LR4 Vs LR3.
- Thread starter ukoffroad
- Start date
Both are good options, ride nice and tons of room. LR4 is probably better but higher maintenance than the LR3. 5.0 in the LR4 has potential for timing chain issues while the 4.4 is essentially bulletproof. LR3 is less refined, ride is similar but not quite as nice as the LR4. 5.0 is even worse on gas than the 4.4. Infotainment in both are well outdated. Both are heavy and will eat through brakes and lower control arms. Becoming increasingly difficult to find a lower mileage example but not a major issue if serviced properly. That said, pretty good bang for the buck, are relatively reliable and are the last of the boxy Rovers. I DD my 08’ LR3 which just ticked 170k miles. That said, I kick around the idea of picking up something lower mileage, more efficient, and updated tech as a DD but can’t see myself parting with the LR3 and would just make it our third vehicle. It’s really a great do it all vehicle
LR4 seems to have fewer transmission and differential issues, and except for the early ones, EAS seems to be better.
Gas mileage is marginally better on LR4 - extra load of horses allows it to stay in higher gear and lower engine RPM.
Overall, an LR4 is a better vehicle - with a lot of caveats, almost all of them engine-related.
Fuel system: fuel tank filter/flange leaking gas -> recall job, followed by impending low pressure fuel pump failure. I have not had high-pressure fuel pump failure yet, but apparently it does happen. Low pressure fuel pump controller also can fail, but it's a $100 part that can be replaced on the side of the road if you have it along.
Timing chain tensioners seem to affect not just early LR4s but all years. If you're buying an LR4 and this has not been done, factor in 5-7k in upcoming costs. Plastic crossover coolant pipes seem to have about 100kmi lifespan - if those haven't been replaced after 100k, you're on the borrowed time.
I am sure that's not all there is.
Edit - forgot one tidbit. A 5.0 in LR4 has a forked intake and two air filter housings, so you'll need to adapt an LR3 intake if you want to have a snorkel.
Gas mileage is marginally better on LR4 - extra load of horses allows it to stay in higher gear and lower engine RPM.
Overall, an LR4 is a better vehicle - with a lot of caveats, almost all of them engine-related.
Fuel system: fuel tank filter/flange leaking gas -> recall job, followed by impending low pressure fuel pump failure. I have not had high-pressure fuel pump failure yet, but apparently it does happen. Low pressure fuel pump controller also can fail, but it's a $100 part that can be replaced on the side of the road if you have it along.
Timing chain tensioners seem to affect not just early LR4s but all years. If you're buying an LR4 and this has not been done, factor in 5-7k in upcoming costs. Plastic crossover coolant pipes seem to have about 100kmi lifespan - if those haven't been replaced after 100k, you're on the borrowed time.
I am sure that's not all there is.
Edit - forgot one tidbit. A 5.0 in LR4 has a forked intake and two air filter housings, so you'll need to adapt an LR3 intake if you want to have a snorkel.
Last edited:
I have owned three LR3s, one with a HD package, and two LR4s, again one with the HD package. I agree with all this.
The LR4 was an evolution of the LR3 and I can't think of one area it doesn't noticeably improve on the LR3. The interior is far nicer, and it feels much more contemporary. They both look like fridges, but the LEDs, painted large flares, and newer door handles keep the LR4 in the modern era. I always found the LR3 to be adequately powered like a stock 4.6 D2. The 5.0 on the other hand is really fun to drive. It makes you forget how heavy the truck is, though you do still feel it when stopping. My 13 LR4 is noisy but not as noisy as the totalled 11 it replaced with the same mileage. It also sounds about the same as my friend's 20 L405 SC. So, I think there is some truth to the updated chains in 13s. They'll probably all need chains done if early owners followed the 10K mileage interval. I remember my LR3s getting about the same city gas mileage my 4.6 D2s did, with somewhat better highway numbers. My LR4 does much better on the highway, around 20-21mpg with heavy mods. Around town it's 15 or so.
Brakes on both are good. I don't like the V6 headlights or swoopy mirrors, but I don't like the V6 engine and knob shifter anyway. Too bad they never paired the V8 and 8 speed. The V6 is pretty much the same problem child with less power and its not as smooth. I think the LR4 handles sportier driving better, but it has been a minute since I owned a LR3. The LR4 paint seems to be higher quality, but it could just be that LR4s are newer.
It all boils down to what you value most and what your budget allows. If reliability is paramount, a LR3 with updated suspension components is great. It's certainly more modern and liveable than the Discovery 2 it replaced. When shopping high mileage cheap trucks, I'd chose the LR3. If you want a really nice modern LR that is fun to own, but may bite your wallet, the LR4 is tough to beat.
Agree with all comments on the LR3 above. I've owned mine for three years and it has been a great complement to my D1. I don't have a frame of reference for the 5.0, but I find the 4.4 to be more than adequate. The first thing I did with my LR3 was to put 1,000 pounds in it and drive it on an 11,500-mile road trip across the country and back. Effortless going over mountain passes. I've had to replace the front struts (originals lasted 170,000 miles), a couple ignition coils, and the usual wear items of LCAs and TREs, but otherwise the reliability has been great. The engine is so smooth and quiet I sometimes have to check the key to know if it's running.
And I love that I can sleep in the back:
And I love that I can sleep in the back:
It is interesting to observe a mixed group of Rovers on a long highway grade. You'll definitely see the LR3s progressively lagging behind - more so than D2s with 4.6s, which is understandable.
It might be, but a stock LR3 is nearly a thousand pounds heavier than a D1.
That applies equally to, say, an FJ-80 Cruiser. Not that I specifically looked, but I haven't seen one under 200k miles in a long, long time.
And a 200kmi LR3 is a time bomb, just a little less so than an LR4.
I see them frequently in the 120-130k mile range for sale here in the southeast. How are they a time bomb more than any other vehicle at that mileage? Plenty of examples well over 200k, including these two (original engine/trans on both) at 400k + each
Attachments
Interesting observation as of yesterday.
There's a freeway interchange close to my house that I use for both suspension and engine/transmission checks - steep and tight uphill 270-degree turn to merge, friction limited to 35 mph, and then going over about a mile with assorted landmarks that I use to check the acceleration.
This check is not a pedal-to-the-metal, let-the-bitch-stay-in-the-first-gear-forever, run - it is mostly keeping the engine between 3k and 3500 rpm.
My (wife's) LR4 has very similar dynamics to my black 95 LWB (all factory, engine untouched at 286kmi).
Checking the specs, side by side:
Since in both vehicles it was not a WOT acceleration, the torque ratio was probably closer to the ratio of displacements, which puts them very close.
And yes, if you really lean on the LR4, it'll blow the Classic out of the water - but we don't do that, do we?
There's a freeway interchange close to my house that I use for both suspension and engine/transmission checks - steep and tight uphill 270-degree turn to merge, friction limited to 35 mph, and then going over about a mile with assorted landmarks that I use to check the acceleration.
This check is not a pedal-to-the-metal, let-the-bitch-stay-in-the-first-gear-forever, run - it is mostly keeping the engine between 3k and 3500 rpm.
My (wife's) LR4 has very similar dynamics to my black 95 LWB (all factory, engine untouched at 286kmi).
Checking the specs, side by side:
| year/make/model | Max torque (lb-ft) @ RPM | Curb weight, lbs | Max Torque / Curb weight |
| 1995 RRC LWB 4.2 | 251 @ 3250 | 4806 | 0.0522 |
| 2010 LR4 5.0 | 375 @ 350 | 5833 | 0.0643 |
Since in both vehicles it was not a WOT acceleration, the torque ratio was probably closer to the ratio of displacements, which puts them very close.
And yes, if you really lean on the LR4, it'll blow the Classic out of the water - but we don't do that, do we?