RE: Land Rover Discovery vs. mud
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Never heard the Defender (1983-2016) called luxury SUV before, and actually LR's original brand was said to be based on the 4x4 capabilities of the Willys Jeep IIRC. Its brand in the last 12 years may have gone in the direction you describe..I'd suggest with the introduction of the ghastly RR Sport in 2005.
A somewhat revisionist view of the brand's history which conveniently omits the Range Rover of 1970 and three generations of Discovery predating the RRS all of which were heavily marketed as lifestyle and luxury vehicles. IIRC the first one made great virtue of its tie up with Terence Conran for interior design. Prior to that there was the gentrification of the 110 and 90 with the (for the time) upmarket County trim level.
Can you imagine the furore if PH had been around then ? "What a Land Rover designed by that bloke from Habitat, are they calling me a poof ? That's it the brand is dead to me etc etc ".
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 3rd April 07:53
RSK21 said:
Ae people still suffering from last night's hangover ? That can surely be the only reason for some of these bizarre posts 
Donkey Apple is right, LR (which then was part of BL) had a big decision to make in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't (perhaps because of state ownership couldn't ?) make it but unwittingly set the tone for the modern company with the introduction of the orignal RR.
It's all well and good saying that there's a massive market for utility off roaders but then trumpeting the F150 from Ford, a company wrestling on a daily basis with wafer thin profit margins, shows exactly why JLR has taken the right route forward and meanwhile is making record profits.
Looking at the range from a UK perspective and therefore worrying unduly about things like increased VED is a fool's errand. The UK is no longer the dominant marketplace and the big profits are overseas, that and the fact that buyers of a the product are bluntly not that bothered by the VED. I know many dealers have pre reg a good number of Disco Sport as at this level they can do good deals on them over the next month or so but ultimately it'sll all end up getting absorbed into total cost of ownership.
There will be a new Defender. Will it be as multi-facted as before ? No chanc and it's highly likley to be primarily consumer centric as opposed industrial/agricultural. Could it have been built on a D4 underpinnings, yes but tha's heavy, expensive and complex and so was never going to happen. The only certainty is that it will no doubt cause an even louder wailing and gnashing of teeth than the curent crop of cars is doing amongst the nostalgic fraternity.
This ... it's been a long time since many people who needed a 4x4 bought a land rover.... Donkey Apple is right, LR (which then was part of BL) had a big decision to make in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't (perhaps because of state ownership couldn't ?) make it but unwittingly set the tone for the modern company with the introduction of the orignal RR.
It's all well and good saying that there's a massive market for utility off roaders but then trumpeting the F150 from Ford, a company wrestling on a daily basis with wafer thin profit margins, shows exactly why JLR has taken the right route forward and meanwhile is making record profits.
Looking at the range from a UK perspective and therefore worrying unduly about things like increased VED is a fool's errand. The UK is no longer the dominant marketplace and the big profits are overseas, that and the fact that buyers of a the product are bluntly not that bothered by the VED. I know many dealers have pre reg a good number of Disco Sport as at this level they can do good deals on them over the next month or so but ultimately it'sll all end up getting absorbed into total cost of ownership.
There will be a new Defender. Will it be as multi-facted as before ? No chanc and it's highly likley to be primarily consumer centric as opposed industrial/agricultural. Could it have been built on a D4 underpinnings, yes but tha's heavy, expensive and complex and so was never going to happen. The only certainty is that it will no doubt cause an even louder wailing and gnashing of teeth than the curent crop of cars is doing amongst the nostalgic fraternity.
popeyewhite said:
Never heard the Defender (1983-2016) called luxury SUV before, and actually LR's original brand was said to be based on the 4x4 capabilities of the Willys Jeep IIRC. Its brand in the last 12 years may have gone in the direction you describe..I'd suggest with the introduction of the ghastly RR Sport in 2005.
Incorrect. The Range Rover was launched in 1970 and outsold the Land Rover from almost the start. The Range Rover didn't require monopolies and the State to fill its order books. It sold because people genuinely wanted it. Ironically it was also the better off-road vehicle.
But then this isn't about cars is it?
DonkeyApple said:
Incorrect.
What parts of my post are incorrect? The bits that show you to be wrong?DonkeyApple said:
The Range Rover was launched in 1970 and outsold the Land Rover from almost the start.
It was launched as a proper off-road SUV - it was not originally branded as a 'luxury' vehicle, which is why I didn't mention it. I made no comment about what outsold anything. DonkeyApple said:
But then this isn't about cars is it?
For you it appears to be about marketing, so in that instance I'll agree.popeyewhite said:
My post is not, nor was it meant to be, a review of the marque's history; there is an entirely different context to it. Read the thread properly.
What was that context ?
As I read it you are claiming that LR's pursuit of luxury upmarket SUVs has only been going on for 12 years since the arrival of gen 1 RRS. I don't think that's right. I suspect many other people would agree.
Would be a whole lot easier if you just let your prejudices come out in full and state that your real problem is you don't like the type of person to whom JLR are marketing product these days.
popeyewhite said:
DonkeyApple said:
The Range Rover was launched in 1970 and outsold the Land Rover from almost the start.
It was launched as a proper off-road SUV - it was not originally branded as a 'luxury' vehicle, which is why I didn't mention it. I made no comment about what outsold anything.Through the 70s, the s3 sold 435,000 vehicles worldwide. The RR sold 78,000.
Through the 80s, the s3 then 90/110/Defender sold 224,000. The RR sold 130,000.
The first year the RR outsold the Defender was 1987, by just 30 vehicles. From 1991 onwards, RR Classic sales were waning - and shifting to Discoveries - and the Defender outsold it again - so the ONLY years the RR outsold the Defender were 87/88/89/90 - with a biggest margin being a snidge over 5,000 in 1989. It was the Disco that made the real shift, not the RR. By 1993, nearly 4 Discos were sold to every Defender. The Defender even outsold the P38 every single year until at least 1997.
http://www.lrfaq.org/FAQ.3.LR_production.html
popeyewhite said:
Oh come on.
No seriously what was it ?Don't obfuscate just get to the point.
You make broad brush statements but when challenged you don't back them up.
Two examples.
You claimed a new Modern day LR couldn't traverse a wet field on factory tyres.
You are now saying that LR becane a premium manufacturer of Premium SUVs just 12 years ago.
Sensible debate is a great thing but sweeping statements grounded in personal prejudice don't add anything.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 3rd April 10:56
RSK21 said:
No seriously what was it ?
Don't obfuscate just get to the point.
If you think think my post is obfuscation then your cognitive ability is lacking. In the way a 3 yr old's is.Don't obfuscate just get to the point.
RSK21 said:
You make broad brush statements but when challenged you don't back them up.
Two examples.
You claimed a new Modern day LR couldn't traverse a wet field on factory tyres.
You are now saying that LR becane a premium manufacturer of Premium SUVs just 12 years ago.
Sensible debate is a great thing but sweeping statements grounded in personal prejudice don't add anything.
Nice quick (incorrect) edit. Two examples.
You claimed a new Modern day LR couldn't traverse a wet field on factory tyres.
You are now saying that LR becane a premium manufacturer of Premium SUVs just 12 years ago.
Sensible debate is a great thing but sweeping statements grounded in personal prejudice don't add anything.
Edited by RSK21 on Monday 3rd April 10:56
popeyewhite said:
Nice quick (incorrect) edit.
Or I pressed the button too soon because I'm on a phone ?So you didn't make the statement about the wet tyres ? Aren't you also the bloke who said "only buy it for the badge" and you do genuinely believe that LR went premium jjst 12 years ago ?
You strike me as the worst kind of PH inverse snob and somebody who just doesn't like being challenged when making daft statements.
RSK21 said:
No seriously what was it ?
Don't obfuscate just get to the point.
You make broad brush statements but when challenged you don't back them up.
Don't obfuscate just get to the point.
You make broad brush statements but when challenged you don't back them up.
TooMany2cvs said:
Then I will. With proper statistics and proof and everything.
RSK21 said:
popeyewhite said:
Nice quick (incorrect) edit.
Or I pressed the button too soon because I'm on a phone ?So you didn't make the statement about the wet tyres ? Aren't you also the bloke who said "only buy it for the badge" and you do genuinely believe that LR went premium jjst 12 years ago ?
You strike me as the worst kind of PH inverse snob and somebody who just doesn't like being challenged when making daft statements.
Edited by Andehh on Monday 3rd April 11:44
DonkeyApple said:
popeyewhite said:
Never heard the Defender (1983-2016) called luxury SUV before, and actually LR's original brand was said to be based on the 4x4 capabilities of the Willys Jeep IIRC. Its brand in the last 12 years may have gone in the direction you describe..I'd suggest with the introduction of the ghastly RR Sport in 2005.
Incorrect. The Range Rover was launched in 1970 and outsold the Land Rover from almost the start. The Range Rover didn't require monopolies and the State to fill its order books. It sold because people genuinely wanted it. Ironically it was also the better off-road vehicle.
But then this isn't about cars is it?
It sold on the back of the brands reputation.
The current lineup has been carried by the Defender... not by sales but by perception.
Nobody will take Land Rover seriously anymore with regards to off-road prowess and capability if they are only interested in building mall roamers that can do the odd off-road party trick.
Alternatively yes the company will thrive selling overpriced appliances. I (and many others) certainly wont buy them though.
skyrover said:
The current lineup has been carried by the Defender... not by sales but by perception.
Nobody will take Land Rover seriously anymore with regards to off-road prowess and capability if they are only interested in building mall roamers that can do the odd off-road party trick.
.
What evidence do you have to back that statement up? Land Rovers being little more then mall roamers? I am genuinely intrigued.Nobody will take Land Rover seriously anymore with regards to off-road prowess and capability if they are only interested in building mall roamers that can do the odd off-road party trick.
.
There are youtube videos of the new Disco 5 being put through 'Sand Dune Impact tests' as a matter of design, as well as fording through nearly 1m of water. Not least the ubiquitous videos of it going up and down the standard ''off road review'' - far more so then any other vehicle in it's class would ever be seen near.
Fair enough it might not have 6ft of axle articulation - but how often does real world 'off road' require that? - not just 4x4xMagazine boulder crawling review for 15 year old vehicles with £15k spent on them.
What other vehicle could do a fraction of the Discos 'out of the box' abilities? Even the newer generation of Land Cruisers, Jeeps etc all wouldn't be able to embarrass it with standard factory guise.
We all acknowledge 90% of them will never go anywhere off tarmac & are more tarted up then ever before, but to say the vehicles aren't capable anymore is simply untrue.
Edited by Andehh on Monday 3rd April 11:52
Andehh said:
What evidence do you have to back that statement up? Land Rovers being little more then mall roamers? I am genuinely intrigued.
How many modern discovery's do you see being taken offroad to pay and play day's or driven overland by resourceful African's or utilized by waring militias?Andehh said:
There are youtube videos of the new Disco 5 being put through 'Sand Dune Impact tests', as well as fording through nearly 1m of water. Not least the ubiquitous videos of it going up and down the muddiest of tracks - far more so then any other vehicle in it's class would ever be seen near.
How much does said vehicle cost to repair when it goes wrong? How easy is it to repair in the field?Andehh said:
Fair enough it might not have 6ft of axle articulation - but how often does real world ''off roader'' require that?
Articulation is very important from a stability perspective, but the Discovery achilies heel is cost and complexity.Andehh said:
What other vehicle could do a fraction of the Discos 'out of the box' abilities? Even the newer generation of Land Cruisers, Jeeps etc all wouldn't be able to embarrass it.
A standard wrangler will match a discovery offroad, and walk all over it with a few cheap modifications. How many people bother to make offroad parts/modification for land rover's these day's other than the Defender? Of that's right they dont/ because nobody offroads them on a regular basis.
Andehh said:
e all acknowledge 90% of them will never go anywhere off tarmac, but to say the vehicles aren't capable anymore is simply untrue.
Your confusing initial "Capability" with "Suitability"skyrover said:
The Range Rover is a Range Rover... not a land rover
It sold on the back of the brands reputation.
The current lineup has been carried by the Defender... not by sales but by perception.
Nobody will take Land Rover seriously anymore with regards to off-road prowess and capability if they are only interested in building mall roamers that can do the odd off-road party trick.
Alternatively yes the company will thrive selling overpriced appliances. I (and many others) certainly wont buy them though.
Every Range Rover carries the Land Rover badge.It sold on the back of the brands reputation.
The current lineup has been carried by the Defender... not by sales but by perception.
Nobody will take Land Rover seriously anymore with regards to off-road prowess and capability if they are only interested in building mall roamers that can do the odd off-road party trick.
Alternatively yes the company will thrive selling overpriced appliances. I (and many others) certainly wont buy them though.
The cars are sold and marketed heavily on the Land Rover heritage
The company is called Land Rover
Yes they are not Defenders and yes they serve different purposes but to claim they are not Land Rovers is not true.
RSK21 said:
The company is called Land Rover
The company is called Jaguar Land Rover.They have three brands. Jaguar, Land Rover and Range Rover.
For marketing purposes, Range Rover is a sub-brand of Land Rover.
http://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/index.html
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff