Our long-term Land Rover LR3
is turning over 15,000 miles -- and I just got my first drive in it. A combination of driver rotations and test car logistics has kept me out of the SUV since we bought it seven months ago, but in the last 48 hours I've put 200 miles on the odometer. And, after some quality time in our new long-term Jeep Commander over the past few weeks, I have a sense of how these boxy competitors line up. Despite the Jeep's remarkably car-like driving dynamics (for a large, solid-axle box), the Land Rover has the overall advantage in term of on-road behavior. The steering is even lighter and sharper on the LR3, and the ride quality is higher (not surprising consider its IRS advantage). However, while the Jeep's stiffer suspension doesn't filter out road imperfections as well, it also keeps the Jeep more upright around corners. If the "tippiness" of SUVs is one of your major issues, you'll probably like the Commander more than the LR3.
An undeniable advantage the Jeep has over the Land Rover can be summed up in one word: ergonomics. Like all Land Rovers, the LR3 is an absolute train wreck when it comes to interior controls. The window and mirror switches are too far away, and only the driver's window is one-touch up and down (this car starts at $45,000!). No other windows offer any one-touch functionality (up or down) and the audio system doesn't have a tuning knob -- just buttons. The power points are hidden at the bottom of the center stack -- and they are severely recessed so just finding them, let along using them, can be a challenge. The Jeep's interior makes much more sense in terms of control layout, and it still feels very upscale.
Last but not least, we've had our fair share of problems with the Land Rover. The Commander is only at 3,000 miles, so it's mechanical reliability is still unknown. But given the price and ergonomics advantage held by the Jeep, I'd have to give final salute the Commander in this impromptu comparo.
By ssiero1
on February 2, 2006
02:49 PM
I was riding home on the train the other day while seated across technicians from a big Jaguar/Land Rover dealer in Chicago. Let me just say that I would never spend my money on a Land Rover.
By navigator89
on February 2, 2006
02:55 PM
What's the price difference between the two models you guys own? Were you able to test the off road abilities of either model and if so which is better?
I've never sat in or driven either car, yet I'd still take the Commander based on what I know of these vehicles. Plus I like the styling and interior better.
By editor_karl
on February 2, 2006
03:56 PM
We driven them both off road, but not back-to-back over the exact same course, which is really the only way to know for sure. Both are highly capable, so I don't think that's a huge differentiator either way. You do get the adjustable ride height and hill descent control on the LR3, so that's part of what you're paying for. The LR3 starts at $45,000 before adding a single option, while our long-term Commander, complete with Hemi, navigation and rear entertainment, is only $41,000.
By ateixeira
on February 3, 2006
11:21 AM
To be fair, LR3 is a lot bigger, especially in 3rd row footroom.
By rsholland
on February 3, 2006
12:00 PM
No question about: The LR3 has perhaps the best 3rd-row legroom of any mid-size SUV. The Commander has perhaps the worst 3rd-row legroom of any mid-size SUV.
By c4ment
on March 3, 2006
07:23 PM
A comparison of Land Rover vs Jeep...... C-mon whats next Ferrari vs the Ford Mustang? These two are not even in the same league. Lets keep Jeep in its category, cheap american blue collar junk. Only it's not cheap anymore. I hope the door doesn't fall off the commander like it did on my sisters cherokee.
By navigator89
on March 6, 2006
01:11 PM
c4ment,
What makes you think LR3 are that great? All they have over SUVs in off road abilities. Even that can be found elsewhere now, like in the Commander. Other SUVs offer interiors and engines as good and even better than the LR3. Read the long term test of the LR3 and you'll see the numerous problem they've had already. Karl just said they've had their fair share of problems.
Open your eyes, the Commander is a fine SUV and it is foolish of you to just dismiss it like that.
By autoboy16
on June 17, 2006
06:26 AM
Unless you really like looking through the rearview mirror. If the commander's 3row is up and no1 is sitting there, you cant even see the road. I perfer the LR3 and just for the record, around here where I live, a 2006 LR3 starts at $36k but its the v6 model and so is still in line with the commander (at least around here)
By sbryant
on August 24, 2006
04:11 PM
c4ment,
i compleatly agree with your opinion!!!
Here is the problem: Remeber the origianl Jeep Willys? OK. The inventer of the first land rover (Series I in 1948) took the Jeep Willys' original concept and improved it. Simple.
Now ever since Land Rover has been producing new vehicles they have not forgotten the origianl Series I and what it stood for. Now-a- days Land rover offers the best and most advanced off road ability without compromising it´s incredible on road ability, confort and luxury.
Now the Jeep, is a completely different story. The original Willys was a good car, shame on Jeep for having left it in the dark. They have completely forgotten about what gave Jeep it's original reputation. Now Jeep can be considered a middle sized SUV for oversized Americans who are more interested in a cars "bling bling" than its functionality.
By sbryant
on August 24, 2006
04:22 PM
ít´s impossible for people to compare a car such as the LR3 with any Jeep, they are made based on completely different concepts. Now I will admit to a comparism between a Land Rover Freelander 1 with the Jeep Liberty. None of them have proper off roading technologies and both have similar prices. In various comparisons between these same vehicles the Freelander has always prevailed by far, both on basic off road abilities and on road abilities. In general the freelander (even though it is the least handsome of the land rovers) is a better looking, better driving and better car than pretty much and jeep out there.
I dont think I will live to see the day that Jeep produces a car that has the same versatality as do all Land Rovers.
Ps. Have you seen the new Freelander?? It is a real beauty. And anybody who doubts Land Rover's dedication to off road read up on the new LAND_E concept. That is what I call dedication!!!!
Thankyou.-
By homestarman
on January 28, 2007
11:42 AM
Ahhh, Land Rover rules all, after all, Jeep just gave us a lame off-road car with low -range so it won't be called a poseur mobile, just like the Mercedes-benz ML-430!
By palmerexlr3
on April 20, 2007
07:59 AM
the lr3 is a disaster waiting to happen in a pretty package.
i had one & am now jeep bmw or even toyota customer!!!!
it feels great to drive when it is actually roadworthy! a rare state.
after 11 tows and land rover's continued & creative denial about my lr3's true condition ( they actually tried to tell me that i had rodents nesting in my engine!) i managed to get the better business bureau & a good lemon law behind me & ended up with a full refund.
my suggestion: don't even go there.