DBX Dealer Presentation
Discussion
CSK1 said:
Well, the S part of SUV is probably not very appropriate to a Classic Range Rover if you have driven one! 
True, you are right. I only have vague memories about my dad owing two of those (the first one was a 2 doors).Then 10 years ago I had a Sport that actually confirmed what you are saying too.
I get more enjoyment (and fellow road user respect) driving around in this than any of my other cars.
You could drive across a ploughed field and not spill your cup of tea.
Timeless.
I am thinking of changing the RS6 for a new one of these but v worried about build quality / electrical issues which the internet is full of. Also service from my local dealer is 3/10 compared with local Audi dealer who is 12/10.
Hmmmm.
[edit] If I order a new one can I have the wheels painted green too? Looks great! [/edit]
You could drive across a ploughed field and not spill your cup of tea.
Timeless.
I am thinking of changing the RS6 for a new one of these but v worried about build quality / electrical issues which the internet is full of. Also service from my local dealer is 3/10 compared with local Audi dealer who is 12/10.
Hmmmm.
[edit] If I order a new one can I have the wheels painted green too? Looks great! [/edit]
I am on my 7th Range Rover (full fat) and have currently done more than 60.000 miles in it. I have never had a serious problems with my RRs and the recent one has been completely faultless over the entire distance. So whilst I also hear about RR liability issues I think you have to take into account that there are many thousands of these on the road and you never hear from all those customers where the thing works. I am looking at exchanging my RR within the next 6 months but the DBX doesn't even enter into my calculation. It is too expensive for what it is and I would never spend that kind of money for what essentially is a load lugger. I have the SC 5.0L and live in Europe so plenty of opportunity to drive it fast but i end up driving around 180-200 km/h max on the Autobahn as the petrol consumption just becomes silly at those speeds. I doubt it will be different with the DBX.
hornbaek said:
I am on my 7th Range Rover (full fat) and have currently done more than 60.000 miles in it. I have never had a serious problems with my RRs and the recent one has been completely faultless over the entire distance. So whilst I also hear about RR liability issues I think you have to take into account that there are many thousands of these on the road and you never hear from all those customers where the thing works. I am looking at exchanging my RR within the next 6 months but the DBX doesn't even enter into my calculation. It is too expensive for what it is and I would never spend that kind of money for what essentially is a load lugger. I have the SC 5.0L and live in Europe so plenty of opportunity to drive it fast but i end up driving around 180-200 km/h max on the Autobahn as the petrol consumption just becomes silly at those speeds. I doubt it will be different with the DBX.
Very good to hear as I really want one!Would get the hybrid though, love a big V8 but need to grow up a little.
Jon39 said:
No, the exteriors are old photoshops and the interior and detail shots are all DB11. The " problem " with discussing an SUV is that none of them are aesthetically pleasing in the same way as a sports car can be.
The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
Edited by avinalarf on Wednesday 11th September 11:07
avinalarf said:
The " problem " with discussing an SUV is that none of them are aesthetically pleasing in the same way as a sports car can be.
The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
I agree entirely. That's not to say we shouldn't speculate on the final outcome, after all, that's half the fun and anticipation. But I don't think anyone should be saying "its a disaster" or indeed "its brilliant!" until the final package has actually been revealed as my understanding is that the camo on DBX has been very liberally applied. The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
Edited by avinalarf on Wednesday 11th September 11:07
avinalarf said:
The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport .......
You need to explain your use of the word appropriate to us Steven.
Some of the giant SUVs which I see only have one occupant, a tiny lady driver. They might be normal size ladies. Perhaps the huge vehicle just makes them look so small. The contraption is being driven a mile or so school, where it is then parked across the pavement. A child (usually only one) is then lifted up into the high machine and driven home.
Possibly a 2 seat Vantage could be considered an (extravagant) appropriate method of transport for that job, and a jolly sight better looking too.
Jon39 said:
You need to explain your use of the word appropriate to us Steven.
Some of the giant SUVs which I see only have one occupant, a tiny lady driver. They might be normal size ladies. Perhaps the huge vehicle just makes them look so small. The contraption is being driven a mile or so school, where it is then parked across the pavement. A child (usually only one) is then lifted up into the high machine and driven home.
Possibly a 2 seat Vantage could be considered an (extravagant) appropriate method of transport for that job, and a jolly sight better looking too.
Indeed in the short distance you refer to walking or cycling would be a better option.
In a congested city or town an SUV is often a " fashion " statement.
I have no problem with that in theory, freedom of choice etc, , but it could be construed as unnecessary.
However the SUV can be a suitable companion for longer distance commuting or as a work horse and when required off road.
I find mine very useful when driving around my vast country estate and when taking a gaggle of my Ladyboys to private parties.
A two seater Vantage is most appropriate for two people and definitely better looking .
RobDown said:
avinalarf said:
The " problem " with discussing an SUV is that none of them are aesthetically pleasing in the same way as a sports car can be.
The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
I agree entirely. That's not to say we shouldn't speculate on the final outcome, after all, that's half the fun and anticipation. But I don't think anyone should be saying "its a disaster" or indeed "its brilliant!" until the final package has actually been revealed as my understanding is that the camo on DBX has been very liberally applied. The SUV at best is a functional and an appropriate method of transport and best judged on how well they achieve those functions.
Most agree that the Land Rover and Range Rover fulfill those criteria very well at reasonable price points and like the Mini cut across social barriers,
Many other brands are available at lesser price points that do a decent job.
So we come to the Urus, Bentayga , Cullinan and ,when available, the DBX.
These are purchased almost solely on Brand and Lifestyle image.
The DBX is yet to be revealed so it's pointless commenting on its appearance until it is.
Edited by avinalarf on Wednesday 11th September 11:07
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff