RE: Range Rover Velar teased
Discussion
swisstoni said:
I wonder why they do that after the car is well and truly 'out'.
Maybe it's to create a buzz. In which case it works.
I think I read something like they keep the camo on to stop people from coming up and asking to buy it. Like when they are testing in the middle east the locals keep coming up to ask to buy it as they want the latest and greatest thing plus funds are not an issue.Maybe it's to create a buzz. In which case it works.
swisstoni said:
I wonder why they do that after the car is well and truly 'out'.
Maybe it's to create a buzz. In which case it works.
Because what's there isn't production-ready, in many cases. It's a mechanical test mule, perhaps kicking around for a while, and if it were seen nekkid it'd give a false impression of build quality - because, frankly, it'll be a bit of a shed under the wrap.Maybe it's to create a buzz. In which case it works.
pti said:
E-Pace
Yes. Registered as a Jaguar. Also the headlight graphics are different from the Velar. You can see the same ones here: 
Source: http://www.motortrend.ca/en/news/spied-jaguar-e-pa...
Edited by KTF on Friday 30th June 11:32
Bladedancer said:
Ares said:
Minimised, but not eradicated. Every uber reliable car has horror stories.
New cars do break down, but a) less likely, and b) that's where the warranty comes in. I had a £2300 bill for a 5yr old ML 10 years ago, and 4 weeks off the road. You don't get with <3yr old cars.
Less likely? Total disaster called VAG 2.0 TDI PD? First gen 335i and people replacing HPFPs several times on an effectively new car? 1.4TFSI and chocolate cam chain? Oil drinking 2.0TFSI due to rubbish piston rings? The list goes on.New cars do break down, but a) less likely, and b) that's where the warranty comes in. I had a £2300 bill for a 5yr old ML 10 years ago, and 4 weeks off the road. You don't get with <3yr old cars.
If you happen to buy a car that the manufacturer effectively cocked up, buying new wont save you. Just gives you hope that manufacturer will sort it out under warranty, which they don't always do - ie 2.0 TFSI with VAG "it's just the way it is" and using 1l of oil for 1000 miles is "acceptable".
You don't get it with <3yo cars? What a simplistic way of looking at things. You just look at age? Not at mileage, condition or servicing history, how the car has been used etc?
DPF equipped diesel that was only driven in city traffic will cost you a new DPF.
Buy an ex-lease car that has been doing 30k a year and only services once a year 'cause manufacturer said its all good'. Yeah. And then we hear about cam chains stretching.
1st Gen ML was a dog when it was new. You had centennial merc, which like W210 were build just plain badly. That was MB's cost cutting era which cost them their reputation built by W123 and to certain extent W124 and W201.
I don't know what you've spend it on so it's difficult to comment.
But then again that was the downfall era Merc so you never know, it might have spontaneously decided to implode.
Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
Ares said:
OK, common sense time. A car is more likely to get less, not more reliable as it gets older.
Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
Again, in a grossly oversimplified way of looking at things, yes.Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
However, the world is not a simple place.
And what you wrote doesn't really prove that buying new/nearly new will save you the trouble. Because you don't know which one is a dog and which one isn't.
Bladedancer said:
Ares said:
OK, common sense time. A car is more likely to get less, not more reliable as it gets older.
Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
Again, in a grossly oversimplified way of looking at things, yes.Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
However, the world is not a simple place.
And what you wrote doesn't really prove that buying new/nearly new will save you the trouble. Because you don't know which one is a dog and which one isn't.
Bladedancer said:
Ares said:
OK, common sense time. A car is more likely to get less, not more reliable as it gets older.
Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
Again, in a grossly oversimplified way of looking at things, yes.Cars that were dogs at new, will be bigger dogs at 4,5,6,7 years old.
Cars that were perfect when new have still got a chance of getting worse as they get older.
However, the world is not a simple place.
And what you wrote doesn't really prove that buying new/nearly new will save you the trouble. Because you don't know which one is a dog and which one isn't.
PhantomPH said:
The Spruce goose said:
i know land rover never does well in reliability studies.
'' A study by What Car? Found that 71% of Range Rovers broke down after three years''
Note to self - don't keep for longer than three years. '' A study by What Car? Found that 71% of Range Rovers broke down after three years''
CooperS said:
How is it over simplified? It's trues dogs will continue to be dogs and those that are relatively reliable will have wear and tear on perfectly serviceable items which will mean more time spent in maintaining the car.
I explained in an earlier post. Essentially it doesn't take into account how the car was used or serviced which is a big part of its reliability.More time you say. If by that you mean that a service might take 4 hours instead of 2 then yes that is true as more items will need changing.
If you mean you'll have to visit the garage more often that that's a no for reasons I've already stated. Not to mention it's an generalization in its own right.
Ares said:
Doesn't prove it. But does explain how it would reduce the risk and impact.
Again, on the surface it does, but since when you're buying a new car you usually don't know if its a dog. And those seem to be a lot more common these days, possibly because cars are getting so complex.Anyways, the point it moot. I personally prefer buy something after most early faults have been found and sorted and the model has proven to be relatively reliable.
If you want to just buy new then that's fine. You'll be the one finding out if the new model of whateveritis is a dog or not and I'll learn from that.
What you could argue, but didn't, is that there are some new cars that no sane person would touch used in 5 to 7 years, like to uber-complicated quad turbo diesels. Unless you have rock solid warranty that covers everything then you could go for if you're brave.
Ironically while your opinion isn't really reflecting the reality now, it will in 10-15 years time, especially for expensive (and complex) cars. The long life service schedules are making things worse and it affects heavily tuned engines the most.
Bladedancer said:
Ares said:
Doesn't prove it. But does explain how it would reduce the risk and impact.
Again, on the surface it does, but since when you're buying a new car you usually don't know if its a dog. And those seem to be a lot more common these days, possibly because cars are getting so complex.Anyways, the point it moot. I personally prefer buy something after most early faults have been found and sorted and the model has proven to be relatively reliable.
If you want to just buy new then that's fine. You'll be the one finding out if the new model of whateveritis is a dog or not and I'll learn from that.
What you could argue, but didn't, is that there are some new cars that no sane person would touch used in 5 to 7 years, like to uber-complicated quad turbo diesels. Unless you have rock solid warranty that covers everything then you could go for if you're brave.
Ironically while your opinion isn't really reflecting the reality now, it will in 10-15 years time, especially for expensive (and complex) cars. The long life service schedules are making things worse and it affects heavily tuned engines the most.
You've still got a greater chance of a used car having problems. It's just common sense.
Bladedancer said:
CooperS said:
How is it over simplified? It's trues dogs will continue to be dogs and those that are relatively reliable will have wear and tear on perfectly serviceable items which will mean more time spent in maintaining the car.
I explained in an earlier post. Essentially it doesn't take into account how the car was used or serviced which is a big part of its reliability.More time you say. If by that you mean that a service might take 4 hours instead of 2 then yes that is true as more items will need changing.
If you mean you'll have to visit the garage more often that that's a no for reasons I've already stated. Not to mention it's an generalization in its own right.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff