I’m a big fan of the L322-generation Land Rover Range Rover. I love how they look, and I appreciate the balance between luxury boat and off-road bruiser that only a vehicle like the Range can deliver. Unlike the newer versions, this one is also the right size—big enough to carry anything I’d need to, but not too huge to fit into your average New York City parking space.
I like the L322 so much that I recently bought one. Specifically, a 2008 model-year truck with over 216,000 miles on the clock. I wanted something I could drive into huge potholes without worrying about, but I also didn’t want to spend a lot up front. Most of these SUVs are incredibly cheap on the used market, and for good reason: They’re known to be absolute money pits.
A quick Google search will net you a laundry list of common issues for these Range Rovers. The standard four-corner air suspension is infamous for its tendency to fail in numerous ways, leaving the truck sagging when you arrive to greet it the next morning. Higher-mile L322s will spawn electrical problems out of nowhere that can be hellish to track down. Water pumps often stop working without warning.
But when buying my Range Rover, nothing scared me more than timing chain issues. Of the five V8 engines that were available with the L322 in North America, three of them are notorious for timing chain-related failures. Fixing the suspension is a walk in the park by comparison—it’s usually an airbag, a connection point, or the air pump that goes bad. But if a timing chain fails, that’s it. You’re out a whole engine, and the truck is even more worthless than it was before.
Let’s Start At The Beginning
Source: Land Rover
To understand the L322’s timing chain woes, you have to know about Land Rover’s history at the turn of the century. In the early 1990s, Land Rover was still a part of the greater Rover Group, which also included marques like MG, Mini, and Austin. BMW acquired the conglomerate in 1994, outbidding Honda in an attempt to move downmarket without diluting its brand. Classicsworld.co.uk has a detailed write-up on the deal, which includes nuggets like this:
For BMW, it represented an opportunity to move into volume car making where industry pundits were all agreed at the time that the big money was to be made; the accepted wisdom was that small niche players like BMW operating only in the upper end of the market were vulnerable in the long term.
Rover, the pawn in the middle, had little say in the matter although the deal was naturally presented as an opportunity. Acquiring a new brand would avoid the problems with diluting the BMW brand by producing smaller, cheaper cars.
[…]
It’s also been suggested that the Germans were keen to compete with Mercedes and other premium brands in the SUV market but lacked the resources to develop its own models from scratch – and Rover Group came with the prize of the Land Rover brand.
Upon its purchase of Land Rover, BMW realized the P38 Range Rover—the model before the L322—was already outdated by the time it hit the market in 1995 (those are BMW’s words, not mine). The Germans immediately got to work on the L322 in an effort to keep it competitive by its launch time in 2003. BMW would eventually sell the Land Rover brand to Ford in 2000, before getting any Range Rovers to market. But the first L322s still got a whole lot of BMW parts, since most of the development work had already been done.
It’s BMW’s Fault These Early Trucks (Eventually) Turned Out Bad
Source: Land Rover
BMW’s involvement in these first- and second-year L322s proved to be the truck’s downfall—at least for third and fourth owners (early reviews of the truck gave it high praise). The problem lies with the BMW-built 4.4-liter V8, codenamed M62.
In addition to those early big-body Range Rovers, the M62 found a home in numerous BMW models, including the E39 BMW 5 Series, the E38 BMW 7 Series, and, ironically, the first-generation X5. No matter which engine bay the M62 graces with its presence, it has this tendency to eat through timing chain guides.
Timing chain guides are just that—pieces of plastic, metal, or some other composite material that mount to the front of the engine, responsible for “guiding” the timing chain along a specific pathway, keeping it properly tensioned. The chain rides along the guides as it spins the engine, and, in the case of the M62, the guides eventually wear out or become brittle and begin to break apart. When that happens, the chain loses its tension, causing a horrendous rattling sound:
When I was shopping for my Range Rover, I checked out a couple of these early, BMW-designed models. The first one was advertised as running and driving, but when I got there and turned the engine on, it made a noise identical to the engine in the video above. I walked away, obviously, knowing I’d either have to replace the guides or the engine altogether. That experience nearly scared me away from buying a Range Rover of any kind.
It’s not exactly clear why the guides fail so often. Some theorize the material of the guides is inferior, while others point to the fact that the M62 uses a single-row timing chain rather than a dual-row timing chain like its predecessor, the M60. Some people believe it has to do with a flaw in the design of the guide path. While the M60 used a rotating sprocket to guide the timing chain from one side of the engine to the other, the M62 just uses a U-shaped guide. Theoretically, that means a lot more friction in a spot where there was none before.
