MK1 Freelander really as bad as reviews make out?

MK1 Freelander really as bad as reviews make out?

Author
Discussion

300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
toppstuff said:
It's a badly designed car on so many levels
Ok then, in your professional opinion, what points are so badly designed, why and how would have done it better then?

300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
longblackcoat said:
Even if they were 100% reliable**, they're reasonably horrid - poor gearboxes, very thirsty, and you've got to rev the engine hard to get what little performance there is.

I'd rather walk, if I'm honest, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Land Rover fan (on my 5th at the moment)


  • And they're a long way from this
You've never been in one have you?

Do you know the PG1 gearbox actually has Honda origins and is used in many cars such as the S1 Elise and MG ZS180.

MPG is actually pretty good from the 1.8 for a PETROL.... certainly on par with any other 4x4 of similar ilk and better than many of them.

It's also a rather tractable engine and feels more grunty low down than a 2.2 litre Frontera does

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

227 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
Defensive much?

kambites

62,865 posts

193 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
I never really understood why they didn't put the turbocharged the K-series in the Freelander. I think that engine was available from about 1999 (?) and I'd have thought it would be a much better all-round package.

mat777

9,352 posts

132 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
kambites said:
I never really understood why they didn't put the turbocharged the K-series in the Freelander. I think that engine was available from about 1999 (?) and I'd have thought it would be a much better all-round package.
Because then it would have trodden on the toes of the V6 flagship model, and would have been more expensive to run and insure for the trendy young outdoorsy activity folk the 1.8 was aimed at

kambites

62,865 posts

193 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
mat777 said:
kambites said:
I never really understood why they didn't put the turbocharged the K-series in the Freelander. I think that engine was available from about 1999 (?) and I'd have thought it would be a much better all-round package.
Because then it would have trodden on the toes of the V6 flagship model, and would have been more expensive to run and insure for the trendy young outdoorsy activity folk the 1.8 was aimed at
I meant as well, rather than instead. The I4 turbo managed to coexist with the I4 N/A and the V6 in the 75/ZT range.

longblackcoat

4,670 posts

155 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
longblackcoat said:
Even if they were 100% reliable**, they're reasonably horrid - poor gearboxes, very thirsty, and you've got to rev the engine hard to get what little performance there is.

I'd rather walk, if I'm honest, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Land Rover fan (on my 5th at the moment)


  • And they're a long way from this
You've never been in one have you?

Do you know the PG1 gearbox actually has Honda origins and is used in many cars such as the S1 Elise and MG ZS180.

MPG is actually pretty good from the 1.8 for a PETROL.... certainly on par with any other 4x4 of similar ilk and better than many of them.

It's also a rather tractable engine and feels more grunty low down than a 2.2 litre Frontera does
I had one sitting on my driveway 3 days ago.

Mk I.

Petrol.

Rubbish.

I don't care whether Honda designed the gearbox, nor whether the Good Lord Almighty styled it. All I know is that it was terrible in almost every way, with NVH that would embarrass a Mk III Escort. And I kept banging my head as I climbed in and out.

If that was the sole example I'd driven, then fair enough, but I've driven a good few over the years and I've seen the teardown results from when I worked in the motor industry. Sadly, the Freelander's just a substandard product, in terms of design, reliability, and longevity.




300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
TheHeretic said:
Defensive much?
Not really. But it's the same old rubbish posted time and time again.

Also how one person can think they know better than an entire design team and established motor car builder to be able to declare "it's badly designed" is quite a statement. So I'd like to know exactly what is badly designed, how, and how it should have been designed.

I mean lets look at some facts.

In production for 9 years pretty much unchanged.

Europe's best selling compact 4x4 until 2002.

1000's in use every single day as daily drivers.


If it was as bad as some in this thread claim then such facts simply wouldn't exist.

BorkFactor

7,135 posts

130 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
I seriously doubt that these Freelanders even come close to the Honda CRV as far as long term reliability goes. My mate's Mum has an automatic X reg one with over 200k on it which has given them no problems at all (all routine maintenance) since they bought it at 20k and 2 years old.

Do you really think a Freelander will give you that level of reliability?

Mr2Mike

20,143 posts

227 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Friend has one. Had all manner of issues and had it converted to 2WD.
Read this as: "A friend has one and the viscous coupling has gone. He's too tight/stupid to replace this relatively inexpensive component, so removed the rear propshaft instead"

BorkFactor

7,135 posts

130 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
Read this as: "A friend has one and the viscous coupling has gone. He's too tight/stupid to replace this relatively inexpensive component, so removed the rear propshaft instead"
This is quite a common thing, isn't it? I am sure I remember reading a thread on here not too long ago about Freelanders being badly converted to 2WD - I think the OP went to see one and the owner didn't realise what had been done.

300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
BorkFactor said:
I seriously doubt that these Freelanders even come close to the Honda CRV as far as long term reliability goes. My mate's Mum has an automatic X reg one with over 200k on it which has given them no problems at all (all routine maintenance) since they bought it at 20k and 2 years old.

Do you really think a Freelander will give you that level of reliability?
No offense, but WTF??? confused

-who has claimed they will?
-Do you seriously think every other car in the world bar a Freelander will do this?? So if your MX-5, BMW 328, Golf GTI won't do 200,000 miles no issue, are they too not worth buying??
-the truth is, if you maintain a Freelander, then the vast majority are perfectly suitable and able to be used daily with no more risk than 99% of any other mass produced car out there.

300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
BorkFactor said:
Mr2Mike said:
Read this as: "A friend has one and the viscous coupling has gone. He's too tight/stupid to replace this relatively inexpensive component, so removed the rear propshaft instead"
This is quite a common thing, isn't it? I am sure I remember reading a thread on here not too long ago about Freelanders being badly converted to 2WD - I think the OP went to see one and the owner didn't realise what had been done.
The VCU has an expected life of circa 70,000 miles. It is a replaceable item. Of course with all things it may last less, and how you use the vehicle and in what conditions may affect this.

If you don't replace it when it needs it (which is pretty cheap), it'll then end up breaking other stuff. Combined to fix the VCU and the other 2 major components you'll break through ignorance can be pricey. This is where people then bh and moan and claim it's unreliable, when infact 90% of the cost and damage is inflicted through abuse.

BorkFactor

7,135 posts

130 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
-Do you seriously think every other car in the world bar a Freelander will do this?? So if your MX-5, BMW 328, Golf GTI won't do 200,000 miles no issue, are they too not worth buying??
Not what I am suggesting at all.

The MK1 Freelanders have a very bad reputation as has been pointed out in this thread, and in my opinion it is well deserved. If you throw money at any car you will be able to keep it on the road!

My point was that the CRV (a comparable car) will give you a lot less trouble than a Freelander - which is a fair point, no?

Krikkit

22,613 posts

153 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
mat777 said:
I wouldnt touch a £3k Disco Mk2 with a bargepole but that budget will buy a totally mint top spec D1.
Why would you have a D1 over a D2 if veg oil isn't your thing? Purely out of interest.

kambites

62,865 posts

193 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
There is a good argument that the inability to survive certain levels of abuse is a pretty serious flaw in a modern car. As cars have got more and more reliable, I think the expections on their ability to deal with lack of servicing and/or mechanical abuse has also risen.

longblackcoat

4,670 posts

155 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search...

300hp is doing his usual thing of shouting into the wind.

To repeat myself, I love Land Rover products. I currently own a Disco 3 (which replaced another Disco 3), have had a Disco II and I, as well as a Series II and a 110. I've got a supercharged FFRR sitting outside right now.

But the Mk I Freelander was an embarrassment. Land Rover have never had much of a reputation for reliability, but the Freelander was a whole new ballpark.

300bhp/ton

39,684 posts

162 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
BorkFactor said:
Not what I am suggesting at all.

The MK1 Freelanders have a very bad reputation as has been pointed out in this thread, and in my opinion it is well deserved. If you throw money at any car you will be able to keep it on the road!

My point was that the CRV (a comparable car) will give you a lot less trouble than a Freelander - which is a fair point, no?
The Freelander has a far superior traction system and off road ability compared to the CR-V.

As for less trouble, maybe. But having owned and experienced many different makes of cars, I'm not convinced. Honda's still break down and still have issues too.

You want proof of this, ask how good a Rover 400/45 is. People say not very. Ask how good a Civic is. And people will say brilliant. Yet they are the same car and for a time built in the same factory.

kambites

62,865 posts

193 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
You want proof of this, ask how good a Rover 400/45 is. People say not very. Ask how good a Civic is. And people will say brilliant. Yet they are the same car and for a time built in the same factory.
Back then no-one thought Hondas were particularly good, though.

Anyway, the 400 was a decent enough car when it was brought out but it was pretty outdated by the time it went out of production. People remember it in its later years when it was trying to compete with much better cars like the Ford Focus.

Edited by kambites on Friday 15th March 09:55

ClaphamGT3

9,556 posts

215 months

Friday 15th March 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
The VCU has an expected life of circa 70,000 miles. It is a replaceable item. Of course with all things it may last less, and how you use the vehicle and in what conditions may affect this.

If you don't replace it when it needs it (which is pretty cheap), it'll then end up breaking other stuff. Combined to fix the VCU and the other 2 major components you'll break through ignorance can be pricey. This is where people then bh and moan and claim it's unreliable, when infact 90% of the cost and damage is inflicted through abuse.
It is also the case that VCU life is significantly enhanced by actually engaging drive to the rear wheels on a regular basis. All this involves is causing the front wheels to break traction. Many of the cars that suffer from VCU problems are used for town/motorway work and rarely, if ever, drive the rear wheels