Are there any reliable Land Rovers?

I've always loved Land Rovers. Adrians post hasn't helped me. But all of them come with huge warnings. Was there ever a Land Rover (including Range Rover) that was reasonably reliable with regular maintenance that won't break the bank? 

Other than Jezzas in South America, I mean.

As a type or model? Not really. As an individual example? Many. And there are things you can do to increase the reliability and reduce TCO. For example, on the air ride suspension equipped models often you can replace the air ride with standard springs (though a proper air ride system can be made reliable and they've gotten much cheaper to work on, too).

I drove my '01 HSE all over the east coast with a trailer on back, and even over the "mountains" to Ohio and back. it was a reliable daily driver for a few years.

Only sold it because we were moving to a travel trailer that was over it's tow capacity and so needed a new tow rig.

the most reliable V8 engine was the 3.9. I have heard the 4.0 is not bad, but the 4.6 is a timebomb. It's not if, it's when it goes off. While full of more electronics, I have heard the LR3 with it's Jaguar engine is a better truck than the Discovery (it was called the Discovery 3 ROW)

I want a Range Rover Classic. That is all I know.

The original Series Land Rovers were very durable for the day. But you have to put them in context of the times.

I believe this was the reliable one:

mad_machine said:

the most reliable V8 engine was the 3.9. I have heard the 4.0 is not bad, but the 4.6 is a timebomb. It's not if, it's when it goes off. While full of more electronics, I have heard the LR3 with it's Jaguar engine is a better truck than the Discovery (it was called the Discovery 3 ROW)

Mine was a 4.6, with over 120k on it when I sold it. And as I said, I used it for towing all over the east coast. This was in NH:

I have heard that the 4.6 block could be more porous than others, as the tooling was so old on them, but I've seen a lot of them out there with 150-200k on the original engines, so...

Apparently, the 2007+ LR2 is reliable. But then, it's really a Volvo under the skin.

Not to be confused with the similar looking previous Freelander which is a flaming pile of poo...

There's a shop that will sell you a Defender with an ls3, 4l80e, and manual windows. I imagine those aren't too bad.

The County RR's like this I still see mobbing around up here. I love the aluminum construction of some of the panels. The 3.9 aluminum Buick based engines are great but you have to watch for corrosion damage occasionally on them. You always hear about the scary electricals but if you have the nerve, go for it.

Dr. Hess said:

I believe this was the reliable one:

And yes these are the most reliable Land Rovers. LOL

For the off-roader, one very cool think about 1st gen RRs is that every exterior pane, including the roof, is replaceable without any welding, except the very rear corners where the taillights are. It's insane how far you can tear one down!

yeah, the early ones are great for offroading. especially the SWB versions, which seemed to have a turning radius that was barely wider than the trucks are long. I LOVED offroading my '88 SWB:

Rust was an issue, but I only paid $800 for the truck, so... I didn't care what happened to it offroad or on.

My '95 County LWB wasn't as tight turning, but with the aftermarket springs in it, it was still really good offroad. The 4.2 liter was a stout engine, too.

Wish I hadn't sold that one, as it was a rust free example and I could have turned a tidy profit on it now, but the '01 HSE I replaced it with was much nicer to daily drive with it's nicer interior and working air ride. But, it was almost too nice to go offroading with.

I've heard rumors of a Hunter edition of the Range Rover classics that does away with all the power stuff (windows, locks, etc.). If that really does exist, seems like it might be the best option for reliability, especially after the positive reviews of the motors prior posters have shared. 

The Hunter is hard to find and has a cloth interior (which also solves the issue with the leather quality of 1st gen RRs, which kinda sucks too) I know of one that a RR parts guy has for parting out. He ,ay consider selling it complete but it would a restoration candidate. With what these are worth in top condition, it wouldn't be a waste of money if you DIY and love them.

Honestly, the 2003-2005 Range Rovers can be made to be quite reliable.

The engine is the common BMW M62tu— parts for that are plentiful and just about every potential issue with that engine has been covered ad nauseum. The main issues with the engine are the plastic cooling system (replace after 100k miles), and the timing chain guides wearing down (around 150k miles). Both are relatively easy DIY repairs. The transmission is the ubiquitous ZF 5HP24 that was in damn near every RWD V8 luxury vehicle at the time, so they're super easy to source parts for, and you can buy used 5HP24's for $300-$400 all day long. The transfer cases are pretty solid on them, and the chassis overall doesn't have too many issues.

The air suspension can be troublesome for sure, but with quality aftermarket replacement air struts from companies like Arnott or Rebuild Master Tech, it's not a catastrophic problem. You can replace all four air struts for less than the cost of one OEM strut at a dealer, and it's very much a simple DIY job. Once the air struts are replaced, they last for quite a while. People only whine about them because they can make the vehicle undrivable if they completely fail, versus a conventional coil shock which you can drive on pretty much forever.

The trick for these Range Rovers is to buy the BMW-branded versions of most parts, as they're significantly cheaper and more widely available than the Land Rover-branded ones.

I bought a 2004 Range Rover HSE last year for $3000, non-running. One $150 X5 fuel pump later and it ran perfectly with no check engine lights or errors. You can read about that here: http://dannyzabolotny.kinja.com/how-i-bought-the-worlds-cheapest-range-rover-1786632002

Honestly it was such a good vehicle after I fixed a few little things, I miss it dearly. I'll buy another Range Rover in the future, that's for sure.

I want a Series 2 Discovery with a Ford 300 I6 and a ZF 5speed. Or maybe a Jeep 242 or 258

Mine has been running reliably for 44 years.  I had to replace the chassis when it was around 35.  It runs great and only requires gas.  I don't really ever have to change the oil. I just add new.

No

You couldn't be more wrong about the 4.6 compared to the 4.0.  The blocks were sorted thru by hand and the ones that tested the best were turned into 4.6.  The ones that tested OK were turned into 4.0s.  The ones that tested bad were melted down.  By the end of the run, the tooling was pretty much worn out.  At the end of the run, they only made the 4.6, so yeah, there were alot of bad 2002, and 2003 4.6L.  Basically if you find one that hasn't blown up, its a good one.  The real issue was liner slippage.  The early 3.5, 3.9, 4.2 engines suffered from liner slippage much less frequently.  The later 4.0 and 4.6 are the ones that had slipped liners and this was mostly because of a difference in the way they machined the blocks before they pressed in the liner.  If you find a good one and your worried about a liner slipping, just pin the liners in place.  If you have one with a slipped liner, the solution is top hat or flanged liners and that process is going to cost you $2K before you even start the rebuild.  Go to any mall around here and you will see a ton of old Rovers, so they can't be that bad.  My wife's 4.6L has 170,000 miles and its still going strong.  Keep hoping something major other that the engine will die so I can take the engine out and install it in one of my TR8s.

ebonyandivory said:

I want a Series 2 Discovery with a Ford 300 I6 and a ZF 5speed. Or maybe a Jeep 242 or 258

It would never fit. The V8 is packed in there tight enough, the I6 is WAY too long.