Fuming Range Rover owner!
Discussion
KarlMac said:
The ‘One Life, Live It’ / ‘Overlander’ oddballs refer to them as ‘Full Fat Range Rovers’ or FFRR. Not sure why but I assume it’s come from that. Probably some social hierarchy when dealing with lowly disco or freelander owners.
I thought it was because mostly fat people drive them?Threads like this play havoc with my pre purchasing research! I've been strongly considering a Range Rover Sport 5.0 Supercharged after the wife expressed an interest. I'd previously banked the idea of a RR as being utterly unreliable, plently of anecdotal evidence to support that, my MD at work has owned several RRS all with various electrical gremlins etc. My research had led me to opt for a late 2012 RRS 5.0 with low miles, with low owners and bags of service history, as also plenty of Land Rover forum comments to suggest that issue had been ironed out by that point and pre-emptive maintenance was a very good thing.
On the way over with the wife to have a look at a potential car we stopped at the local tyre place to get some new rubber on the X5. Chap in front of me was having some new rubber on his Audi SQ7, got chatting to him and turns out the Audi was to replace a 2017 RRS SVR which he had owned for a year and had visited the dealer a grand total of 10 times in that period with warranty work. Needless to say that the wife and I have now fully gone off the idea of a Range Rover!
On the way over with the wife to have a look at a potential car we stopped at the local tyre place to get some new rubber on the X5. Chap in front of me was having some new rubber on his Audi SQ7, got chatting to him and turns out the Audi was to replace a 2017 RRS SVR which he had owned for a year and had visited the dealer a grand total of 10 times in that period with warranty work. Needless to say that the wife and I have now fully gone off the idea of a Range Rover!
drmotorsport said:
Threads like this play havoc with my pre purchasing research! I've been strongly considering a Range Rover Sport 5.0 Supercharged after the wife expressed an interest. I'd previously banked the idea of a RR as being utterly unreliable, plently of anecdotal evidence to support that, my MD at work has owned several RRS all with various electrical gremlins etc. My research had led me to opt for a late 2012 RRS 5.0 with low miles, with low owners and bags of service history, as also plenty of Land Rover forum comments to suggest that issue had been ironed out by that point and pre-emptive maintenance was a very good thing.
On the way over with the wife to have a look at a potential car we stopped at the local tyre place to get some new rubber on the X5. Chap in front of me was having some new rubber on his Audi SQ7, got chatting to him and turns out the Audi was to replace a 2017 RRS SVR which he had owned for a year and had visited the dealer a grand total of 10 times in that period with warranty work. Needless to say that the wife and I have now fully gone off the idea of a Range Rover!
Dont let it put you off. You have to remember that most owners know nothing about cars, and yet can be pedantic or think they are somehow special and deserve some special treatment because they bought a car that looks good on "insta". On the way over with the wife to have a look at a potential car we stopped at the local tyre place to get some new rubber on the X5. Chap in front of me was having some new rubber on his Audi SQ7, got chatting to him and turns out the Audi was to replace a 2017 RRS SVR which he had owned for a year and had visited the dealer a grand total of 10 times in that period with warranty work. Needless to say that the wife and I have now fully gone off the idea of a Range Rover!
For that reason alone, worth avoiding them, imho
The fact this fell has a gaudy wrapped Mclaren says it all.
Griffith4ever said:
I sold my disco three when my trusted garage told me the rear suspension arms needed replacing soon and it was a big expensive job as they had to be cut off, and that was a long process due to limited space to work in.nall of this because the main retaining bolts were installed in such a way that they'd seize and were innacessible to free up.
This was after loom issues that stopped the locking remote working because the loom runs the length of the car inside the sills, and the sills fill up with water.
Overall I loved the car but it became too expensive to run and I got a Yeti instead. Hasn't missed a beat in three years but of course I do accept it's a smaller lighter car.
Did you have any of the really special ones on the D3 like when the air suspension decides not to work because a brake light bulb has blown? This was after loom issues that stopped the locking remote working because the loom runs the length of the car inside the sills, and the sills fill up with water.
Overall I loved the car but it became too expensive to run and I got a Yeti instead. Hasn't missed a beat in three years but of course I do accept it's a smaller lighter car.
Great cars when they work, but anyone who thinks they are reliable has either been very, very lucky or is living in denial.
Griffith4ever said:
I sold my disco three when my trusted garage told me the rear suspension arms needed replacing soon and it was a big expensive job as they had to be cut off, and that was a long process due to limited space to work in.nall of this because the main retaining bolts were installed in such a way that they'd seize and were innacessible to free up.
This was after loom issues that stopped the locking remote working because the loom runs the length of the car inside the sills, and the sills fill up with water.
Overall I loved the car but it became too expensive to run and I got a Yeti instead. Hasn't missed a beat in three years but of course I do accept it's a smaller lighter car.
It's just nonsense though, isn't it? Selling a car because of the potential for a couple of seized bolts? People do that job at home on their driveway and the "trusted garage" is scared. What a good way of perpetuating the "unreliable" stories. This was after loom issues that stopped the locking remote working because the loom runs the length of the car inside the sills, and the sills fill up with water.
Overall I loved the car but it became too expensive to run and I got a Yeti instead. Hasn't missed a beat in three years but of course I do accept it's a smaller lighter car.
Tomanybikes said:
JimSuperSix said:
your points are not really relevant unless the surveys biases towards or limits itself to certain brand,s which i dont think they do. eg the fact that people who have experienced issues are more likely to respond applies to all brands, not just one.
would still like to know what on a FFRR costs 2k a year to keep going that other brands dont use or make reliably?
All cars need maintenance but a £100k car cost more than a £15k car to service and wear and tear items, tyres for one will be £1k for the RR and possibly less than £50 a corner in a small city car.would still like to know what on a FFRR costs 2k a year to keep going that other brands dont use or make reliably?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 15th May 20:38
Labour rate is another with £90 an hour for non premium makes and up to £200 for LR.
If you can’t see why a £100k car needs more money in upkeep than a cheap one then they are probably not for you!
Edited by Tomanybikes on Monday 16th May 21:46
Lets be honest, perhaps the RR has the same tech a lot of other cars but its just not built to the same standards and thus costs 2k a year to fix, which is why the vehicles are reported as unreliable by owners for surveys?
downthepub said:
If Landrovers are so rocksteady, why have places where the environment can kill you such as Australia and the African continent wholesale given up on them in favour of vehicles such as Landcruisers?
LR products have fabulous design, both inside and out, they really do look great and the interiors are thoughtful. But one cannot say in any consciousable mind that the reliability is on a par with the Japanese, or dare I say it, the Americans.
I don't think anyone would say that about Japanese cars, although some of the newer American SUVs are just as problematic as any Range Rover.LR products have fabulous design, both inside and out, they really do look great and the interiors are thoughtful. But one cannot say in any consciousable mind that the reliability is on a par with the Japanese, or dare I say it, the Americans.
The problem with comparing something like a Land Cruiser to a Range Rover is that they're totally different types of cars. My neighbour happens to have a Land Cruiser of almost the same age as my Range Rover, which would cost roughly 3x the market value of mine if you wanted to buy it. It is indeed incredibly reliable, and I have no doubt it's worth what they go for in the current market, but the interior is horrible, it lacks a lot of equipment that I have standard on my RR, and the exterior is ugly to say the least. I suspect that if we ran both cars for 10 years, the higher cost of repairs for my car would not exceed the difference in initial purchase price between them but I would, of course, have probably suffered more hassle of taking it to mechanics etc.
If you want something tough and reliable and don't care about aesthetics, the Land Cruiser is a great choice. If you're willing to put up with some issues (no more than BMW, Mercedes or Audi in my experience) but would like a good looking and driving car, then the RR is better. Neither is the "wrong" choice, it just depends on your priorities.
FWIW, I've had 3 RRs, all of which have been driven in tough conditions, and the only one that's ever had any issues was one that I bought for shed money, with the issues fully disclosed. After fixing said issues, it's been fine, and I drive it almost every day.
CharlesElliott said:
Sounds like it overheated and destroyed the engine.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rang...
Funny enough, our former usual dealer tried to fob me off with an intermittent coolant leak on the wife’s Velar… basically didn’t deny that it existed but that they couldn’t replicate it so could we have it back to drive it around until it ran low on coolant againhttps://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rang...
Me - ‘Ok so ignoring, for a moment, the fact that you’re expecting my wife to be undertaking regular hundred mile drives in a car with a known fault, if it overheats and damages the engine, whose liability would it be?’
Dealer - ‘Errrrrrrr’
There’s a common fault with EGR coolers leaking on that engine, I literally had to explain to them how to diagnose it
Geekman said:
The problem with comparing something like a Land Cruiser to a Range Rover is that they're totally different types of cars. My neighbour happens to have a Land Cruiser of almost the same age as my Range Rover, which would cost roughly 3x the market value of mine if you wanted to buy it.
...
I suspect that if we ran both cars for 10 years, the higher cost of repairs for my car would not exceed the difference in initial purchase price between them but I would, of course, have probably suffered more hassle of taking it to mechanics etc.
First point - the 2nd hand market is usually a good determinant of the 'worth' of a vehicle (excepting where investors are getting into a certain market). So if similar-age cars are worth that much different, with the higher spec car being worth a lot less, that to me would be a good indicator of what to buy / what to avoid....
I suspect that if we ran both cars for 10 years, the higher cost of repairs for my car would not exceed the difference in initial purchase price between them but I would, of course, have probably suffered more hassle of taking it to mechanics etc.
Second point...but based off point-1, the LC would retain 3x the residuals (roughly, possibly more) of the RR. So you can't compare purchase-plus-maintenance, you've got to knock-off residual value at the end of the period.
I used to work for JLR and I've worked for 2 suppliers into JLR. And I wouldn't buy one of their products if you were giving me the money...I've seen their attitude and their approach to both engineering and building cars (yes, Solihull is STILL as bad as its rep!). For comparison, I've also been involved in supply into BMW and Toyota, and even vs BMW it's night-and-f
king-day. Toyota are in another league to both of them...Cold said:
Some well known shortening of Full Fat Range Rover is FFRR, or just FF. So someone who is familiar with the brand may well use Fatty as an affectionate moniker.
Wait, you actually knew all of that and were just labouring a point? Well, how very PH.
No. I didn't know that.Wait, you actually knew all of that and were just labouring a point? Well, how very PH.
I've seen 'FFRR' but didn't know what the full acronym resolved to, other than it was the 'standard', non-Sport model.
Assuming someone is being an arse because they don't know something you know. Well, how very PH.
havoc said:
Geekman said:
The problem with comparing something like a Land Cruiser to a Range Rover is that they're totally different types of cars. My neighbour happens to have a Land Cruiser of almost the same age as my Range Rover, which would cost roughly 3x the market value of mine if you wanted to buy it.
...
I suspect that if we ran both cars for 10 years, the higher cost of repairs for my car would not exceed the difference in initial purchase price between them but I would, of course, have probably suffered more hassle of taking it to mechanics etc.
First point - the 2nd hand market is usually a good determinant of the 'worth' of a vehicle (excepting where investors are getting into a certain market). So if similar-age cars are worth that much different, with the higher spec car being worth a lot less, that to me would be a good indicator of what to buy / what to avoid....
I suspect that if we ran both cars for 10 years, the higher cost of repairs for my car would not exceed the difference in initial purchase price between them but I would, of course, have probably suffered more hassle of taking it to mechanics etc.
Second point...but based off point-1, the LC would retain 3x the residuals (roughly, possibly more) of the RR. So you can't compare purchase-plus-maintenance, you've got to knock-off residual value at the end of the period.
I used to work for JLR and I've worked for 2 suppliers into JLR. And I wouldn't buy one of their products if you were giving me the money...I've seen their attitude and their approach to both engineering and building cars (yes, Solihull is STILL as bad as its rep!). For comparison, I've also been involved in supply into BMW and Toyota, and even vs BMW it's night-and-f
king-day. Toyota are in another league to both of them...I totally agree that the second hand market is a good determiner of the "worth" of a vehicle - most people value reliability above all else, which is why the LC is worth so much. I'm just saying that personally, the difference in performance and aesthetics compared to an RR doesn't make a LC a good ownership prospect for me.
I know this is PH and everyone loves a good argument, but at no point did I say that an RR was a better buy than a LC, or that it was as reliable, I simply said that they cater to different markets.
I buy and sell older barges and SUVs as a hobby, and I can say with confidence that once they're over 10/15 years old, there is really very little separating BMW / Mercedes / Audi / JLR in terms of reliability. They all have fairly major flaws, and will bankrupt the type of owner who just takes them to the dealer and asks them to fix everything.
Back in the days when we used to go into the office each day we had four people with jar products - 1 Discovery Sport, 2 Evoques and one F-Pace.
Their discussions on the warranty issues they were having would put anyone off ownership. After all the most important feature in a car is that it works when you get into it!
The F-Pace owner now has a Ranger which in 18 months has been faultless. One of the Evoque owners went back to BMW. Not seen the other two but they seemed to think that, despite all the issues, they had a marvellous car!
Their discussions on the warranty issues they were having would put anyone off ownership. After all the most important feature in a car is that it works when you get into it!
The F-Pace owner now has a Ranger which in 18 months has been faultless. One of the Evoque owners went back to BMW. Not seen the other two but they seemed to think that, despite all the issues, they had a marvellous car!
The Range Rover was on my shortlist of cars to buy a while ago. I knew about 5 people with them, asked their opinions, and got a pretty much identical response from all of them: “it’s a great car when it’s not in the garage being fixed and I simply can’t recommend it to you”. That coupled with JLRs habitually low ratings on reliability surveys told me enough.
I bought an SQ7 instead which is chock full of more mechanical tech than a RR and just as you’d expect in 5 years none of it has gone wrong. 2 services in that time so maybe £1200. That’s it. Expecting to pay £2000 pa on a new car for “maintenance” is nuts at any level. Even my Ferraris haven’t cost that with their ridiculous service intervals and labour rates.
To claim that Range Rovers aren’t less reliable than other (and similar) cars flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
I bought an SQ7 instead which is chock full of more mechanical tech than a RR and just as you’d expect in 5 years none of it has gone wrong. 2 services in that time so maybe £1200. That’s it. Expecting to pay £2000 pa on a new car for “maintenance” is nuts at any level. Even my Ferraris haven’t cost that with their ridiculous service intervals and labour rates.
To claim that Range Rovers aren’t less reliable than other (and similar) cars flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
IJWS15 said:
Not seen the other two but they seemed to think that, despite all the issues, they had a marvellous car!
...and that boils down to the difference in consumers- some people still think that cars going wrong is normal* and they want all the toys and leather and the 'premium' (sic) badge.
- some people are happy to work on a car themselves (although these people occupy the 2nd hand market not 'new'), so aren't AS fussed about outright reliability
- some people want their car to work, every time, all the time...so they tend to buy Toyota/Lexus/Honda/Mazda (& arguably the Koreans now too)
- etc. etc.
* Similar principle to some people still buying (e.g.) Hotpoint or Candy white goods, despite the fact that they'll probably struggle to last 3 years, except with the likes of RR people are paying for the image and the content.
JimSuperSix said:
It's not upkeep, its the electrical and tech issues acc. to the first post which implied the FFRR has so much tech thats not on lesser cars and can therefore quite rightly be expected to cost 2k a year to fix, but the car is still "reliable"?. But now that 2k has become servicing and the mystery unique tech that the RR has thats bound to fail because theres so much of it has so far not been mentioned.
Lets be honest, perhaps the RR has the same tech a lot of other cars but its just not built to the same standards and thus costs 2k a year to fix, which is why the vehicles are reported as unreliable by owners for surveys?
havoc said:
First point - the 2nd hand market is usually a good determinant of the 'worth' of a vehicle (excepting where investors are getting into a certain market). So if similar-age cars are worth that much different, with the higher spec car being worth a lot less, that to me would be a good indicator of what to buy / what to avoid.
Second point...but based off point-1, the LC would retain 3x the residuals (roughly, possibly more) of the RR. So you can't compare purchase-plus-maintenance, you've got to knock-off residual value at the end of the period.
I used to work for JLR and I've worked for 2 suppliers into JLR. And I wouldn't buy one of their products if you were giving me the money...I've seen their attitude and their approach to both engineering and building cars (yes, Solihull is STILL as bad as its rep!). For comparison, I've also been involved in supply into BMW and Toyota, and even vs BMW it's night-and-fking-day. Toyota are in another league to both of them...
Yep.I like some of their products but unfortunately the data doesn’t lie too many drop to bits and better products are available it’s that simple.Second point...but based off point-1, the LC would retain 3x the residuals (roughly, possibly more) of the RR. So you can't compare purchase-plus-maintenance, you've got to knock-off residual value at the end of the period.
I used to work for JLR and I've worked for 2 suppliers into JLR. And I wouldn't buy one of their products if you were giving me the money...I've seen their attitude and their approach to both engineering and building cars (yes, Solihull is STILL as bad as its rep!). For comparison, I've also been involved in supply into BMW and Toyota, and even vs BMW it's night-and-f
king-day. Toyota are in another league to both of them...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff