Thread: L322 or L320?

Originally Posted by rar110

Like all modern complicated cars, newer the better probably.

I understand that the L405 is an improvement on the last of the L322s in lots of respects. The 4.4's secondary turbo drain was still the old style for a couple of years, the early L405/L494 front struts were prone to failure but may have been replaced, the L405/L494 suspension sub-frames are alloy instead of the L322's and L462 Disco's steel and the L405/L494 don't have the L322's good access to the back of the engine, none of which would stop me from upgrading to a 4.4 L405 if I could afford it.

RS4 is the current beast 😉

I have to say the L405 really does appeal if it can be made good for an expedition.

Search starts... test drove a TDV6 L494 and Amarok today and had a look at a L405. The L494 was really nice - no low range so out for a purchase, but comfortable and smooth. Power & torque of the TDV6 was just fine. It is a little wallowy but I am used to an Audi RS4 on coilovers with uprated ARBs...

Amarok had crappy seats but otherwise drove nicely. Some weird vibrations at times over a couple surfaces that just didn't seem to damp out well.

L405 was just gorgeous. I couldn't drive it - I was honest with the sales bloke I was looking for an earlier one and it's a $145k 2016 model. Anyone in SA got an L322 TDV8 or L405 SDV8 they'd take me for a spin in?

If the Amorak was auto it would not have had low range. Why didn't you take an L495 RRS with low range for a drive?

I person who I know looked at L494s to replace his ageing D3 but found that most don't have low range. Presumably most RRS buyers didn't add the 2-speed xfer case.

Originally Posted by Graeme

I person who I know looked at L494s to replace his ageing D3 but found that most don't have low range. Presumably most RRS buyers didn't add the 2-speed xfer case.

Graeme I find low range invaluable reversing my van. Some steep access areas I need to back it in to would be really over work8ng the gearbox without it!

Primary reason I didn't drove a low range RRS was that I didn't realise the vehicle I booked in to drive didn't have low range. Trap for young players I suppose! I drove it anyway because I wasn't going to test drive it off road anyway and I presume they drive in High pretty much the same.

Correct no low range on the Amarok. That effort was really just to rule a new ute out. I'd driven a Ranger XLT previously which actually wasn't too bad. But hard to go back to that level of interior after living with an RS4 and driving a RRS.

Originally Posted by AlexRS4

Primary reason I didn't drove a low range RRS was that I didn't realise the vehicle I booked in to drive didn't have low range. Trap for young players I suppose! I drove it anyway because I wasn't going to test drive it off road anyway and I presume they drive in High pretty much the same.

Correct no low range on the Amarok. That effort was really just to rule a new ute out. I'd driven a Ranger XLT previously which actually wasn't too bad. But hard to go back to that level of interior after living with an RS4 and driving a RRS.

Good choice, Ranger / BT50 pretty overrated too. Just popular in tradie circles, rather like a certain piece of human anatomy that deals with waste disposal...🤔