MK1 Freelander really as bad as reviews make out?
Discussion
Ive not the read the full thread but:
Use the dedicated Land Rover forums. They will tell you the same about the 1.8.... in other words, stay well away.
On the other hand, I bought a 04 plate Freelander Van in 2008 that had only 12,000 miles on it. It was the TD4 2.0 BMW engine. Sold it with 118,000 on it.
Only things that were needed:
Mass Airflow Sensor - Had the supplying garage to do this as there was some hesitation when pulling away from roundabouts.
EGR Valve - Removed and blocked as reccomened on many car forums for many cars. £36
Propshaft Bearings - Changed for cheap ones at about 36,000 as was a rumbling. Still there when replaced £40
Propshaft Bearings - Changed for genuine ones at 48,000, rumbling cured. (Lesson learnt there) £100
Rear Exhaust - Was needed at about 80,000 £70
Clutch Slave Cylinder - at about 96,000 the slave failed so spent £1000 on a new clutch, DMF and slave.
Thats it. For a supposed unreliable car it was supprisingly reliable.
Good off road, could do 42mpg if driven sensibly, other wise about 35/38 on a run.
Would I buy another? Yes, definatly.
They do have some issues, but if your handy with a spanner, they can be done cheaply as parts are easily available and many online sellers.
Use the dedicated Land Rover forums. They will tell you the same about the 1.8.... in other words, stay well away.
On the other hand, I bought a 04 plate Freelander Van in 2008 that had only 12,000 miles on it. It was the TD4 2.0 BMW engine. Sold it with 118,000 on it.
Only things that were needed:
Mass Airflow Sensor - Had the supplying garage to do this as there was some hesitation when pulling away from roundabouts.
EGR Valve - Removed and blocked as reccomened on many car forums for many cars. £36
Propshaft Bearings - Changed for cheap ones at about 36,000 as was a rumbling. Still there when replaced £40
Propshaft Bearings - Changed for genuine ones at 48,000, rumbling cured. (Lesson learnt there) £100
Rear Exhaust - Was needed at about 80,000 £70
Clutch Slave Cylinder - at about 96,000 the slave failed so spent £1000 on a new clutch, DMF and slave.
Thats it. For a supposed unreliable car it was supprisingly reliable.
Good off road, could do 42mpg if driven sensibly, other wise about 35/38 on a run.
Would I buy another? Yes, definatly.
They do have some issues, but if your handy with a spanner, they can be done cheaply as parts are easily available and many online sellers.
My 1.8 FL1 is on it's 3rd HG (at 137000 miles) and has had replacement VCU and water pump (all under warranty thank goodness!). I have been advised matched tyres are also critical, ie front & rear tyres must have comparable wear otherwise excess strain is put onto the transfer box which in turn can otherwise damage both gearbox and transfer box. In addition I understand tyre pressures must be in the range 26 - 28 psi, for similar reasons.
To sum up: good concept but flawed build and cost-cutting make them a risky proposition unless you can thoroughly research the history of the vehicle you are interested in.
To sum up: good concept but flawed build and cost-cutting make them a risky proposition unless you can thoroughly research the history of the vehicle you are interested in.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Reading this begs the question... why would you choose an FL over a Japanese product of same age? For the 'average Joe', what can it offer than a number of Japanese smallroaders can't? (assuming the OP does not need to go into the depths of zombie sheep infected Wales etc)
Even if you ignore the off road ability (which is a big thing to ignore), the FL's advantages are:Good looks. The FL is unmistakeably a Land Rover, while the Jap competitors are all pretty bland and derivative.
Cheap(er) and more widely available parts.
Availability of diesel engine. The CRV and RAV4 were petrol only until the early/mid 2000s.
Secondhand price. Comparing similar age/mileage/spec, the FL is typically 25% cheaper than the Jap competition.
I'm pretty sure a competent home mechanic with access to a good breakers yard (for K-series bits) could buy and run a decent FL for less than a comparable Jap soft roader. I'm a soft-handed office worker with no mechanical skills or experience, so I'll stick with my CRV and pay the extra
Edited by excel monkey on Monday 18th March 11:12
drivin_me_nuts said:
Reading this begs the question... why would you choose an FL over a Japanese product of same age? For the 'average Joe', what can it offer than a number of Japanese smallroaders can't? (assuming the OP does not need to go into the depths of zombie sheep infected Wales etc)
Having driven an X-Trial and a Freelander Td4 back to back, I personally think the Freelander is nicer to sit in (although Nissans seat fabric was quite nice) and the a Freelander felt better on the road.HDC and TCS do make a big difference too, even if just "on road" in the snow. I also like the fact you can wind down the rear window. A little touch, but one that makes the vehicle more fun and pleasant in summer.
300bhp/ton said:
Limpet said:
My dad had one for a year or so. In fairness to it, it never let him down, and the only issue he had was repeated failure of the tailgate latch. However, with the 1.8 K, these are gutless and drink fuel. There was always the ever present niggle in the back of his mind about the head gasket as well.
With a diesel, it's probably a decent car. OK with a petrol if you can accept the appalling performance / economy compromise.
Do people not understand what a petrol 4x4 is??With a diesel, it's probably a decent car. OK with a petrol if you can accept the appalling performance / economy compromise.
Can you please cite me another 4x4 of this class that is petrol powered, faster, more grunty and better on fuel????
For the record the 1.8K is faster than the L-Series or Td4 variants. And mpg isn't significantly different either in normal use. 5-6mpg average difference.
Limpet said:
Sorry, perhaps you can point out where I said it was any better or worse than its rivals? All I said was that it is slow and thirsty. Both of which are simple facts that can be discovered inside of 50 miles driving one.
Slow and thirsty compared to what???? It makes no sense to claim something that really has no meaning.For a petrol 4x4 of this ilk the Freelander is on par or better than others in terms of performance or mpg. Therefore it is NOT slow or thirsty.... yes ok compared to a an Elise it is. But what actual use is there in comparing it in such a way?
300bhp/ton said:
Limpet said:
Sorry, perhaps you can point out where I said it was any better or worse than its rivals? All I said was that it is slow and thirsty. Both of which are simple facts that can be discovered inside of 50 miles driving one.
Slow and thirsty compared to what???? It makes no sense to claim something that really has no meaning.For a petrol 4x4 of this ilk the Freelander is on par or better than others in terms of performance or mpg. Therefore it is NOT slow or thirsty.... yes ok compared to a an Elise it is. But what actual use is there in comparing it in such a way?
Limpet said:
Compared to the majority of other passenger cars on the road.
Not meaning offense, but that's a pretty dumb stance to take.1. they really aren't, not when you actually look at the huge variety of vehicles on the road
2. even if this is your belief, why are you levelling it only at the Freelander 1.8i? When it's obvious its the entire compact SUV/4x4 market that you have issues with?
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Monday 18th March 11:15
I have not trawled through the crap people read and
then regurgitate on here as fact in the attempt to turn any
thread on PistonHeads into a pissing competition.
I can comment on the Question though OP as we have had a freelander 1
in the family for over 3 years and have purchased another one on Saturday.
2001 freelander 1 1.8s 3 Door hardback 66,000 miles.
Headgasket has let go twice in 8,000 miles and yes I fitted the
uprated one. Apart from that it has been no bother what so ever
no leaks no electrical problems NOTHING. But make no mistake the 1.8 K
series engine is absolute s
te.
New one is a 2005 TD4 HSE and it is light years better than the old one in every way.
HTH
then regurgitate on here as fact in the attempt to turn any
thread on PistonHeads into a pissing competition.
I can comment on the Question though OP as we have had a freelander 1
in the family for over 3 years and have purchased another one on Saturday.
2001 freelander 1 1.8s 3 Door hardback 66,000 miles.
Headgasket has let go twice in 8,000 miles and yes I fitted the
uprated one. Apart from that it has been no bother what so ever
no leaks no electrical problems NOTHING. But make no mistake the 1.8 K
series engine is absolute s
te.New one is a 2005 TD4 HSE and it is light years better than the old one in every way.
HTH
Dumb, or just not having the time, inclination to collate the entire performance and economy statistics for the entire car market of the era, crunch the numbers, calculate the median etc etc... Sorry, I'm not going to do that for an internet discussion.
It is a relatively slow vehicle (0-60 in about 12 seconds). You wouldn't get in it and think "this is a fast car"
It is a relatively thirsty vehicle (combined mpg well down into the 20s). You wouldn't think "this car is very cheap to run".
I don't know or care whether it's better or worse than rivals. I am talking about someone who would get into this car in isolation and drive it.
And if you want to defend this car so passionately to someone, maybe your attention would be better directed at someone who was actually slating it. I said that the example I knew was reliable, but was slow and thirsty, and that the Freelander, with a diesel, makes more sense. Which it does.
It is a relatively slow vehicle (0-60 in about 12 seconds). You wouldn't get in it and think "this is a fast car"
It is a relatively thirsty vehicle (combined mpg well down into the 20s). You wouldn't think "this car is very cheap to run".
I don't know or care whether it's better or worse than rivals. I am talking about someone who would get into this car in isolation and drive it.
And if you want to defend this car so passionately to someone, maybe your attention would be better directed at someone who was actually slating it. I said that the example I knew was reliable, but was slow and thirsty, and that the Freelander, with a diesel, makes more sense. Which it does.
Limpet said:
Dumb, or just not having the time, inclination to collate the entire performance and economy statistics for the entire car market of the era, crunch the numbers, calculate the median etc etc... Sorry, I'm not going to do that for an internet discussion.
It is a relatively slow vehicle (0-60 in about 12 seconds). You wouldn't get in it and think "this is a fast car"
It is a relatively thirsty vehicle (combined mpg well down into the 20s). You wouldn't think "this car is very cheap to run".
I don't know or care whether it's better or worse than rivals. I am talking about someone who would get into this car in isolation and drive it.
And if you want to defend this car so passionately to someone, maybe your attention would be better directed at someone who was actually slating it. I said that the example I knew was reliable, but was slow and thirsty, and that the Freelander, with a diesel, makes more sense. Which it does.
You seem to be missing the point... it is not slow or thirsty for the type of vehicle that it is...... and at the end of the day comparing it to other vehicle types in this regard is just flawed logic and makes little or no sense. It also makes no sense to single out a single model variant and apply your criticism.It is a relatively slow vehicle (0-60 in about 12 seconds). You wouldn't get in it and think "this is a fast car"
It is a relatively thirsty vehicle (combined mpg well down into the 20s). You wouldn't think "this car is very cheap to run".
I don't know or care whether it's better or worse than rivals. I am talking about someone who would get into this car in isolation and drive it.
And if you want to defend this car so passionately to someone, maybe your attention would be better directed at someone who was actually slating it. I said that the example I knew was reliable, but was slow and thirsty, and that the Freelander, with a diesel, makes more sense. Which it does.
As you points would also apply to a Rav4, X-Trail, Vitara, Jimny, Discovery, Range Rover, Liberty, Cherokee. Basically almost every single compact 4x4/SUV that has ever been made.
"slow" would also mean most small engine hatches and city cars should rank along side this.
"thirsty" would mean almost any large hatch or saloon of circa 2.0 petrol engine would also be included.
I'm not saying you can't view them as slow & thirsty vs 'x', but that really isn't the question being asked.
For example a BMW M3 could be seen as slow and thirsty if you are comparing it to a Caterham R400.
But the facts are, a 1.8 Freelander is faster than any diesel variant and is indeed no slower than any rival. It is also more than capable of being used on the public roads.
It is also no worse on fuel than any other rival and is indeed offering up similar mpg to most 2.0 petrol cars such as a Vectra or Mondeo, or even a MK1 or 2 Mazda MX-5.
We bought one new in 1999 a 1.8 XEI station wagon , its was not a nice ownership experience, fuel gauge failed the first day, every time I hoovered it out I found random trim screws that had fallen out
The footbrake pedal fell off after 1500 miles , luckily i was driving slowly at the time so was able to stop with the handbrake
Brake switch failed soon after
The rear window leaked whenever it rained , they allegedly resealed it three times but it always had wet carpets in the boot
The windows and sunroof failed numerous times the drivers window failed down a few times
The clock failed
The rear tyres would develop "steps" meaning a horrendous droning noise at speed so lucky to get 9k out of them LR just said TADTS!!
LR service was hopeless
Traded it as soon as the warranty was up
Think it was V998 DTF wonder if its still around
The footbrake pedal fell off after 1500 miles , luckily i was driving slowly at the time so was able to stop with the handbrake
Brake switch failed soon after
The rear window leaked whenever it rained , they allegedly resealed it three times but it always had wet carpets in the boot
The windows and sunroof failed numerous times the drivers window failed down a few times
The clock failed
The rear tyres would develop "steps" meaning a horrendous droning noise at speed so lucky to get 9k out of them LR just said TADTS!!
LR service was hopeless
Traded it as soon as the warranty was up
Think it was V998 DTF wonder if its still around
to the op my mother owned an S reg freelander & could not fault it one bit it didnt let her down once all it needed was the usual mot bit n bos like discs & pads no HGF it was a 1.8 petrol model she did look after it though washed hovered oil checked every week.
regardless of what others think its what you think & IMHO i think its a great car due to the high up driving position decent enough boot space & if its looked after should be reliable
Wullie
regardless of what others think its what you think & IMHO i think its a great car due to the high up driving position decent enough boot space & if its looked after should be reliable
Wullie
Funny how all the doom and gloom Meister's on this thread haven't actually owned one
All I can say is that we owned one for 4 years, yes the head gasket did go (1.8 k-series) after 30k miles but slowly and was spotted before any damage was done. Replaced by LR FoC btw.
If the HG has been done by main dealer or LR specialist, you'll be fine since they are clued up enough to know that there is an uprated kit for them.
Ours had zero other issues in those 4 years.
The people who have said here that it doesn't do slippery grass or any kind of off roading are clearly not speaking with any experience to qualify their comments.
I've been around a quarry in a Freelander (an auto too) in the poring rain up and down immensely steep inclines and it was frankly amazingly capable (permanent 4WD btw, unlike "soft roaders"). They coped almost as well as the Discoveries we had there.
Handling on road was soft but comfy, not sporty at all but that's probably to be expected. It was quiet and could be slung around more than I expected.
Not a bad car if it's been cared for and I'd certainly have another but it would have to be a late one and preferably a diesel Td4.
I'm not a Rover fan boy btw!
ETA
They are really easy to work on so costs to repair are cheap!
All I can say is that we owned one for 4 years, yes the head gasket did go (1.8 k-series) after 30k miles but slowly and was spotted before any damage was done. Replaced by LR FoC btw.
If the HG has been done by main dealer or LR specialist, you'll be fine since they are clued up enough to know that there is an uprated kit for them.
Ours had zero other issues in those 4 years.
The people who have said here that it doesn't do slippery grass or any kind of off roading are clearly not speaking with any experience to qualify their comments.
I've been around a quarry in a Freelander (an auto too) in the poring rain up and down immensely steep inclines and it was frankly amazingly capable (permanent 4WD btw, unlike "soft roaders"). They coped almost as well as the Discoveries we had there.
Handling on road was soft but comfy, not sporty at all but that's probably to be expected. It was quiet and could be slung around more than I expected.
Not a bad car if it's been cared for and I'd certainly have another but it would have to be a late one and preferably a diesel Td4.
I'm not a Rover fan boy btw!
ETA
They are really easy to work on so costs to repair are cheap!
300bhp/ton said:
It is also no worse on fuel than any other rival and is indeed offering up similar mpg to most 2.0 petrol cars such as a Vectra or Mondeo
Where are you getting that from?! A 2.0 petrol Mondeo (manual) will easily crack 35 mpg, I highly doubt the Freelander will see anything like that.
BorkFactor said:
Where are you getting that from?!
A 2.0 petrol Mondeo (manual) will easily crack 35 mpg, I highly doubt the Freelander will see anything like that.
Depends what year Mondeo we are talking... and I'm also not referring to specific individual numbers. More in general use 'x' car will be mid 20's mpg and 30+ on a run. Such a description is likely fitting for many many cars of similar age and value as a Freelander 1.A 2.0 petrol Mondeo (manual) will easily crack 35 mpg, I highly doubt the Freelander will see anything like that.
Kentish said:
Funny how all the doom and gloom Meister's on this thread haven't actually owned one
WHAT???Have you actually read the thread? Look at the post just two above yours, among others.
Typical hilarious PH flame war. OP has asked for an opinion, opinions have been received, OP has made his decision, yet the opinions just keep coming....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff