RE: Range Rover Velar teased

[treetops]

Another depreciation box ready for the PCP crowd...just in time for the, wait oh dear, PCP has gone dramatically up in price cos vehicles are nose diving in value faster than we thought...

[PhantomPH]

treetops said:

Another depreciation box ready for the PCP crowd...just in time for the, wait oh dear, PCP has gone dramatically up in price cos vehicles are nose diving in value faster than we thought...

Bitter much?

[Muddle238]

I saw some on the back of a transporter last week up near the M42, must say they do appear smaller in the flesh than pictures suggest. I quite like them, the flush door handles are a neat touch as well, although I can't really see the point in them other than a commercial exercise to fill gaps in the market. As a vehicle, it does nothing that either an Evoque or RRS can't do.

Think LR has lost its way slightly, it's most rugged off roader is now a delicate fashion accessory

[langtounlad]

I took the picture of the one in Wimborne.
I'm not in the market for such a vehicle but the Velar does look like a 'quality' item.
Panel shut lines are extremely slim and the overall fit and finish looked top-notch.
It's also very 'styled' and the combination makes it look very premium - more so than current FFRR models.
FWIW I'm of the opinion that the LR 'look' is starting to look very generic across all their models.
In this part of the world LR products are very common, even FFRR's and the look is dating quickly.

[DonkeyApple]

Muddle238 said:

I saw some on the back of a transporter last week up near the M42, must say they do appear smaller in the flesh than pictures suggest. I quite like them, the flush door handles are a neat touch as well, although I can't really see the point in them other than a commercial exercise to fill gaps in the market. As a vehicle, it does nothing that either an Evoque or RRS can't do.

Think LR has lost its way slightly, it's most rugged off roader is now a delicate fashion accessory

It's a cultural shift in global society ultimately.

In the post war era there were still enormous parts of the globe with no metalled roads. People with wealth (by global standards, i.e. Able to afford a car) and a need to move between towns or to towns required a vehicle that had genuine off road capability.

Today you can drive from Paris to Peking on tarmac, Tierro del Fuego to Labrador on tarmac. Driving off-road simply isn't a requirement in the 21st century but a fun past time.

In the few places on the planet where there are no roads it is a function of no wealth and so simultaneously there is no market for a premium SUV.

The Land Rover product has evolved perfectly with global society. Where there is wealth there are roads, where there is wealth there is demand in the new economies for large vehicles and also premium badges.

Land Rover hasn't defined this global evolution, it has adapted to it and prospered immensely.

If there were still a global demand for a rugged off-roader that was also a luxury vehicle then Land Rover would make one but there simply isn't and hasn't been for a very long time.

Land Rover are based in the high cost manufacturing market of the U.K. That position alone means they could never build a cheap, low margin utility vehicle. The land requirement for building millions of low margin product alone would ensure bankruptcy. Low margin goods that take space to build must always be built in low labour and low land cost environments. Where labour and land are expensive you can only manufacture premium goods at lower volumes but higher margins. And that is what Land Rover is excelling at.

[PhantomPH]

Muddle238 said:

...although I can't really see the point in them other than a commercial exercise to fill gaps in the market. As a vehicle, it does nothing that either an Evoque or RRS can't do.

I had an RRS on order towards the end of last year and I remember having conversations with my other half (who has a Q5) where I was starting to worry that the RRS was actually a little too big for what I needed. Parking spaces are bad enough as it is, but the RRS genuinely had me asking the question whether or not I needed such a big beast (nobody really needs an RRS, but you know what I mean!) The size potentially reduced the everyday practicality of owning one.

The Evoque has always felt a little claustrophobic inside to us. We like them, but the low roof lines etc seem to create a more closed in space.

So potentially the Velar hits the perfect sweet spot that I have been looking for. My only 'issue' being that when I spec a Velar to what I had in the RRS, it's only a few grand LESS than the RRS was going to be...and that feels like a bit of a rip - may as well have the RRS.

I assume the RRS and FFRR are going to take a pricing step up for a new version soon so that they can put some daylight between the models.

[TooMany2cvs]

PhantomPH said:

So potentially the Velar hits the perfect sweet spot that I have been looking for. My only 'issue' being that when I spec a Velar to what I had in the RRS, it's only a few grand LESS than the RRS was going to be...and that feels like a bit of a rip - may as well have the RRS.

So why not just buy an F-Pace?

[PhantomPH]

TooMany2cvs said:

PhantomPH said:

So potentially the Velar hits the perfect sweet spot that I have been looking for. My only 'issue' being that when I spec a Velar to what I had in the RRS, it's only a few grand LESS than the RRS was going to be...and that feels like a bit of a rip - may as well have the RRS.

So why not just buy an F-Pace?

Because personal choice, surely?

Also - have you ever spent any time in the interior of an F-Face? Not a premium interior by any stretch.

[Guvernator]

PhantomPH said:

I had an RRS on order towards the end of last year and I remember having conversations with my other half (who has a Q5) where I was starting to worry that the RRS was actually a little too big for what I needed. Parking spaces are bad enough as it is, but the RRS genuinely had me asking the question whether or not I needed such a big beast (nobody really needs an RRS, but you know what I mean!) The size potentially reduced the everyday practicality of owning one.

The Evoque has always felt a little claustrophobic inside to us. We like them, but the low roof lines etc seem to create a more closed in space.

So potentially the Velar hits the perfect sweet spot that I have been looking for. My only 'issue' being that when I spec a Velar to what I had in the RRS, it's only a few grand LESS than the RRS was going to be...and that feels like a bit of a rip - may as well have the RRS.

I assume the RRS and FFRR are going to take a pricing step up for a new version soon so that they can put some daylight between the models.

I agree, I was also interested in this car as it seemed to be the right size between the too small Evoque and the too big RRS and when they initially announced prices starting from £45k I thought "I'll have a bit of that". Unfortunately £45k gets you a poverty spec car that is outdone in terms of toys and luxury by SUV's half the price. If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory. The base price isn't too bad but they really have taken the proverbial with the miserly standard kit and the frankly absurd options list.

[PhantomPH]

Guvernator said:

I agree, I was also interested in this car as it seemed to be the right size between the too small Evoque and the too big RRS and when they initially announced prices starting from £45k I thought "I'll have a bit of that". Unfortunately £45k gets you a poverty spec car that is outdone in terms of toys and luxury by SUV's half the price. If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory. The base price isn't too bad but they really have taken the proverbial with the miserly standard kit and the frankly absurd options list.

Which is what makes me think that the RRS/FFRR are both going to get overhauls soon and that will go hand-in-hand with a marketing campaign around a step up in 'whatever', justifying a big price hike. Think the RRS will walk away from the Velar in price bracket at some point in the next 18 months.

Can't decide if that means it's a good or bad time to buy an RRS! Ha ha. Could be buying a tonne of depreciation or you could get one of the last 'bargain' bigger SUVs.

[RacerMike]

Guvernator said:

If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory.

The thing is, the assumption is that a 2.0d will be asthmatic, but remember that it's considerably lighter than the RRS. The twin turbo 2.0d is actually very sprightly in the Velar.

[PhantomPH]

RacerMike said:

Guvernator said:

If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory.

The thing is, the assumption is that a 2.0d will be asthmatic, but remember that it's considerably lighter than the RRS. The twin turbo 2.0d is actually very sprightly in the Velar.

I know the technology will have moved on since 2006, but I had one of the first 2.2D Freelander 2's and whilst it wasn't terrible, the engine had no 'sprite' in it at all.

I think in this day and age of diesel being the enemy, I might have been drawn to the P250 engine option (obvs the V6 ideally, but trying to compare like for like in terms of size).

[PhantomPH]

I've just spec'd a Velar to as near as I could the same spec level as the RRS I had on order at the end of last year and the Velar comes in at almost £5k MORE than the RRS. Ouch!

[Ares]

PhantomPH said:

RacerMike said:

Guvernator said:

If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory.

The thing is, the assumption is that a 2.0d will be asthmatic, but remember that it's considerably lighter than the RRS. The twin turbo 2.0d is actually very sprightly in the Velar.

I know the technology will have moved on since 2006, but I had one of the first 2.2D Freelander 2's and whilst it wasn't terrible, the engine had no 'sprite' in it at all.

I think in this day and age of diesel being the enemy, I might have been drawn to the P250 engine option (obvs the V6 ideally, but trying to compare like for like in terms of size).

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

[PhantomPH]

Ares said:

PhantomPH said:

RacerMike said:

Guvernator said:

If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory.

The thing is, the assumption is that a 2.0d will be asthmatic, but remember that it's considerably lighter than the RRS. The twin turbo 2.0d is actually very sprightly in the Velar.

I know the technology will have moved on since 2006, but I had one of the first 2.2D Freelander 2's and whilst it wasn't terrible, the engine had no 'sprite' in it at all.

I think in this day and age of diesel being the enemy, I might have been drawn to the P250 engine option (obvs the V6 ideally, but trying to compare like for like in terms of size).

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

You know - if you are going to quote me, at least read what I said. ;o) "I know the technology will have moved on since 2006...".

[Ares]

PhantomPH said:

Ares said:

PhantomPH said:

RacerMike said:

Guvernator said:

If you want to get one with a decent spec i.e. an engine that can actually pull the skin off custard and a few toys you are looking at £60k+ which is way too rich for what it is and seriously encroaches into RRS territory.

The thing is, the assumption is that a 2.0d will be asthmatic, but remember that it's considerably lighter than the RRS. The twin turbo 2.0d is actually very sprightly in the Velar.

I know the technology will have moved on since 2006, but I had one of the first 2.2D Freelander 2's and whilst it wasn't terrible, the engine had no 'sprite' in it at all.

I think in this day and age of diesel being the enemy, I might have been drawn to the P250 engine option (obvs the V6 ideally, but trying to compare like for like in terms of size).

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

You know - if you are going to quote me, at least read what I said. ;o) "I know the technology will have moved on since 2006...".

I did. I even quoted it. I was responding directly to the bit after 'but'.

[Guvernator]

Ares said:

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

The standard engine on the Velar is still 180bhp, you have to pay an extra £9k yes NINE grand to step up to the more powerful 240bhp one.

Then you'll want to go to the Velar S or Dynamic to get any toys and\or get it looking right. Add in some niceties like sat nav, electric seats and a sunroof and you are over £60k and that's not being extravagant at all. The base price of £45k is VERY misleading if you want it to be a proper Range Rover experience and not just a poverty spec you'll struggle to sell on later.

I know most modern cars are like this now but the Velar literally takes the piss IMO with its "options".

[Ares]

Guvernator said:

Ares said:

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

The standard engine on the Velar is still 180bhp, you have to pay an extra £9k yes NINE grand to step up to the more powerful 240bhp one.

Then you'll want to go to the Velar S or Dynamic to get any toys and\or get it looking right. Add in some niceties like sat nav, electric seats and a sunroof and you are over £60k and that's not being extravagant at all. The base price of £45k is VERY misleading if you want it to be a proper Range Rover experience and not just a poverty spec you'll struggle to sell on later.

I know most modern cars are like this now but the Velar literally takes the piss IMO with its "options".

It was the same with the diesel Freelander. Base one was 140bhp?

And it is designed to be an aspirational model. That st doesn't come cheap

[PhantomPH]

Ares said:

Guvernator said:

Ares said:

But the Freelander was c180bhp, this is 240bhp. Thats 33% more powerful with near enough no extra kerb weight.

The standard engine on the Velar is still 180bhp, you have to pay an extra £9k yes NINE grand to step up to the more powerful 240bhp one.

Then you'll want to go to the Velar S or Dynamic to get any toys and\or get it looking right. Add in some niceties like sat nav, electric seats and a sunroof and you are over £60k and that's not being extravagant at all. The base price of £45k is VERY misleading if you want it to be a proper Range Rover experience and not just a poverty spec you'll struggle to sell on later.

I know most modern cars are like this now but the Velar literally takes the piss IMO with its "options".

It was the same with the diesel Freelander. Base one was 140bhp?

And it is designed to be an aspirational model. That st doesn't come cheap

Actually the 2.2 in the Freelander 2 (which I am talking about) was 160hp.

And I completely agree regarding the options. You are paying a Range Rover tax for sure. But then you pay a Porsche tax and an Audi tax, etc etc, so...

ETA: Actually, Audi is not that bad these days.

[TooMany2cvs]

Guvernator said:

The standard engine on the Velar is still 180bhp, you have to pay an extra £9k yes NINE grand to step up to the more powerful 240bhp one.

It's actually a smaller step than that if you look at apples-to-apples. Velar base is £44,800, D180 only. Velar S is £50,500/D180, £53,700/D240

Guvernator said:

Then you'll want to go to the Velar S or Dynamic to get any toys and\or get it looking right. Add in some niceties like sat nav, electric seats and a sunroof and you are over £60k and that's not being extravagant at all.

I'll agree that the base is ridiculous in not including those as standard for £45k... But S includes nav and 10-way electric memory heated seats. Pano roof is £1100, £1400 opening.
So that's £52k for D180 with those toys, £55k for D240 with 'em. Not "over £60k".

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Tuesday 27th June 17:54