MK1 Freelander really as bad as reviews make out?

[300bhp/ton]

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??

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.

[mat777]

300bhp/ton said:

Krikkit said:

As what the Disco is intended for - a reasonably capable 4x4 which doubles as a comfy (ish), spacious daily hack. Every mention of D1 v D2 that I've seen has basically said that the D1 was marginally less reliable and significantly more agricultural than the D2.

Looking at the workshop manual the D2 isn't a hard car to work on, although it does have some more complication if you leave in the ACE and air suspension systems.

The main difference with the D2 is:

-ACE (if fitted)
-rear air suspension (if equipped)
-traction control

None are overly complicated, but all require additional maintenance over a D1. And sadly the air suspension and ACE are items often neglected by owners, so can cause more problems.

The D2 has better NVH and you are more likely to find them equipped with more electrical goodies. Early D1's could be had in a very basic spec, so very little to actually go wrong.

Both are good, just depends what you are after really.

This. My D2 is infinitely nicer than a D1 on several levels but I paid a good 2k more for it, a good average example, than I would have for a mint D1. A D2 bought for D1 money will be riddled with electrical faults (and there is a lot of electrical stuff on them) and have a well-rusted rear chassis. Its like comparing a mint E34 BMW with a ropey E39 - you just wouldnt would you?

[CraigyMc]

300bhp/ton said:

CraigyMc said:

... despite all the evidence to the contrary from several posters on here, anecdotal and otherwise - why do you think it's such a good, reliable vehicle?

We did have the HG go in one FL, but in all honesty once it was fixed properly it really wasn't an issue. It didn't write the engine or the vehicle off, and it cost no different than doing a cambelt and cheaper than a clutch on a fwd hatch.

The K Series does have a risk of HG failure, but so do other engines, only less publicised.

So we have both had K series HGF, and you still think the FL1 is a reliable car despite this.

You state that other cars have a risk of HGF - well, anything that has a head gasket has a risk of HGF, but that doesn't mean the incidence of it occurring is anything like the same as on the K. The risk of all the cars in the UK spontaneously bursting into flames is ever present, but that doesn't mean there's a high rate of spontaneous combustion.

The massively higher than average rate of HGF on Rover K series engines is not something made up. It is real.
It is not due simply to a higher level of publicity of HGF issues on the Rover K.
It's due to the fact that there are more HGF issues on Rover K engines than on basically any other mass market design.

C

[300bhp/ton]

CraigyMc said:

So we have both had K series HGF, and you still think the FL1 is a reliable car despite this.

Why not?

I've also had a Pug 106 diesel with a HG failure. My brothers Celica had a replacement engine and a Toyota we bought at auction managed to expire as it was pulling out of the parking space (auction gave us our money back on it).

CraigyMc said:

You state that other cars have a risk of HGF - well, anything that has a head gasket has a risk of HGF, but that doesn't mean the incidence of it occurring is anything like the same as on the K.

All cars have risks, none are 100% vice free. HG failure on a K-Series is easy to identify as a rule, easy to solve and shouldn't occur all that often. Yes it's a risk, but not one I believe worth over worrying about. That said I would probably opt for an L-Series diesel FL myself, as I'm quite fond of that engine.

CraigyMc said:

The massively higher than average rate of HGF on Rover K series engines is not something made up. It is real.

It's certainly caught the media attention, which tends to over inflate the hysteria. The internet just follows this trend regardless of there being any proof or not.

CraigyMc said:

It is not due simply to a higher level of publicity of HGF issues on the Rover K.
It's due to the fact that there are more HGF issues on Rover K engines than on basically any other mass market design.

C

Can you prove this? Do you have any figures at all?

Remember the K-Series has been about since 1984.....

[mat777]

300bhp/ton said:

CraigyMc said:

So we have both had K series HGF, and you still think the FL1 is a reliable car despite this.

Why not?

I've also had a Pug 106 diesel with a HG failure. My brothers Celica had a replacement engine and a Toyota we bought at auction managed to expire as it was pulling out of the parking space (auction gave us our money back on it).

CraigyMc said:

You state that other cars have a risk of HGF - well, anything that has a head gasket has a risk of HGF, but that doesn't mean the incidence of it occurring is anything like the same as on the K.

All cars have risks, none are 100% vice free. HG failure on a K-Series is easy to identify as a rule, easy to solve and shouldn't occur all that often. Yes it's a risk, but not one I believe worth over worrying about. That said I would probably opt for an L-Series diesel FL myself, as I'm quite fond of that engine.

CraigyMc said:

The massively higher than average rate of HGF on Rover K series engines is not something made up. It is real.

It's certainly caught the media attention, which tends to over inflate the hysteria. The internet just follows this trend regardless of there being any proof or not.

CraigyMc said:

It is not due simply to a higher level of publicity of HGF issues on the Rover K.
It's due to the fact that there are more HGF issues on Rover K engines than on basically any other mass market design.

C

Can you prove this? Do you have any figures at all?

Remember the K-Series has been about since 1984.....

To back up 300bhp/ton, I am getting a bit fed up of repeating the following:

K-series HGF's only occur because the beancounters dictated the engine was built with PLASTIC gasket studs and head bolts made of the worlds worst metal. If one has an HGF failure, repairing it using the designated kit with stronger gasket, bolts, and steel dowels makes the engine as bulletproof as any other modern design - leaving the driver to enjoy the tractability, eagerness, refinement and economy of what was a very well thought out and designed engine, ruined by the method and process of building it. (BL Jag XJS's spring to mind here for comparison of great design, ste execution)

[GreatGranny]

OP - X Trail, CRV and RAV4 are all vehicles I would choose ahead of the Freelander. It may not be based on anything more than what I've read on the Internet and the experience of a mate who owned 1 for a while (not for long, best of 26 mpg and numerous electrical faults saw to that. He converted it to 2WD and still only got 28 max!) but why take the risk when there are better alternatives.
Yes, I know the Freelander is great offroad but I unless the OP is doing any serious offroading the others emntioned above will do the job of the occasional offroad/muddy field/snowy slope etc..just as well.
My brother in law also has one, TD4 auto and has had zero problems with it. He regularly tows a decent sized trailer as well.
Incidently my wifes' XC90 which is full time 4WD and weighs the same as a small house does 26 mpg around town and 34 mpg on a run.

[v8will]

Think if I was looking at a low budget 'softroader' I'd be avoiding a Freelander and looking towards a CR-V, Rav 4 or a Grand Vitara.

[Fire99]

I quite like the Freelander. It has its own unique character.

Personally, the only engines I would choose would be the early Di (Rover Diesel) if its cheap as chips or preferably the later TD4 (BMW Diesel) for more normal money.

The K-Series I like in cars it was designed for (lightweight cars like a MGTF or Lotus Elise) but in a Freelander it's an Apple trying to be an Orange. I'd avoid.

I don't think the 2.5 V6 has anything like the issues of the 1.8 but it offers very little benefit over the TD4.

I'd be tempted with one for the right money

[300bhp/ton]

[quote=GreatGrannybest of 26 mpg.....

Incidently my wifes' XC90 which is full time 4WD and weighs the same as a small house does 26 mpg around town and 34 mpg on a run.
[/quote]
So your XC90 is petrol then?? Else I'm struggling to see the point you are making?

Our 1.8i Freelander did 25-26mpg pottering about and short journeys and over 30-31mpg on a longer run. The Td4 Freelander that replaced it does high 20's pottering about and middish/high 30's on a run.

[Dave200]

longblackcoat said:

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.

Don't bother. You won't win. Seriously.

His "experience" and "knowledge" will always be worth twice yours, no matter what the subject, and he'll shout you down until you agree.

[Dave200]

300bhp/ton said:

Lots of stuff

Jesus man. As of this moment, you have almost a quarter of all the posts in this thread (17/91. When are you going to stop trying to shout people down?

Guys, it's time to leave. This one's been 300d'ed.

[CraigyMc]

mat777 said:

To back up 300bhp/ton, I am getting a bit fed up of repeating the following:

K-series HGF's only occur because the beancounters dictated the engine was built with PLASTIC gasket studs and head bolts made of the worlds worst metal. If one has an HGF failure, repairing it using the designated kit with stronger gasket, bolts, and steel dowels makes the engine as bulletproof as any other modern design - leaving the driver to enjoy the tractability, eagerness, refinement and economy of what was a very well thought out and designed engine, ruined by the method and process of building it. (BL Jag XJS's spring to mind here for comparison of great design, ste execution)

The engine in my elise had plastic dowels, replaced with metal ones and a proper gasket, and failed again about 300 miles later.

Your words are directly contradicted by my experience.

C

[excel monkey]

300bhp/ton said:

Remember the K-Series has been about since 1984.....

Really? What car was that in?

I thought the K first featured in the Rover 200 (R8) launched in 1989.

[CraigyMc]

excel monkey said:

300bhp/ton said:

Remember the K-Series has been about since 1984.....

Really? What car was that in?

I thought the K first featured in the Rover 200 (R8) launched in 1989.

It was designed for the Metro by Spencer King.

[Dave200]

CraigyMc said:

mat777 said:

To back up 300bhp/ton, I am getting a bit fed up of repeating the following:

K-series HGF's only occur because the beancounters dictated the engine was built with PLASTIC gasket studs and head bolts made of the worlds worst metal. If one has an HGF failure, repairing it using the designated kit with stronger gasket, bolts, and steel dowels makes the engine as bulletproof as any other modern design - leaving the driver to enjoy the tractability, eagerness, refinement and economy of what was a very well thought out and designed engine, ruined by the method and process of building it. (BL Jag XJS's spring to mind here for comparison of great design, ste execution)

The engine in my elise had plastic dowels, replaced with metal ones and a proper gasket, and failed again about 300 miles later.

Your words are directly contradicted by my experience.

C

He's never owned a K-Series, but is apparently an expert. Strange one, that.

After helping an ex to fund repairs to her MGF, and having the (upgraded) gasket/dowels fail again after 1500 miles (at which point we replaced it with a MX5), I wholeheartedly echo your experience.

But then, what do we know?

[Krikkit]

CraigyMc said:

The engine in my elise had plastic dowels, replaced with metal ones and a proper gasket, and failed again about 300 miles later.

Your words are directly contradicted by my experience.

C

If it fails within 300mi I would say it wasn't put back together correctly. A small airlock in the cooling, slightly scored gasket face, improperly tightened/stretched head bolt, something just not quite right.

[excel monkey]

Off topic, but this article on the Freelander's development is quite interesting. Mostly complimentary, but it higlights the Freelander's ridiculous gestation period.

http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/land-rover/fr...

"Honda were aware of the car in its early stages of development. According to a project insider, before BMW took over from BAe, Honda had a 20 per cent shareholding in Rover Group, this allowed them to see the full proposed model range of the company together with technical details. Honda senior management were shown the vehicle some six years before launch and this allowed them to beat Rover Group to market. Sadly, because Hondas development strategies were not limited by budget (and were, therefore, quicker), although the CRV started later, it hit the market before the Freelander."

[300bhp/ton]

CraigyMc said:

The engine in my elise had plastic dowels, replaced with metal ones and a proper gasket, and failed again about 300 miles later.

Your words are directly contradicted by my experience.

C

If it failed 300 miles later that either suggest something else was the cause, often a HG failure is a symptom of something else. Or it wasn't fixed properly. Did you ever get it sorted?

[300bhp/ton]

excel monkey said:

Really? What car was that in?

I thought the K first featured in the Rover 200 (R8) launched in 1989.

Metro and there have literally been hundreds of thousands of K-Series built and in use daily.

I admit most HG issues hail from the 1.6 and 1.8 versions not the 1.4, but there really is a lot of good info on how to prevent and resolve HG issues on the K-Series. I don't think anyone would ever say it isn't a risk, but in return you get an advanced (even by todays standard) gem of an engine.

[300bhp/ton]

Dave200 said:

Jesus man. As of this moment, you have almost a quarter of all the posts in this thread (17/91. When are you going to stop trying to shout people down?

Guys, it's time to leave. This one's been 300d'ed.

At least I've been on topic. From what I can tell you've spammed the thread 3 times, made no contribution and only posted to insult or add snide comments.....