RE: Range Rover Velar: Review

[Ares]

Greg_D said:

Ares said:

BarcelonaLewis said:

Not at all, my 911 has never been on a track, but most of the miles I've done on it have been on or around the North Coast 500. I would agree to an extent, a lot of sports cars are bought to service the same needs as luxo-suv, but 99% of the time when you see a guy in an MX5, you know why he bought it - to do what it was designed to do.

The argument that most people need an X5 or a RR for anything other than ego is just silly.

I would argue that far more 'need' a 911 style sports car for anything other than to satisfy their own ego.

Well over half of the parents at my daughter school drive SUVs ranging from Evoque size to FFRR size. Most have large, young families and an SUV with it's load advantage makes it a very relevant choice for most. Most are also driven by females. I don't really see an ego amongst them.

nobody 'needs' more than a focus sized 1.6 so everyone with a larger/quicker/more premium car than that is some sort of self obsessed egomaniacal clubber of seals....... gotcha.

yet more virtue signalling from the tediously dull brigade, whatever...

Why 1.6? Why not 1.4? or 1.2?

And all that except when you have 3 under 8 kids.... Or need to carry a bike on a motorway.... Or any other number of reasons being 'need' more space.

[Cotic]

BarcelonaLewis said:

Not at all, my 911 has never been on a track, but most of the miles I've done on it have been on or around the North Coast 500. I would agree to an extent, a lot of sports cars are bought to service the same needs as luxo-suv, but 99% of the time when you see a guy in an MX5, you know why he bought it - to do what it was designed to do.

The argument that most people need an X5 or a RR for anything other than ego is just silly.

Surely you see the irony here? "People that buy a practical SUV are only driven by their egos. Have you seen my highly impractical 911?"

[ZesPak]

Stick Legs said:

I struggle to see the point when the RRS & Evoque exist.

More troubling is the wholesale debasement of everything that made JLR special vehicles in the first place.

Range Rover, Discovery & Land Rover was a long time ago now but they are still trading on that image & heritage.

I can see the whole JLR project collapsing a'la Rover once the current product lines are swelling the classifieds and the 'specialness' has gone.

Shame.

Looking at the Evoque (a car selling like hot cakes despite it being pretty small and very expensive), the second hand values are above anything even Mercedes can dream about. It's ridiculous how well these keep their value. Since this is a more expensive one, market will be less flooded, second hand values will be AT LEAST on par with anything Germany puts it's badge on (you can quote me on this).

As for the size, looking at lengths I have to agree.
There IS a big gap between the Evoque and the RRS, but the Velar doesn't fill it.
Mercedes has the easiest and most complete lineup, so I'll take that one:

	<4.5m	4.5-4.7m	4.7-4.9m	>4.9m
Mercedes	GLA	GLC	GLE	GLS
RR	Evoque	?	Velar and RRS	FFRR

Usually there's a 15-20cm gap between models, but there's not even 5cm in it.
So I agree unless all the other models get 15cm larger in coming upgrades, it is hard to place this car.

For the styling, I know it's in the eye of the beholder, but I can't think of anything this size that looks that good. The Macan and F-Pace come to mind but they're both smaller and imho neither looks as good as this thing.

The styling is derivative though, but that's to be expected. Go to the brand which styling you like and pick that styling in the size you prefer is the way things are now.
I can think of few brands that do a clear distinction between their different models on purpose.

Cotic said:

BarcelonaLewis said:

Not at all, my 911 has never been on a track, but most of the miles I've done on it have been on or around the North Coast 500. I would agree to an extent, a lot of sports cars are bought to service the same needs as luxo-suv, but 99% of the time when you see a guy in an MX5, you know why he bought it - to do what it was designed to do.

The argument that most people need an X5 or a RR for anything other than ego is just silly.

Surely you see the irony here? "People that buy a practical SUV are only driven by their egos. Have you seen my highly impractical 911?"

Every dentist's wife with kids: RRS or X5. Every dentist's wife without kids: 911.
Just face it, these are expensive cars that look expensive and everyone -even non car people- know that they are, and a lot of people buy them BECAUSE of that. Not all people, but a lot of them. This goes for both the 911 and the RR.

Edited by ZesPak on Tuesday 25th July 13:32

[Ares]

Cotic said:

BarcelonaLewis said:

Not at all, my 911 has never been on a track, but most of the miles I've done on it have been on or around the North Coast 500. I would agree to an extent, a lot of sports cars are bought to service the same needs as luxo-suv, but 99% of the time when you see a guy in an MX5, you know why he bought it - to do what it was designed to do.

The argument that most people need an X5 or a RR for anything other than ego is just silly.

Surely you see the irony here? "People that buy a practical SUV are only driven by their egos. Have you seen my highly impractical 911?"

Exactly. The SUV purchase is often rational and logical.

Beyond that, people can buy whatever car they bloody want.

[J4CKO]

BarcelonaLewis said:

Ares said:

BarcelonaLewis said:

Ares said:

BarcelonaLewis said:

If I saw this, or any other Range Rover for the first time I'd be really impressed.

But, when you live in a city where it seems every third driver either has this or a German equivalent, all with heavy tints and a personalised plate, none of which have ever left tarmac, they, and the people who drive them, just seem more and more ridiculous.

Do you think the same of Sports Cars that have never been on track?

No. It's more about the people who buy these things need to be bigger, higher up, more aggressive than anyone else. On a logistical front too, if we all drove reasonable sized cars for commuting/school run rather than vehicles which are literally the size of transit vans for one person, then I'd waste a lot less of my life in traffic!

Then you're a hypocrite!

Citing SUV drivers that don't leave the tarmac as ridiculous, but it fine for sports car drivers to not drive on track.

The answer is that neither are ridiculous, being buy the cars the want and that suit their needs. For what it's worth, an SUV usually takes up no more, and often less road space than the equivalent load-space car.


And the assumption that SUV buyers feel the "need to be bigger, higher up, more aggressive than anyone else" is more ignorance. I've had two, and that wasn't my motivation for either.

Not at all, my 911 has never been on a track, but most of the miles I've done on it have been on or around the North Coast 500. I would agree to an extent, a lot of sports cars are bought to service the same needs as luxo-suv, but 99% of the time when you see a guy in an MX5, you know why he bought it - to do what it was designed to do.

The argument that most people need an X5 or a RR for anything other than ego is just silly.

Its not about need, we live in a capitalist democracy where we are free, if we have the means, to purchase whatever is on offer, most folk could do everything they need a car to do with a Fiesta, hence why Ford sell so many, however they are free to choose and guess what, they dont want a Sports Car, or they do but an SUV covers more bases.

This is where the car is evolving to, the go to choice used to be the saloon or estate, it just isnt any more, whilst people sit and gnash their teeth going on about too big, too expensive, too flash, too thirsty the owners of such cars are just getting on with it and rather enjoying it.

A lot of myths that they dont handle, they handle plenty well enough for normal speeds, and then some, they arent cart sprung, separate chassis things any more, generally car derived, just a bit higher, not even that much in a lot of cases.

Too expensive, cant be if you see so many, someone can afford them, just not me but get all jealous, nah, no point, its only a car at the end of the day.

Too slow, was driving a humble X1 2.0D for a week, plenty fast enough, my Merc is way, way faster but most of the thrust is overkill, there is a sweet spot for normal driving and this hit it, with a bit too spare, not fast, not slow, just brisk enough it didnt piss me off.

Too Flash, not really, Khan and badly space registrations mean that a standard one doesnt stand out too badly.

Too thirsty, most are diesels, a separate issue and arent too bad on fuel, X1 was doing well over 40, bored me rigid after the initial novelty but can see how non car perverts would love it.

[Sheepshanks]

Pintofbest said:

Does this meet your needs? And this is just the UK not the global picture.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/jaguar-land...

I work in Global Customer Service and can assure this subject is not taken lightly - there are huge targets about where we want to be in terms of NCBS, JD Power etc. but as with pretty much all OEM's the front line service is outsourced and the effort to train, resource and control this is a very complex task which we are putting every effort in to.

What happens when you and your colleagues read threads like this? It must be pretty horrifying that there's a number of owners so hacked off that they're in the process of returning their cars.

[Pintofbest]

Sheepshanks said:

What happens when you and your colleagues read threads like this? It must be pretty horrifying that there's a number of owners so hacked off that they're in the process of returning their cars.

It is worrying and concerning for two reasons for me - firstly there are people out there with current issues that need sorting (I've stepped in to a couple on here in the past), but also people tarnishing the brand in public based on a single experience, or even a group but certainly not big enough to represent the whole brand and product experience.

I think the quality challenges are well documented and are at the highest level to resolve internally as we should be at the top/near top but for every unhappy owner there are plenty more that are delighted (and some in between obviously). Also, older cars are talked about a lot but they are different models based on different engineering - you hear about Mercs from the bad days but it seems JLR product is thought to have the same problems as an old disco or classic RR.

Working here is great, the energy and excitement coupled with the desire to get things right also means it is a challenge - it's a big thing to change and due to growth and ambition everything is changing all the time and for the better. The amount of investment and growth in the UK in particular is staggering - directly and through the supply chain - so it can only be a good thing. I think my biggest frustration on here sometimes is people criticising a car on their very narrow needs or experience (2.0 RRS for example) - it is a global brand dealing with ever changing and challenging needs across a diverse customer base. The fact sales are doing what they are, with what seems like a new model every other month, record profits, record investment, much more to do, means we must be doing some thing right, in terms of growth we are up their with the best in terms of percentage.

Also, just to address the size point above - when I first heard about Velar it was talked about as being as long as a RRS but as high as an evoque so the sizing was intended, the type of experience, ability and price point is in the middle though unless you load it to do the same as the model above.

[E65Ross]

Oakman said:

Apologies everyone, I'm from the WHY ? camp

I know full well the car manufacturers have created a massive breed of cash cows with the so called "SUV's". It shows how really cynical they all are in creating niches that didn't exist and products to fill them.

If I want a family transport with practical abilities it would be a proper estate car or Van with seats (which I actually have). If I want a sports car that's what I would buy. Not forgetting the myriad of saloon cars of all sizes available.

Loads of people seem to love and aspire to them, not my cup of Yorkshire tea though.

Why?

Because some people prefer the higher driving position of an SUV and don't want a fking van?

[W12AAM]

The new Velar...A beautiful looking car & im sure it will sell very well, here & overseas...
A proud British achievement of design.

However; I have to add to the woes of un-reliability with LR products generally, after owning one of their last L322's - Its been very unreliable!!.
And I am sad to see nothing has changed with the brand new ones, either, judging from some comments on here...

I read somewhere, once, that it was down to the arrogance of the Solihull workforce (dating back to the militant old BL days of Rover etc.) & that it didn't matter what they produced - They always sold - especially to the States, as everyone wanted to be seen owning one.

I hope for the future that Tata, who have successfully turned around this company, wont start manufacturing further JLR products overseas & that the British LR workforce wake-up & start taking their build quality more seriously....As things are changing, globally with car building.

As said; The car is beautiful and British design at its very best....But the new E-pace is being made in Austria & once the new Slovakian factory has been built & the next generation Defender comes out from there - who knows what else may go overseas?.....

Note to LR workforce - Lets hope this isn't the last new model being built at Solihull & that the build quality & reliability is a good as the car looks & some of the arrogant dealerships also improve too.

[Adz The Rat]

J4CKO said:

Sure the thousands of school run mums on the way to the prep are bemoaning the lack of a winch, things change and the folk that have an RR product and need a winch regularly, you could probably count on one hand and they would buy something more suitable anyway, they design for the core market, not a notional or historic one.

They are now a luxury car, they were expensive and quite posh when they came out, but with a lot more of a utility angle but that has been bred out as people dont spend 80k plus on a luxury car to winch stuff and people who winch regularly stuff dont spend 80k plus, they spend 20 to 30 on a Japanese crew cab pickup which is actually a lot nearer to the original RR in form and function, but, crucially doesnt make the manufacturer nearly as much profit.

Things change, Brands do, marketers are much more aware than they ever used to be, imagine the RR marketing back in 1970 vs now, much more invested and 46 years to build on, only perhaps in the last five or so has it really found its swagger, kind of become properly aware of what it is, and wants to be, it is all about sales, getting money off people by whatever means they can.

A Range Rover when I was a kid in the eighties was a fairly rare sight, but now, there are two on our road alone and they are everywhere, maybe it has been diluted but history is strewn with undiluted failures, its a rare company that ploughs the same furrow for decades, doesnt really grow and keeps going, Morgan maybe ?

Probably the most sensible post in here.

[swisstoni]

I've owned a 2015 LR product from new. It's been faultless.
This unreliable image portrayed on most threads may well be out of date for their latest products.

[Jim AK]

swisstoni said:

I've owned a 2015 LR product from new. It's been faultless.
This unreliable image portrayed on most threads may well be out of date for their latest products.

Indeed.

2016 RRS 7k miles........... Just back from local dealer after being fitted with new engine, still has issues & im typing this whilst on hold to dealer about them!

[Maldini35]

hyphen said:

Oops 😀

Thanks

[E65Ross]

Jim AK said:

swisstoni said:

I've owned a 2015 LR product from new. It's been faultless.
This unreliable image portrayed on most threads may well be out of date for their latest products.

Indeed.

2016 RRS 7k miles........... Just back from local dealer after being fitted with new engine, still has issues & im typing this whilst on hold to dealer about them!

I know someone who's had both a new engine and a new gearbox...both at different times.

Over 15 trips to the dealer within its first year! Brand new FFRR.

[Yipper]

Pintofbest said:

Sheepshanks said:

What happens when you and your colleagues read threads like this? It must be pretty horrifying that there's a number of owners so hacked off that they're in the process of returning their cars.

It is worrying and concerning for two reasons for me - firstly there are people out there with current issues that need sorting (I've stepped in to a couple on here in the past), but also people tarnishing the brand in public based on a single experience, or even a group but certainly not big enough to represent the whole brand and product experience.

I think the quality challenges are well documented and are at the highest level to resolve internally as we should be at the top/near top but for every unhappy owner there are plenty more that are delighted (and some in between obviously). Also, older cars are talked about a lot but they are different models based on different engineering - you hear about Mercs from the bad days but it seems JLR product is thought to have the same problems as an old disco or classic RR.

Working here is great, the energy and excitement coupled with the desire to get things right also means it is a challenge - it's a big thing to change and due to growth and ambition everything is changing all the time and for the better. The amount of investment and growth in the UK in particular is staggering - directly and through the supply chain - so it can only be a good thing. I think my biggest frustration on here sometimes is people criticising a car on their very narrow needs or experience (2.0 RRS for example) - it is a global brand dealing with ever changing and challenging needs across a diverse customer base. The fact sales are doing what they are, with what seems like a new model every other month, record profits, record investment, much more to do, means we must be doing some thing right, in terms of growth we are up their with the best in terms of percentage.

Also, just to address the size point above - when I first heard about Velar it was talked about as being as long as a RRS but as high as an evoque so the sizing was intended, the type of experience, ability and price point is in the middle though unless you load it to do the same as the model above.

This is sourced from the Reliability Index today. Range Rover is absolute rock-bottom for reliability. Roughly 100 times more unreliable than a Toyota IQ.

1st. Toyota IQ = 3.0 rating...
100th. Citroën C4 = 85.0 rating...
309th. Range Rover Sport = 345.0 rating...

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search...

[Greg_D]

On a 'reliable' volvo i had 4 gearboxes because every time i towed a <1ton trailer with it long distance it st itself. also had innumerable rubber products replaced due to generally being unfit for purpose.

and yet, my 'fragile' range rover has been faultless bar a squeaky brake pad.

the lesson here is that you will always hear from disgruntled buyers (especially of £90k SUVs who experience the slightest squeak and go apoplectic at their service minion) and yet the reality is that there is probably nothing fundamentally wrong with the product, just elevated expectations and expensive repairs making the reliability index look terrible.

happy buyers don't naturally launch onto the internet to sing from the hilltop that their expensive SUV has done everything expected of it...

[richthebike]

Greg_D said:

On a 'reliable' volvo i had 4 gearboxes because every time i towed a <1ton trailer with it long distance it st itself. also had innumerable rubber products replaced due to generally being unfit for purpose.

and yet, my 'fragile' range rover has been faultless bar a squeaky brake pad.

the lesson here is that you will always hear from disgruntled buyers (especially of £90k SUVs who experience the slightest squeak and go apoplectic at their service minion) and yet the reality is that there is probably nothing fundamentally wrong with the product, just elevated expectations and expensive repairs making the reliability index look terrible.

happy buyers don't naturally launch onto the internet to sing from the hilltop that their expensive SUV has done everything expected of it...

Sadly, untrue.

[Ares]

Yipper said:

This is sourced from the Reliability Index today. Range Rover is absolute rock-bottom for reliability. Roughly 100 times more unreliable than a Toyota IQ.

1st. Toyota IQ = 3.0 rating...
100th. Citroën C4 = 85.0 rating...
309th. Range Rover Sport = 345.0 rating...

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search...

Is this similar to a JD Power thing though and based on owners perception and opinion?

[unpc]

Just for balance, Mrs unpc had a Disco 3 and 4 and now an Evoque over the last 6 or 7 years and all 3 have been faultless.

[NomduJour]

Yipper said:

Range Rover is absolute rock-bottom for reliability. Roughly 100 times more unreliable than a Toyota IQ.

1st. Toyota IQ = 3.0 rating...
100th. Citroën C4 = 85.0 rating...
309th. Range Rover Sport = 345.0 rating...

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search...

That is wilfully misleading - it's a used car warranty company. Hardly a surprise that old, complicated cars that were expensive new are expensive to fix when older - point proven by BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, Maserati and Bentley all being in the bottom ten.

My experience with new Land Rover products differs from the usual crap trotted out on the internet.