2013 Range Rover event today Grimsthorpe Castle.
Discussion
What an enjoyable day out. Probably the best car marketing day I have been on.
On arrival we found the car park full of customer Range Rovers and very little else. Apart from a Cayenne, which may have been lost. This was, then, quite a targeted event. Entering through the main gates we were greeted by two long rows of brand new 2013 Range Rovers in blacks, greys and creams. My camera phone image does not do justice to the specatacle, but here it is anyway.
To my surprise we were offered breakfast in the main hall, which was hovering around freezing because the portable heaters were not in use and the main fire was about 50 times too small to heat the space. They must have been tough in mediaeval times. The marketing briefing was mercifully short and we were allowed on our way.
I requested a Supercharged car and a 4.4 diesel. We were given the SC first but eroneously told that it was the 4.4, so I was surprised that Land Rover had made the already nippy 4.4 diesel faster still. It is a testament though to Land Rover's quietening of diesel cars that I didn't spot the error.
The new car does not appear to be the quantum leap suggested by their marketing department. But it is good. It feels like a late iteration of the old model but with the corners knocked off. It is quieter, firmer and it doesn't roll in the bends. At all. I already have a car with dynamic chassis control so I am used to it, but anyone accustomed to Range Rovers rolling like a dingy in a swell will be caught out by it I think. It makes cornering at speed more enjoyable though. The aluminium shell is noticeable in the ride. It is difficult to explain how, but anyone who has ridden an aluminium bicylce after a steel one will know what I mean.
The cabin is what you'd expect of a new Range Rover; plush and with the odd finish problem here and there. Here is a photo of the entertainment console lid that lept in the air and exploded like an anti-personnel mine:
The new rotary switches are a step backwards and have rubber collars that look like they will wear and become grubby over time. The stereo is better and can be optioned up to 29 speakers. Yes. 29.
On the road, the new car was well-behaved and refined. The new flat handling is the single biggest win.
Off road and the new RR is more capable than the old, in part by dint of the now automatic terrain response. The main gear selector remains the rising knob of fiddlyness and it is now joined by a mini version for the manual terrain response. As far as I can see this will be redundant most of the time, because aside from suspension height and low ratio the car takes care of itself with regard to terrain housekeeping.
The new car feels as competent off road as the old car but if anyhthing seems like it is isolating the occupiers more from the horridness of outdoors. Very agreeable.
Back on the road in a 4.4, which we had been unrelaibly informed was a supercharged, we made our way back to the castle. I was disappointed with the performance of the supercharger, but felt that if it had been (as it in fact was) a 4.4 it would be quite impressive.
Once back at base we were not insulted with further marketing hyperbole, but treated to a very nice three-course lunch. The hall was still horribly cold and I swore my finger tips were turning black, but the food and very pleasant other guests made it bearable.
So, will I be heading down to my local Land Rover dealer to place an order tomorrow morning? No. Because past experience tells me that Land Rover struggles enough to put together properly cars that have been current for some time, my confidence is therefore lacking that they can build the new car correctly in the first couple of years. My fears were reinforced by the number of trim rattles, creaks and the exploding centre console lid on the test cars. We also had suspension problems on the 4.4 and were not alone.
The other reason I don't need a new Range Rover in my life imminently is that it isn't THAT much of a leap forward from the current car. Yes it is better, but it is not an epiphany that renders the outgoing car obsolete. In two years time when mine is due for replacement I will welcome the new car as a worthy successor, but it will not change my life sufficiently that I need to expedite the process.
On arrival we found the car park full of customer Range Rovers and very little else. Apart from a Cayenne, which may have been lost. This was, then, quite a targeted event. Entering through the main gates we were greeted by two long rows of brand new 2013 Range Rovers in blacks, greys and creams. My camera phone image does not do justice to the specatacle, but here it is anyway.
To my surprise we were offered breakfast in the main hall, which was hovering around freezing because the portable heaters were not in use and the main fire was about 50 times too small to heat the space. They must have been tough in mediaeval times. The marketing briefing was mercifully short and we were allowed on our way.
I requested a Supercharged car and a 4.4 diesel. We were given the SC first but eroneously told that it was the 4.4, so I was surprised that Land Rover had made the already nippy 4.4 diesel faster still. It is a testament though to Land Rover's quietening of diesel cars that I didn't spot the error.
The new car does not appear to be the quantum leap suggested by their marketing department. But it is good. It feels like a late iteration of the old model but with the corners knocked off. It is quieter, firmer and it doesn't roll in the bends. At all. I already have a car with dynamic chassis control so I am used to it, but anyone accustomed to Range Rovers rolling like a dingy in a swell will be caught out by it I think. It makes cornering at speed more enjoyable though. The aluminium shell is noticeable in the ride. It is difficult to explain how, but anyone who has ridden an aluminium bicylce after a steel one will know what I mean.
