Land Rover Freelanders

swfcdan · February 2, 2009

My dads taken a fancy to them for some reason and is looking at getting one.

With his budget it looks like he can get a 54/55 plate car.

Just wondered if anyone had any experience of them, they seem to get a mixed review from the usual places, whatcar et al.

I know there are other options, but he seems set on one of these. Looked at the others, X-Trail doesn't like the look of, Honda CR-V is a poss, but a bit bland and RAV-4 is a no no.

reganlives · February 2, 2009

I remember earlier freelanders having extremely poor crash test results, 2 stars or something so I'd defo look into that first mate. The new freelanders aint that bad I think but dont know if its a new chassis or not therefore improving crash ratings or not

swfcdan · February 2, 2009

Yeh i can remember the first ones being shocking, i think the ones within budget are the updated ones before the freelander 2. Not sure if they were just given a face lift, or structurally improved too.

Gord · February 2, 2009

I he is going for one, dont get a petrol one :winky:

Tango · February 2, 2009

Yeh i can remember the first ones being shocking, i think the ones within budget are the updated ones before the freelander 2. Not sure if they were just given a face lift, or structurally improved too.

My wife decided a diesel Freeloader may be the vehicle for her in 2006 so we test drove a brand new one with the intent to buy, but tested a 2005 and a 2003/2004 just to see how well they aged. The one year old drove OK but various switches and electrical equipment (the moon roof is one I remember) had stopped functioning, and the three year old which admittedly had probably 50K plus miles, was a complete shed with a really noisy transmission. May have been unlucky, but based on our experience and that of a friend who had a 2004 from new we decided not to buy. The Freelander 2 appears to get good reviews.

Boxbrownie · February 2, 2009

In 2003 I bought a new Freelander, diesel with auto trans....it was a lovely drive, comfy quiet and not so fast! I had it just 18 months and I believe NOTHING went wrong with it......which at 18 months I would have expected on any vehicle hopefully!

Before I bought my 2003 RX300 I toyed with another brand new 2008 Freelander but decided I preferred the much better interior space of the RX.....otherwise I would have had no qualms about buying the Freelander again.

Best regards David

ManicMark · February 2, 2009

Ther are better,

off roaders on the market, the bmw deisel engine is good in them though.electrics can be troublesome,

cheap as chips down the auctions for late ones now .

Boxbrownie · February 2, 2009

Yeah but who uses an offroader off road?

As an on-road-offroader the FL is one of the very best....and THE very best in its class. There is only one off-roader for off road....the LR battle tank, preferably a 90". There is only one off-roader for sporting on-road use....the X5....sorry I do not consider the new X6 to be any kind of 4X4 with an off-road image at all....just a huge AWD sports....er.....car! :shutit:

I view my RX as exactly what I bought it for....a largish, very comfortable easy to drive effortlessly estate car with excellent traction in dodgy on-road conditions....no pretentions at all about mud plugging.

Just my views of course.....which are usually always wrong...or so the wife tells me!

Best regards David

ihpj · February 2, 2009

There is only one off-roader for off road....the LR battle tank, preferably a 90". There is only one off-roader for sporting on-road use....the X5....

Not sure I'd quite agree with you - yes the X5 is very capable, however I would toss in the Range Rover Sport into that category and as my preference. One helluva car for the money - especially in the Supercharged Petrol variant.

T7RY B · February 2, 2009

Do a search but a lot of Freelanders have headgasket problems and that isn't a cheap fix.

Paradroid · February 2, 2009

You need to draw a distinction between the original version (Rover designed) and the new version that was re-engineered under Ford's ownership.

The original one has either the 1.8K Series or the 2.5KV6, both Rover engines. The 1.8 does have head gasket problems in the Freelander, and I wouldn't recommend it. The 2.5 is a much better engine, but probably thirsty in the Freelander. It only really has one weakness, it's clever inlet manifold. If that goes, it's £550 for a new one. Land Rover designed some uprated parts to fix the head gasket issues on the 4 cylinder engine, which might work.

The diesel versions of the original Freelander are either the Rover L-Series diesel engine on early models (reliable but not common rail so rough and probably a bit underpowered). Later versions came with the BMW 2.0 turbo-diesel engine which was also fitted to the Rover 75/MG ZT. A cracking engine, very similar to the engine in the E46 BMW 3 series.

The newer version of the car "Freelander 2" might only look like a facelift but was a substantially improved car I think. The interior is a hell of a lot better. There is a 3.2 V6 petrol engine and 2.2 diesel petrol engine. They look like the same units that are fitted to the older shape Mondeo ST. Should both be good engines.

If you can afford the newer shape I'd definitely aim for that. I don't think a 54 plate would the Freelander 2 though. 55 plate might be.

swfcdan · February 2, 2009

Thanks for all your tips guys.

I had noticed that a lot of places mention the 1.8 has problems with head gasket.

Its one of the later original models hes after, with the facelift.

Like this one for example.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FREELANDER-TD4-SE-04...A1%7C240%3A1308

I'm not sure if these later ones had the original problems ironed out or not.

I'm trying to persuade him to get a RX300, but he needs something a bit more economical as its going to be a load lugger more than anything.

Paradroid · February 2, 2009

Right the one you've linked to there is a facelifted Mk1, not the new Freelander 2 with Ford engines.

In that case the petrol model would be the 1.8 which could be problematic so I'd look at the diesel only. The one you're looking at is the diesel though, which is the BMW M47R engine, very good engine. I'd think mechanically it should be fine, but someone above mentioned electics being a problem too so check everything works.

Boxbrownie · February 3, 2009

Thats the model I had TD4 Auto '03MY.....lovely to drive, never had any problems...but only from new to 18 months old, I would now definately go for the Mk2 version though (if its within cost) as said above a far improved design and completely new from wheels up!

As for the RR sport....hmmm....a lowered Landrover Discovery in a jogging suit Having said that though it is a very good car to drive and handles brilliantly..... But of course with either a X5 or a RR Sport you have to be a premiership footballer to own one, and who wants to mistaken for one of those?

Best regards David

BTW, The TD4 BMW engine can be tweaked quite happily with a tuning box or chip, I had my mate reprogram my ECU here at work and got 137bhp from it quite easily....in fact the MPG was better! Not sure the transmission would have held out for the 200K lifecycle though