Fuming Range Rover owner!
Discussion
SmithCorona said:
AdeTuono said:
So you refute all the surveys and anecdotal evidence, as well as the general tropes that get trotted out whenever Land Rover products are mentioned?
No. Where did I say that? But my evidence is based on multiple ownership, not anecdotes or clichés.SmithCorona said:
No. Where did I say that? But my evidence is based on multiple ownership, not anecdotes or clichés.
One person declaring an entire brand reliable based just on their personal experience could be described as an anecdote 
. Denying all the evidence to the contrary sounds a lot like a cliché 
.Realistic repeat LandRover owners love the vehicles but recognise that they are going to get bent over on running costs and general reliability.
Obviously the guy in the OP didn’t want to join that club.
AdeTuono said:
Probably that bit where you said...'Also, and I cannot state this enough - they are not unreliable cars.'
But that's my anecdotal evidence, which apparently is sacrosanct, but you now seem to refute. What's your direct experience? Or do you just regurgitate other people's and poorly undertaken surveys because they back up your inherent bias?
Every time there is anything to do with JLR on here loads of people say how unreliable they are - but very few of them have direct experience. Those who do, and say they aren't unreliable, get told they are wrong because someone knows someone who had a 15 year old RRS which needed a new windscreen.
The whole thing stinks of reverse elitism. Either way, I and many others keep buying them, and they continue to serve my purposes very well. I don't think they are fault free, because they are not, but they aren't constantly breaking down and leaving owners stranded like many on here perpetuate.
Steve H said:
One person declaring an entire brand reliable based just on their personal experience could be described as an anecdote . Denying all the evidence to the contrary sounds a lot like a cliché .
Realistic repeat LandRover owners love the vehicles but recognise that they are going to get bent over on running costs and general reliability.
That's my point, we have had multiple and they have all been fine, but no one accepts that because they have heard stories from others who state they all fall apart.. Denying all the evidence to the contrary sounds a lot like a cliché .Realistic repeat LandRover owners love the vehicles but recognise that they are going to get bent over on running costs and general reliability.
Equal weight should be given to each experiance - as long as they are based in fact and direct experience - but there is so much b
ks around Land Rover products that is perpetuated in places like this. Regardless, we still don't know what is actually wrong with this fellas car, and he doesn't seem to be on here!
SmithCorona said:
My point was that LR take a kicking in reliability surveys due to tech/elec INOPs - but an FFRR is filled with the stuff - comparing then with an average vehicle isn't valid.
Also what 100k+ car doesn't need a couple of grand a year in servicing and ancillaries? If we were talking about spending 400quid a year on a Civic no one would bat an eyelid.
i would suggest that its filled with badly made versions of fairly common stuff which is why it costs 2k a year to fix stuff that would work fine if someone like Lexus made it. Unless it has an onboard reactor or quantum headlights or neobarylium suspension ?Also what 100k+ car doesn't need a couple of grand a year in servicing and ancillaries? If we were talking about spending 400quid a year on a Civic no one would bat an eyelid.
Exactly what is it that breaks that costs 2k a year?
Those surveys accurately show that they are unreliable because a relatively high proportion of people who own said vehicle reported that its broken a lot, and generally people dont like to admit that an expensive purchase might have been unwise, so i dont see how it can get much clearer or less elitist really - its not the owners of cheaper, better or worse vehicles reporting that they break a lot.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 15th May 19:42
JimSuperSix said:
i would suggest that its filled with badly made versions of fairly common stuff which is why it costs 2k a year to fix stuff that would work fine if someone like Lexus made it. Unless it has an onboard reactor or quantum headlights or neobarylium suspension ?
Exactly what is it that breaks that costs 2k a year?
Sigh. I didn't say that 2k of stuff a year breaks, I said that you need to spend a couple of grand a year to maintain them. Exactly what is it that breaks that costs 2k a year?
I then broke down c.7k of essentially fixed costs over five years; none of which were above and beyond basic car maintainence.
Then I followed this up by outlining MD
labour rates, and implied it prudent to budget a few grand over the same period to investigate them. These additonal costs should not come as a suprise to anyone who intends to run one - regardless of whether they bought it new, or leggy.
None of which is over and above any other vehicle - apart from the underlying cost of parts, labour and servicing - which are commensurate to the vehicle's initial price.
JimSuperSix said:
Those surveys accurately show that they are unreliable because a relatively high proportion of people who own said vehicle reported that its broken a lot, and generally people dont like to admit that an expensive purchase might have been unwise, so i dont see how it can get much clearer or less elitist really - its not the owners of cheaper, better or worse vehicles reporting that they break a lot.
No. They position surveys to those who have had that experiance to comment. WhatCar Survey said:
We ask car and van owners to tell us if their vehicle has suffered a fault in the past year, and if so, how long it was out of action and, crucially, how much it cost to be fixed. This information is used to create a unique reliability rating for each model.
First of all, you need to be in the demographic that both reads what car and fills in their surveys - how many 20-something GLC drivers do this? Secondly, you are likely to get a higher proportion of those who have suffered a fault commenting - those who haven't would just get on with their day.
Finally, they do not validate ownership - i.e. a good PR department would game these numbers quite easily.
Whilst JLR are known for lacking on the quality angle as opposed to time and cost, their provisions have reduced a lot over the past few years. These surveys are hardly robust evidence.
Regardless, I have no skin in the game to defend JLR, and won't continue to do so - I will, however, continue to enjoy my reliable cars.
SmithCorona said:
First of all, you need to be in the demographic that both reads what car and fills in their surveys - how many 20-something GLC drivers do this?
Secondly, you are likely to get a higher proportion of those who have suffered a fault commenting - those who haven't would just get on with their day.
Secondly, you are likely to get a higher proportion of those who have suffered a fault commenting - those who haven't would just get on with their day.
SmithCorona said:
JimSuperSix said:
Those surveys accurately show that they are unreliable because a relatively high proportion of people who own said vehicle reported that its broken a lot, and generally people dont like to admit that an expensive purchase might have been unwise, so i dont see how it can get much clearer or less elitist really - its not the owners of cheaper, better or worse vehicles reporting that they break a lot.
No. They position surveys to those who have had that experiance to comment. WhatCar Survey said:
We ask car and van owners to tell us if their vehicle has suffered a fault in the past year, and if so, how long it was out of action and, crucially, how much it cost to be fixed. This information is used to create a unique reliability rating for each model.
First of all, you need to be in the demographic that both reads what car and fills in their surveys - how many 20-something GLC drivers do this? Secondly, you are likely to get a higher proportion of those who have suffered a fault commenting - those who haven't would just get on with their day.
Finally, they do not validate ownership - i.e. a good PR department would game these numbers quite easily.
Whilst JLR are known for lacking on the quality angle as opposed to time and cost, their provisions have reduced a lot over the past few years. These surveys are hardly robust evidence.
Regardless, I have no skin in the game to defend JLR, and won't continue to do so - I will, however, continue to enjoy my reliable cars.
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
No it doesn't, I agree - and whilst I am fully aware I am fighting a losing battle, if we apply some analysis to the underlying data:
1) The survey had 16,000 respondants across 30 marques, over the total eligible UK car purchases in those 5 years of 8million+. It's hardly a material statistically significant sample.
2) Those who read WhatCar are unlikely to be proprotionally representative of the car buying public - it is likely skewed to older, male readers who waste their time on filling this in - there will be hundred of thousands of owners who have had issues with other vehicles on the list, but would never have even heard of WhatCar, nor their reliability survey, nor care enough to seek one out or fill it in.
3) The findings are not validated for their accuracy or legitimacy, nor do they clearly address how they account for the materiallity of claims i.e. total loss due to fire vs. creaking trim. They are a PR exercise to generate clicks and links to WhatCar - through reguritgation of the "stats" through sites like the DM/This Is Money.
1) The survey had 16,000 respondants across 30 marques, over the total eligible UK car purchases in those 5 years of 8million+. It's hardly a material statistically significant sample.
2) Those who read WhatCar are unlikely to be proprotionally representative of the car buying public - it is likely skewed to older, male readers who waste their time on filling this in - there will be hundred of thousands of owners who have had issues with other vehicles on the list, but would never have even heard of WhatCar, nor their reliability survey, nor care enough to seek one out or fill it in.
3) The findings are not validated for their accuracy or legitimacy, nor do they clearly address how they account for the materiallity of claims i.e. total loss due to fire vs. creaking trim. They are a PR exercise to generate clicks and links to WhatCar - through reguritgation of the "stats" through sites like the DM/This Is Money.
I’ve got a a RRS (7.5 yrs old) and a Dacia Duster (2020). In the past year the Range Rover has been faultless. The Dacia has had trim issues, badly fitted seals and a failed heater fan switch (a known issue from previous generation Renaults). If I could be arsed to complete a daft survey then I’m sure it would push them further down the table. The point is I won’t as I don’t care it only cost me £11k. Middle class or wealthy people with Range Rovers will complete surveys for every little thing they feel is wrong as they have quite rightly higher expectations.
The master tech was telling me last week that the cars they see for problems, they see repeatedly, whereas those that haven't come in never do so.
He was resigned to the fact that they're built by Brummies and are therefore a nightmare.
The two LR assist cars I was given both needed servicing....I asked why..."we don't have time mate; they leave back an hour after they're returned". Says it all.
He was resigned to the fact that they're built by Brummies and are therefore a nightmare.
The two LR assist cars I was given both needed servicing....I asked why..."we don't have time mate; they leave back an hour after they're returned". Says it all.
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.
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.
SmithCorona said:
My point was that LR take a kicking in reliability surveys due to tech/elec INOPs - but an FFRR is filled with the stuff - comparing then with an average vehicle isn't valid.
Early L494 owned by an ex-boss. Company car he bought off his old place when he moved jobs.~3 or 4 weeks prior to the end of the (3-yr) warranty, it went in for a warning light to be checked. The "oil pressure sensor sender" had failed. Dealership had it for 3 weeks, removed the front sub-frame, part of the suspension and the sump, replaced 17 components, and wouldn't tell him what the bill would have been if it'd happened a month later.
...all for a couple of quid electronic component that their design team had buried in an inaccessible place.
THAT sort of s
t (plus the woeful dealerships) is the core reason people don't buy the damn things. Not because stuff goes wrong...but because when it goes wrong it's an utter fk-fest to try to fix, made worse because LR dealerships are amongst the most feckless and slopy-shouldered of the lot...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.
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.
R56Cooper said:
Never amind about his dispute with the company - we all know that Range Rovers are reliable, we've been told so enough times by people on PH. Will someone get him to hold his phone in landscape mode.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff