 
Last edited:
The 2.7 diesel is perfectly fine and a very good engine. Although found in Jaguars and some Citroens & Peugeots.
That said, it is the least powerful offering for the RRS and the auto box makes it a little more sluggish. It's not slow and can be remapped.

I suspect the vast majority of RRS' sold in the UK are the 2.7's and they come in various specs, high and low. This means you have a large pool of vehicles to choose from. But you are also likely to find the most rough RRS' in this pool.

The TDV8, not sure when introduced. Very good engine, although like all engines can have issues. More powerful and faster than the 2.7, but slightly less frugal too.

Personally I'd be looking at V8 petrols. They won't be as good on fuel, but for this sort of annual mileage it is unlikely to matter much. As a rule most V8 petrols will tend to be higher spec vehicles. And if you buy wisely you should be able to find a very nice example.

I believe the naturally aspirated 4.4 was available, but maybe only for a short while. Suspect it's the most rare variant. Plenty powerful enough and smooth. The Supercharged 4.2 V8 is likely more common, a fair bit more power and faster, but probably only marginally lower mpg than the n/a version. That said, a surprising number seem to have stellar mileages on them. I suspect they were a popular choice as a company chariot for director level employees.
 
I'd be concerned about using a Euro 4 Diesel for short local journeys, not sure how the Dpf copes under such usage.

Petrol would be my preference as suggested above, particularly if the higher spec is true.

4.4 Non supercharged are as rare as rocking horse poo so I'd plump for the 4.2 supercharged, if your gonna do it would you not rather it was an exciting and enjoyable experience, or would you be happy with a mundane and potentially unreliable affair.
 
Does the 2.7l oil burner not have the flaky GM autobox in it?
If so, budget 2-3k for a gearbox rebuild!
Personally, I'd go for an L322 with the 4.2s/c
 
Well....As your expedience is the mighty Landcruiser, I would suggest going with one of those again.
Sorry...but the reliability of the RR will be nowhere near as good as one of those...
If you do go RR Sport, please ensure you have either a good knowledge of car mechanics and use of a laptop /diag equipment or/and suitable deep pockets to the tune of around 2-3k per year...
 
donp38 said:
Well....As your expedience is the mighty Landcruiser, I would suggest going with one of those again.
Sorry...but the reliability of the RR will be nowhere near as good as one of those...
If you do go RR Sport, please ensure you have either a good knowledge of car mechanics and use of a laptop /diag equipment or/and suitable deep pockets to the tune of around 2-3k per year...
Click to expand...
Sorry but I do not believe an RRS cost £3000 a year to run. In fact that is utter nonsense.
 
If swmbo wants an RR,you just know an RR it will be, especially as she is the driver of it not you.:cool: That said........ the Landcruiser will be more reliable and if you're not getting one, then L322 it should be rather than the L320. At the age of L320 you are looking at you could get a similar age L322.Why buy substitute cream when you can buy real cream ;)
 
Anyone buying a RR sport is abrave or a wealthy man .......on the V8 diesel the body has to come off the chassis for most engine work.....and I believe as it does for the 2.7 V6 diesel too and dont start me on all the electrical faults they develop
 
The 2.7V6 is a pretty good performing engine (for a diesel).
Factor in £700+ for cam belt replacement - should be done at 7 years or 105,000. Original oil pump belt tensioner can fail so needs the upgraded pump fitting & there does seem to be a number of crank failures.
Personally with that mileage i'd go for the 4.2SC & they seem to be the more robust engine.
 
gold rover said:
If swmbo wants an RR,you just know an RR it will be, especially as she is the driver of it not you.:cool: That said........ the Landcruiser will be more reliable and if you're not getting one, then L322 it should be rather than the L320. At the age of L320 you are looking at you could get a similar age L322.Why buy substitute cream when you can buy real cream ;)
Click to expand...

Hi thanks for the reply.
Not sure I understand the L322 as opposed the L320

I thought they were all L322.

Can you please explain more ?

Gra.
 
uk_vette said:
Hi thanks for the reply.
Not sure I understand the L322 as opposed the L320

I thought they were all L322.

Can you please explain more ?

Gra.
Click to expand...
Range Rover Sport 2004-2013 codename is L320
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Rover_Sport#First_generation_.28L320.3B_2004.E2.80.932013.29

The Range Rover 2002-2012 often referred to as a Full Fat RR codename is L322
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Rover#Third_generation_.282002.E2.80.932012.29

Both good vehicles tbh but often people have a maybe stuck up point of view on which is better and why.
 
Even she knows that as far as reliability go"s, the Land Cruiser we has would take some beating.
But never the less, she has set her mind on a RRS. Or maybe even a normal full size Range Rover.
Looking at the dimensions, it appears the RRS is just 12 inches or so shorter than the normal Range Rover.
Widths and heights seem to be the same.

In my opinion, they both look good, and if it was me, I would be looking at either Range Rover.

Gra.
 
From reading on here and other forums, my feeling is that the FFRR is a better documented vehicle as I think more enthusiasts have them than the sport.
In that respect I would go for the FFRR.
 
The 2.7 v6 is nearly as quick as my 3.0 v6 twin turbo .
The 2.7 have oil pump problems = engine scrap most should of had them replaced by now
The pre face lift tdv8s suffer with left hand turbos = scrap engine
Don't know any thing about petrol ones
Gearboxs in pre face lift are pretty good.
Air compressors fail
Bottom arms are common and expensive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SootScout
I recorded over 200 trips on my 2017 Discovery Sport to find out if its DPF is fit for purpose
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Graculus
Graculus
M
Duff info from Garage
Replies
16
Views
1K
Nodge68
Nodge68
ChrisBduck
3.6L Land rover 90
Replies
2
Views
651
ChrisBduck
ChrisBduck
pete980
2.7 TDV6 2006
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
gstuart
gstuart
D
Steve's Land Raft
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
7K
Dauphproto
D