The cabin is what you'd expect of a new Range Rover; plush and with the odd finish problem here and there. Here is a photo of the entertainment console lid that lept in the air and exploded like an anti-personnel mine:
The new rotary switches are a step backwards and have rubber collars that look like they will wear and become grubby over time. The stereo is better and can be optioned up to 29 speakers. Yes. 29.
On the road, the new car was well-behaved and refined. The new flat handling is the single biggest win.
Off road and the new RR is more capable than the old, in part by dint of the now automatic terrain response. The main gear selector remains the rising knob of fiddlyness and it is now joined by a mini version for the manual terrain response. As far as I can see this will be redundant most of the time, because aside from suspension height and low ratio the car takes care of itself with regard to terrain housekeeping.
The new car feels as competent off road as the old car but if anyhthing seems like it is isolating the occupiers more from the horridness of outdoors. Very agreeable.
Back on the road in a 4.4, which we had been unrelaibly informed was a supercharged, we made our way back to the castle. I was disappointed with the performance of the supercharger, but felt that if it had been (as it in fact was) a 4.4 it would be quite impressive.
Once back at base we were not insulted with further marketing hyperbole, but treated to a very nice three-course lunch. The hall was still horribly cold and I swore my finger tips were turning black, but the food and very pleasant other guests made it bearable.
So, will I be heading down to my local Land Rover dealer to place an order tomorrow morning? No. Because past experience tells me that Land Rover struggles enough to put together properly cars that have been current for some time, my confidence is therefore lacking that they can build the new car correctly in the first couple of years. My fears were reinforced by the number of trim rattles, creaks and the exploding centre console lid on the test cars. We also had suspension problems on the 4.4 and were not alone.
The other reason I don't need a new Range Rover in my life imminently is that it isn't THAT much of a leap forward from the current car. Yes it is better, but it is not an epiphany that renders the outgoing car obsolete. In two years time when mine is due for replacement I will welcome the new car as a worthy successor, but it will not change my life sufficiently that I need to expedite the process.
Edited by Manks on Thursday 14th February 21:14
Good write up - thanks. The point you raise about the build quality not being there is one I've been thinking about. I generally prefer to get cars after they've ironed out a few of the faults, especially if they are made by Land Rover.
To be fair to Land Rover, it's not just them, I had a new Audi TT when they first came out, and it was very unreliable. On the other hand, my Porsche 997 was one of the first ones available and it never skipped a beat.
To be fair to Land Rover, it's not just them, I had a new Audi TT when they first came out, and it was very unreliable. On the other hand, my Porsche 997 was one of the first ones available and it never skipped a beat.
EdJ said:
Good write up - thanks. The point you raise about the build quality not being there is one I've been thinking about. I generally prefer to get cars after they've ironed out a few of the faults, especially if they are made by Land Rover.
To be fair to Land Rover, it's not just them, I had a new Audi TT when they first came out, and it was very unreliable. On the other hand, my Porsche 997 was one of the first ones available and it never skipped a beat.
EdJTo be fair to Land Rover, it's not just them, I had a new Audi TT when they first came out, and it was very unreliable. On the other hand, my Porsche 997 was one of the first ones available and it never skipped a beat.
I had major issues with a new model Porsche last year, so you're right it isn't just Land Rover. But LR has form when it comes to early life faults on product in any point of its lifecycle, so I think the first year or two of production are best left to the hardcore fans.
Manks said:
The other reason I don't need a new Range Rover in my life imminently is that it isn't THAT much of a leap forward from the current car. Yes it is better, but it is not an epiphany that renders the outgoing car obsolete. In two years time when mine is due for replacement I will welcome the new car as a worthy successor, but it will not change my life sufficiently that I need to expedite the process.
I visited Eastnor Castle last Friday for the same experience and having driven there in my MY11 4.4 came to the same conclusion as above.Re. The build quality of the demonstrators. All of them including the off road RR's were pre-launch cars meaning they will never be sold and most had slight differences as they refined the build process. My experience of a buying a new Evoque last year is excellent build quality and no problems, I expect this will be the same for the new RR.
Manks said:
Phil. said:
My experience of a buying a new Evoque last year is excellent build quality and no problems, I expect this will be the same for the new RR.
Serious question; what has changed in manufacturing that will make the new RR less prone to early life faults than its predecessor?M
camel_landy said:
Manks said:
Phil. said:
My experience of a buying a new Evoque last year is excellent build quality and no problems, I expect this will be the same for the new RR.
Serious question; what has changed in manufacturing that will make the new RR less prone to early life faults than its predecessor?M
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff