American Motors Corporation, the pride of Kenosha, Wisconsin, beat everyone to it in 1980.
Yes, the 2007 BMW X3 and 2008 Land Rover LR2 were anticipated decades ago by the deliciously unhip AMC Eagle, a four-wheel-drive station wagon with such ample ground clearance that it resembled an old man wearing trousers hiked up to his armpits. The Eagle unwittingly created a market segment that has since overrun the automotive landscape.
Today, everyone loves wagons. Yes, wagons. Too many of us are in denial about the truth that our SUV addiction is actually a craving for the virtues of the all-wheel-drive wagon. The litany of awkward vehicle classifications created for the SUV by vehicle manufacturers is simply an effort to make wagons more palatable for an unsuspecting audience.
They're taller now and have more off-road machismo, but now more than ever, today's luxury-compact SUVs come closest in spirit to the AMC Eagle.
Putting on a Game
FaceWe've brought together two modern approaches to combining the comfortable wagon with the multifunctional truck: a 2007 BMW X3 3.0si and 2008 Land Rover LR2 SE. We've already had a look at the features of each, so this is a comparison of performance, not appearance.
Each manufacturer approaches the Eagle's visionary concept from a unique perspective. BMW realizes that the vast majority of buyers are looking for all-weather capability in a street-driven vehicle. Meanwhile, Land Rover's LR2 might lack the low-range transfer case of its bigger brothers, yet it aims to be all things to all people in all terrains.
The 2007 BMW X3 arrives with a bodywork update that is subtle enough to pass unnoticed on the style radar of almost everyone. More noticeable is its new 3.0-liter inline-6, a heart transplant with direct fuel injection. The new six produces 260 horsepower and 225 pound-feet of torque, and it's matched with a six-speed autobox.
Land Rover begins sales of its all-new LR2 this May, displacing the Freelander as its entry-level model. There's a 230-hp, 234 lb-ft 3.2-liter inline-6 from corporate cousin Volvo that's matched with a six-speed automatic.
Character Always
CountsDespite similarities on the spec sheet, these two SUVs have real-world driving characters that are as different as bell peppers and jalapeños. The X3's steering is precise, with a pleasant heft to the steering effort at low speed that is typical of modern BMW sedans. The X3 doesn't quite drive like a 3 Series, but point it into a corner and it turns in crisply, free of the slack, delayed body motion you might expect from its tall wagon-style shape. The X3's control interface is compromised only by odd pedal feel during light brake applications.
Driven back-to-back with the X3, the LR2's softer character is even more noticeable. Hard braking makes the LR2 nose-dive toward the pavement like it's hunting for truffles, sapping your confidence. Nevertheless, the LR2 consistently bettered the X3's stopping distances during our instrumented testing, reaching a standstill from 60 mph in just 117 feet.
The LR2's soft suspension calibration is also at odds with the vehicle's numb yet relatively quick steering. This steering calibration, meant to minimize kickback from off-road obstacles, feels on the highway as if the engineers in Land Rover's steering department missed a few meetings with the suspension guys during the LR2's development. In short, the LR2 lacks the steering acuity and tidy body control of its Bavarian competitor, trading driver involvement for ride comfort.
Motivation for Daily Driving
The difference in disposition between the X3 and LR2 continues under the hood.
The X3's power plant delivers spirited power over the majority of its rpm range, while the transmission's gearchanges seem positively caffeinated in their eagerness. It's a bright, responsive pairing. Slide the X3's PRDNL lever into the quick-shifting manual mode and take note that you pull back for upshifts and tap forward for downshifts. We prefer this Euro-style layout, which simulates the position of 3rd and 4th gear in a traditional H-pattern shift linkage, to the Japanese preference for a layout based on 2nd and 3rd gear.
While the X3's powertrain has spunk, the LR2 behaves as if it returned from the dentist an hour ago and is still shaking off the after-effects of Novocain. Shifts are slurred smoothly with torque-converter slushiness aplenty, and the engine's lack of low-end thrust is exacerbated by the six widely spaced transmission ratios.
The actual performance of the LR2's powertrain is adequate, but the BMW's livelier temperament gives it an advantage.
Calibration at the Test
TrackAt the test track, the 4,121-pound X3 is much swifter, posting a 7.2-second 0-60-mph time and covering the quarter-mile in 15.4 seconds at 89.6 mph. In comparison, the 4,315-pound LR2 takes 9.3 seconds to reach 60 mph and then 17.0 seconds at 81.7 mph to run through the quarter-mile. It's a simple case of more power and less weight commingling in the BMW.
Moreover, the X3 delivers better as-tested fuel economy than the LR2. During 1,903 miles of mixed driving, the X3 averaged 19.2 mpg with a best tank of 20.9 mpg. The LR2 turned out an average of 16.4 mpg over 815 miles, with a best tank of 17.8 mpg.
If you're wondering what's behind the discrepancy in miles driven, blame the electrons. Our LR2 test vehicle had a schizophrenic starter that required replacement midway through our test, sidelining the LR2 for nearly a week. It's possible that the LR2's as-tested fuel economy could climb a bit with a larger sample set. This glitch is not reflected in our scoring but definitely gave us flashbacks to the "Prince of Darkness" era of British electronics.
Read the article:
http://autocar-show.blogspot.com/2007/06/comparison-test-2007-bmw-x3-vs-2008.html