Range Rover L322 vs its rivals

When the L322 was on sale (2002-2012), the luxury 4x4 class filled up fast. Here's how it stacked up against the cars it competed with — and how that comparison looks now they're all on the used market. The short version: nothing else quite combined its presence, comfort and genuine off-road ability.

The L322's pitch, then and now: rivals beat it on individual measures — the Cayenne on handling, the Q7 on space, the X5 on running costs — but none matched its blend of luxury, road presence and real off-road capability. On the used market that character is now available for remarkably little.

The landscape

The early 2000s were when the luxury SUV went mainstream. Within a few years of the L322's 2002 launch, almost every premium maker had a credible large SUV: BMW's X5 had arrived in 1999, and Porsche, VW, Mercedes, Audi and Lexus all piled in. The L322 sat at the luxury, prestige end — closer in spirit to a luxury saloon on stilts than to a sporty crossover — while keeping the off-road ability that was central to the Range Rover name.

Interestingly, the L322 was developed under BMW, but the brief was explicitly not to build an X5 clone: Land Rover provided the off-road vision and the British design, BMW the engineering sophistication. That's why the two cars feel so different despite their shared parentage.

Rivals at a glance

Broad-brush character of each period rival versus the L322. These are general impressions of the era's cars, not a spec-by-spec test.

Rival (period)	Its strength	vs the L322
BMW X5 (E53/E70)	Driving dynamics, running costs	Sportier & cheaper to run; less luxurious, far less off-road
Porsche Cayenne	Performance & handling	Faster and sharper; less prestige cabin, thirstier in V8 form
Audi Q7	Space, seven seats, tech	Roomier and seven-seat; lower-set, less of an "event", less off-road
Mercedes ML / GL	Comfort, GL's seven seats	Comfortable & practical; the L322 has more presence and badge cachet
VW Touareg	Build quality, value	Hugely capable and well-built; far less prestige, plainer image
Lexus (RX/LX)	Reliability, refinement	More dependable; RX softer/less capable, LX rugged but less plush

GENERAL ASSESSMENT — period impressions; individual model years and engines vary.

vs BMW X5

The closest car to the L322 by family ties and the furthest by character. The X5 was the driver's choice — lower, sharper, more car-like, and notably cheaper to run. But it was never a serious off-roader and its cabin, while excellent, didn't have the L322's sense of occasion. If you want to drive, the X5; if you want to arrive — and to keep going when the road runs out — the Range Rover.

vs Porsche Cayenne

The Cayenne was the performance benchmark of the class, genuinely fast and astonishingly capable in the bends for something so tall. It even had real off-road hardware. What it lacked next to the L322 was prestige and cabin ambience — the Range Rover simply felt more special inside and carried more presence outside. The V8 Cayenne was also no friend of the fuel pump.

vs Audi Q7

The Q7 answered a different question: space. It offered seven seats and a vast cabin, with Audi's slick interiors and strong diesels. But it sat lower and more car-like, with nothing like the L322's commanding driving position or off-road ability, and less of the theatrical "Range-Rover-ness" that buyers in this class often want. Practical family pick versus prestige flagship.

vs Mercedes ML / GL

Mercedes fielded two rivals: the mid-size ML and the larger seven-seat GL. Both majored on comfort and everyday usability, and the GL was a genuinely practical big family hauler. Neither, though, had the L322's badge cachet or its blend of luxury and capability — the Range Rover was the more aspirational object, the Mercedes the more sensible tool.

vs VW Touareg

The Touareg is the connoisseur's value pick: superbly built, hugely capable off-road (sharing much with the Cayenne underneath), and often overlooked. What it never had was image — it wore a VW badge in a class that trades heavily on prestige. Against the L322 it's the head-over-heart choice: nearly as able, far less special.

vs Lexus (RX / LX)

Lexus offered two very different things: the car-like, supremely reliable RX, and the rugged, Land-Cruiser-based LX. The RX was softer and less capable than the L322 but far more dependable; the LX was tough and durable but less plush and less prestigious. The Lexus trump card was always reliability — precisely the L322's weak spot — so a Lexus is the rational alternative if ownership peace-of-mind matters more than character.

The verdict — then and now

Then: the L322 was rarely the cheapest, fastest, roomiest or most reliable car in any comparison — yet it kept winning hearts, because it was the most complete luxury statement with off-road ability no road-biased rival could match.

Now: on the used market the maths gets even more interesting. The L322 has depreciated heavily, so its blend of presence, comfort and capability is available for a fraction of its original price — if you buy a good one and budget for upkeep. The rivals that beat it on reliability (Lexus, Touareg) make the sensible used buys; the L322 remains the one you buy with your heart, and increasingly, your head too.

Bottom line: if you want the most capable, most prestigious used luxury 4x4 of its era and you're prepared to maintain it properly, the L322 is hard to beat for the money. If you want maximum reliability with minimum fuss, a Lexus or Touareg is the rational rival — but neither makes you feel quite like a Range Rover does.

▲ Back to top