No matter what the root cause is, the guides are, at this point in the L322’s life, a must-replace item for any owner of these early models. I wouldn’t consider buying one unless they’ve been replaced or you intend to do the work yourself. That wouldn’t be a big deal if the guides were easy to replace. But as you’ve probably already guessed, they’re a huge pain, with lots of parts in the way and a few specialty BMW tools needed to complete the job. Paying a mechanic to perform the task would likely cost more than the whole truck is worth.
Different Engine, Similar Problem
The L322 got a significant refresh for the 2006 model year, which involved a handful of design changes and two new engines, which Ford, Land Rover’s new owner, sourced from Jaguar—a brand Ford also owned at the time. The AJ-V8, as it was known internally, came in two flavors: A naturally aspirated 4.4-liter unit and a supercharged 4.2-liter unit. For the 2010 model year, those engines were replaced with their modern 5.0-liter equivalents. That’s when problems reemerged.
As with the BMW-powered trucks, these 2010 model-year Range Rovers received critical acclaim from testers when new. It was only when people started piling the miles on that a problem with the timing guides started to emerge. Yes, the same exact part as the BMW motor, despite having no mechanical relation to that engine.
Here, the problem lies with how the guides provided tension to the chain. In the case of these engines, an oil-filled piston pushes on the back of the chain guide, which in turn provides tension to the chain. But over time, the point where the piston and the guide make contact can wear down, allowing slack in the chain. In addition to causing a similar rattling noise caused by the BMW engine, the chain could eventually skip timing or just snap altogether, instantly killing the motor it was attached to.
While no legal action was taken against Jaguar-Land Rover by owners of L322s equipped with these 5.0-liter engines, the company settled with 2012-2014 LR4 and Range Rover Sport owners who filed a class-action lawsuit over a timing chain flaw in their SUVs (they used lightly updated versions of the same engine).
Hence, my reasoning for buying a base 4.4-liter car from the “middle” era of the L322’s lifecycle. My engine, historically, has exhibited fewer problems than the BMW unit or the later 5.0-liter engines. It’s not perfect, of course (I check my coolant levels every time I’m about to drive the thing, and watch my water temps like a hawk). But I rest a bit easier knowing the chain rattle of death likely isn’t coming for my engine. If you’re in the market for an L322, I suggest you follow in my footsteps.
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
Top graphic: Land Rover, BMW, and shedlock2000 on YouTube
Aside: the stellar outward visibility of those Range Rogers is worth all the drama of the timing change guides.
The AJV8 engines (even the supercharged ones) from the 2000s-2008 are very well built. Plenty of people with these 3.9-4.4 variants over 200k miles, some over 300k, and (supposedly) higher than that. What kills engines from this specific window is something failing in the cooling system, but by the mileage that it occurs, the part should have been replaced anyway.
I can’t comment on the BMW engines, but the post 2008 AJV8 family engines (including the S/C V6 variants) are not worth buying. DI, thinner oils, longer OCI’s, much more fragile cooling system failure points, etc… garbage. If you want a post 2008 engine to survive longer, 5k oil OCIs, put a quality 30w oil in them, and run a quality DI fuel injector cleaner in the tank every so often (to keep the injectors alive).
Even with that, you will probably need to replace the entire timing system with the updated guides that came out in ~2013 (?) to be on the safe side. Or else, they will go boom.
Has anyone LS-swapped one of these?
I know the approved procedure for the horsey set that buys them new is to trade the whole thing in for a Denali (Escalades are too gauche for them, too “ooh, someone called a *fancy* Uber) but I’m thinking more wrench and grime…
I wonder if Ford ever considered putting in their 4.6-liter V8?
Range Rover was run by people who thought adding British electronics with a German engine was a good idea—just another data point on why all executives are vastly overpaid.
When you buy a vehicle with a common known issue like this, you either buy one that has the issue already addressed, or you price having to address it into what you are willing to pay for the vehicle. This really isn’t complicated.
BMW has never made a V-anything engine that was worth a damn, much as I usually bleed Blau und Wiess, and I have never owned nor wanted to own a V8 or V12 BMW.
If buying a BMW always get the I6 if you can.
The fours are generally fine too. Just not nearly as exciting. Though my ’91 318is’s (I had two of them) were absolutely OUTSTANDING driver’s cars. The baby M3. And a car I really wish I still had.
As a rule, BMWs are at their best in their simplest forms. Modestly powered I4 or I6, manual transmission, minimal frippery and nonsense about them. The hur-dur versions aren’t worth the disproportional aggravation, IMHO.
The BMW 4-cylinder N20 isn’t well-regarded due to timing chain issues. The N47 engines are well known for being complete garbage, yet BMW continued to put them in cars for years, and the successor isn’t much better. But the N47 is a diesel, so more of an issue in Europe where they are BMWs’ most common engine I believe.
The BMW of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s is dead and shan’t return. But in the classic market, the simple ones are lovely.
The N20 is like anything with a known dilemma. As I said, fix it BEFORE it breaks, and factor that fix into the price you are willing to pay. <shrug> Otherwise, they more powerful, more efficient, and reasonably smooth for a four, if nothing like as smooth or as nice sounding as an N51/52.
N47 is irrelevant in the US, and I can’t imagine why the Hell you would want a BMW with a diesel in it in the first place. Serves you right. Though the diesel they did sell in the US is NOT known for the issues that the Euro version has. But I don’t know what is different about them. One case where I suspect the American diesel owner tendency of racking up big miles helps rather than hurts. Modern diesels HATE short trips.
BMW is deader than Jimmy Hoffa as far as I am concerned. They haven’t really made a thing I have been interested in since the F22 2-series – and I didn’t even like the M235i I bought all that much and kept it less than two years. But the Euro Delivery of that car where I spent a month taking my sainted mother around nine countries in Europe was worth the price of entry. Here in the US, meh, the GTI that replaced it was better for my purposes.
The sole exception is that IF they still allowed European Delivery for Americans, I might have been tempted to order a 6spd Z4 when they re-introduced the manual. But no ED, can’t be bothered, too much money, too much nonsense inside the car. My mint-condition convertible 1-series is just fine. for <1/3rd the price.
so, range rovers no good but you got one anyways. have fun?
Older Range Rovers are excellent. But you have to go into them understanding that they are no different than exotic Italian cars. They are equal parts brilliant and stupid, and more-or-less built by a bunch of lads in a shed out of random bits. If you can deal with that, they deliver an experience like nothing else on the road. As I used to say about mine, it would cheerfully do 90% of what an S-class Mercedes could do, and 90% of what a Jeep Wrangler could do, while making you feel like royalty in the process.
A LandCruiser or the Lexus equivalent is a lot more reliable and FAR more tolerant of neglect, but also a LOT more agricultural and nowhere near as special to drive. And FAR more expensive to buy used. Pick your poison. You can fix a lot of dilemmas for the price delta between an old Range Rover and an old Land Cruiser. And the dirty secret is that old Land Cruisers with intergalactic mileages break too, and the parts are REALLY expensive when they do. I would say that the couple of scheduled timing belt jobs you would have to do on the Toyota V8 are going to cost just as much in total as the timing chain job that the Rangie is going to need eventually too. The trick is do it preemptively BEFORE it causes other even more expensive dilemmas, than be happy for another 150K.
Maintained *correctly*, which includes addressing the various common dilemmas BEFORE they strand you somewhere, they are perfectly fine to live with. Though I would hesitate to buy ANY complex luxury vehicle with a trip to the moon on the clock. Why bother – it’s not that much more to buy one with low mileage. Buy the best or don’t bother at all.
Damn Germans and their timing chains. Also would have been a cool to see the timeline in which Honda bought Land Rover.
Sterling was a nice preview of that, for better or worse.
I replaced the timing chain guides on an M62TU in a 2000 BMW 540iT. Big job, but nothing really that complicated. How easy is it to take apart the front end of the Rover—removing the bumper, grille, radiator support, etc.? I didn’t have to do all of that on the Bimmer, but I imagine the significant extra height would make it desirable to do so on the RR.
Interestingly, the M62 is generally considered more reliable than its successor, the N62. With the M62, the timing chain guides are the only major issue, and they’re fairly easy to replace.
The N62 doesn’t usually have timing chain issues, but it does have issues with valve stem seals leaking, the coolant crossover pipe leaking (huge PITA to repair), and severe oil leaks from the alternator bracket gasket.
BMW is just not great at V8 engines imho. That’s Mercedes’ forte.
Yep. BMW: Inline 6’s and 4’s is where it’s at.
Of all the BMW’s I’ve owned over the years, the E38 with the M62 was by far the most aggravating to work on (I never had the timing chain guide issue; instead, it had issues with BMW’s version of EGR, which caused me to put a smokescreen down every time I started the car).
BMW doesn’t make universally unreliable stuff (my E36 lasted to 300k, and it was a bad transmission, not engine, that downed it, and my current BMW is at 130k with no issues), but the M62 and N62 are sorta malaise-era equivalent for BMW: tech and design language that was outdated almost immediately, a pivot away from easy-to-service engines (I could change my E36’s oil and spark plugs with the 4 tools in the trunk toolkit), and an attempt to eke out 10% more performance out of engines that generated 2x the maintenance costs.