RE: Two-tier tech - are we being conned?
Thursday 25th April 2013
To borrow a phrase from the Daily Mail [not something we do often - Ed.], a two-tier society is developing among buyers of sporty SUVs and for that we can thank modern suspension and drivetrain technology.
Sub nine minutes, but only with the techOh boo hoo, you might reasonably think, but bear with us here because it's got wider implications too. It's at its most exaggerated on SUVs though. And while you can't really tell whether that Range Rover Sport, BMW X5, VW Touareg or Porsche Cayenne has active dampers, clever roll bars or air suspension or whatnot, the presence or absence of this tech could have a massive effect on its on-road and off-road performance.
Standard X5s compromised without optionsThe new Range Rover Sport is in the same boat, however. It's available with a similar rear diff, but only in Dynamic versions starting from £65,000. They also get adaptive dampers and active roll bars, something entry versions from £51,550 don't.
Spend money on chassis gizmos, not flouroThe related Porsche Cayenne, another car praised by Carter for its handling, is another that's stingy with its air suspension, charging £2,380 except on the Turbo, where it's standard. Its highest setting gives you another 58mm clearance, which could make the difference between labeling it a poor off-roader and a very good one, particularly if you've just beached a standard steel-sprung car.
Two-tier tech - are we being conned?
Should you really have to pay extra for the tech to live up to the marketing hype?
Sub nine minutes, but only with the tech
This thought was triggered by something new Range Rover Sport development chief Craig Carter told us during a demo of the all-new car in Dubai. He'd been benchmarking the competition and told us he thought the V8 X5 M was the best handling large SUV out there. But without the M's Dynamic Performance Control trick rear differential, he thought the entry versions of the X5 were actually beaten dynamically by a VW Touareg costing five grand less.
Standard X5s compromised without options
Slightly more lean and a slower pace in corners aren't going to alert the neighbours you skimped on spec, but off-road you could be shown up by the lack of a low-range gearbox on the two diesel entry cars. Carter reckons they'll go wherever the low-range cars do and all cars get air suspension, but on some SUVs it could be a bigger issue.
You have to go with the Escape version of the Touareg, for example, to get a low-range gearbox. It's the off-road version of the off-roader, which is slightly comic. Air suspension gives variable ground clearance up to 300mm, but that's £2,430.
Spend money on chassis gizmos, not flouro
Of course SUVs rarely go off-road. So what's the point of paying more and adding another 50kg for the Touareg Escape? The 'single-speed' Range Rover Sports are lighter by 18kg. And on-road, does the active suspension really matter if you're mainly driving from city to city via a motorway with a family on board? High spec cars have always had the better gadgets anyway, so really, what's the issue?
The issue comes when automakers market their SUV as boasting the finest balance between road comfort, dynamic cornering, and off-road ability when really it's just the ones with all the tech that achieve that, and most of that is optional.
We'd be interested to know: which of this dynamic/off-road spec would you choose/avoid if you were speccing up this type of SUV?
Discussion
Interesting thoughts, but yes if you want the top of the range model you have to pay the extra for it.
Does seem stingy though especially given the intended cross use of SUV's.
Me personally wouldn't be too bothered as I'm sure the standard 4wd would cope perfectly well with the odd field and the various potholes.
Does seem stingy though especially given the intended cross use of SUV's.
Me personally wouldn't be too bothered as I'm sure the standard 4wd would cope perfectly well with the odd field and the various potholes.
Doesn't just apply to SUV's.
The advent of optionality with Adaptive Drive / Active M Suspension etc. on the latest round of BMW F-series highlights the difference between cars which ride well, or not. Most people baulk at paying c. 2-3k on suspension, but the fact is, if you want your F10 to ride and handle well, it's a must-have. Finding decent specced cars on the second-hand market with the appropriate boxes ticked is becoming harder and harder......
The advent of optionality with Adaptive Drive / Active M Suspension etc. on the latest round of BMW F-series highlights the difference between cars which ride well, or not. Most people baulk at paying c. 2-3k on suspension, but the fact is, if you want your F10 to ride and handle well, it's a must-have. Finding decent specced cars on the second-hand market with the appropriate boxes ticked is becoming harder and harder......
I think I would still always try and get the best spec I could afford.
I think SUVs get a lot of heat and often by people who have no use for them - I have no use for a hairbrush, so simply keep my opinions to myself, but hey ho!
Our Land Rover is a stunningly good workhorse. But when it's NOT being a work horse and I am on my own, it's nice to be able to hustle it along and enjoy the slightly surreal sensation of going quickly so high off the ground. So with that in mind, the trickery would definitely be something I wanted on my next SUV - for the times when it's not full of PA equipment, children, shopping or bouncing along rutted, speed-humped back roads round rural Northumberland.
P~
I think SUVs get a lot of heat and often by people who have no use for them - I have no use for a hairbrush, so simply keep my opinions to myself, but hey ho!
Our Land Rover is a stunningly good workhorse. But when it's NOT being a work horse and I am on my own, it's nice to be able to hustle it along and enjoy the slightly surreal sensation of going quickly so high off the ground. So with that in mind, the trickery would definitely be something I wanted on my next SUV - for the times when it's not full of PA equipment, children, shopping or bouncing along rutted, speed-humped back roads round rural Northumberland.
P~
Happens on hatchbacks as well, a few seem not to offer a beam axle and a multi link setup in the same range depending on spec.
I think for the SUV's, someone not ticking that box for the super complex suspension, once out of warranty may be a good thing, also, if you need that level of handling in an SUV where the diff makes a difference either slow down or buy something with a lowerv centre of gravity.
I think for the SUV's, someone not ticking that box for the super complex suspension, once out of warranty may be a good thing, also, if you need that level of handling in an SUV where the diff makes a difference either slow down or buy something with a lowerv centre of gravity.
I do wonder if we are reaching the point where the 'big imprvements' in performance/stability/ability/comfort are no more than decreasing increments that become ever more marginal.
I am not convinced that flagship marketing options are sensible in many products - certainly those that don't have a reputation for reliability. A 3-5k electronic option in a Range Rover? Part of my brain screams No! - that part which 'knows' it will fail just outside of warranty and hence seems to me to make little sense.
The old Sahara driven Landcruiser will still be going strong when the gizmo ladened Range Rover is again ramp up having another 'gizmo' component changed.
I am not convinced that flagship marketing options are sensible in many products - certainly those that don't have a reputation for reliability. A 3-5k electronic option in a Range Rover? Part of my brain screams No! - that part which 'knows' it will fail just outside of warranty and hence seems to me to make little sense.
The old Sahara driven Landcruiser will still be going strong when the gizmo ladened Range Rover is again ramp up having another 'gizmo' component changed.
SUV = people carrier with a different bonnet to windscreen angle and increased ride height. People buy them because they need flexible space and they like the higher driving position, plus they have a better image than people carriers. Or have I missed something?
I'm just about to order one by the way.
I'm just about to order one by the way.
Not sure I understand the desire to have the newest latest and greatest model, that will be hit by massive depreciation. If you buy a 3-5 year old used car with a warranty you can get the top spec cars that feature most of the desirable options, that usually are only slightly revised on the newer or face-lifted model.
Similar to replacing your computer every year, does the new one work much better than the year old model it replaced?
Similar to replacing your computer every year, does the new one work much better than the year old model it replaced?
In the spirit of articles titled with a question mark? The answer is of course: No.
If the options didn't improve the performance (off or on road) why would anyone spend money developing them?
A massive amount of development goes into each individual piece of technology so of course there will be a cost increase and some customers are not willing to pay for.
This is not a manufacturer at fault, the press have a responsibility to explain when reviewing each car and how fantastic it is but only with which options.
I would choose the options that would do the job I was buying the car to do; With a range Rover that would probably be not much, since I don't go off road and a standard Sport would allow me to lord it over everyone else on the road in a cool status luxury wagon that could house a small family anywhere on the planet in comfort, survive most crashes and tow a Yacht.
I recommend the Freelander with descent control and air con as a must so that would probably be standard on a RRS anyway.
If the options didn't improve the performance (off or on road) why would anyone spend money developing them?
A massive amount of development goes into each individual piece of technology so of course there will be a cost increase and some customers are not willing to pay for.
This is not a manufacturer at fault, the press have a responsibility to explain when reviewing each car and how fantastic it is but only with which options.
I would choose the options that would do the job I was buying the car to do; With a range Rover that would probably be not much, since I don't go off road and a standard Sport would allow me to lord it over everyone else on the road in a cool status luxury wagon that could house a small family anywhere on the planet in comfort, survive most crashes and tow a Yacht.
I recommend the Freelander with descent control and air con as a must so that would probably be standard on a RRS anyway.
I can't see an issue with this at all.
Every manufacturer has a range within a particular model. The more you pay, the more performace / comfort / off road ability (delete as required) you get.
The gadgets make a difference, so those that need them will buy them. If people are daft enough to purchase a car without knowing it's abilities then more fool them.
It's the same, in my view, of using a 'halo' car to sell others, or even the motorsport versions of a family hatch improving sales.
This article is asking whether we are being tricked into thinking we are buying a better vehicle. No, only those who fail to put enough effort into chosing their car.
That's not being conned, that's being unprepared.
Every manufacturer has a range within a particular model. The more you pay, the more performace / comfort / off road ability (delete as required) you get.
The gadgets make a difference, so those that need them will buy them. If people are daft enough to purchase a car without knowing it's abilities then more fool them.
It's the same, in my view, of using a 'halo' car to sell others, or even the motorsport versions of a family hatch improving sales.
This article is asking whether we are being tricked into thinking we are buying a better vehicle. No, only those who fail to put enough effort into chosing their car.
That's not being conned, that's being unprepared.
unclepezza said:
Not sure I understand the desire to have the newest latest and greatest model, that will be hit by massive depreciation. If you buy a 3-5 year old used car with a warranty you can get the top spec cars that feature most of the desirable options, that usually are only slightly revised on the newer or face-lifted model.
Similar to replacing your computer every year, does the new one work much better than the year old model it replaced?
It depends on the spec of the games you're trying to run! Similar to replacing your computer every year, does the new one work much better than the year old model it replaced?
Although having said that, with how stagnant the industry is these days, no, it probably won't make much of a difference...For me, with the car (and the computer), it's all about making the assesment of what you want (I rarely look at need - too dull IMHO) and what's available and whether or not you're willing to pay. I agree with what you say about the savings buying a few years old compared to a facelifted model with very little difference, but if a completely new model has been released with a fair bit of new kit/tech and you can afford it, why not?
For example, using my obvious preferred brand, a pre-facelift XFR is quite similar to a new one and so it comes down to if you're willing to pay for the look of the later one. As you say, it'd be a tough one to call when taking into account the potential savings and the fact that a pre-facelift car isn't exactly a munter. On the other hand though, purchasing a five year old XJ, with its old Series 3 pastiche styling, would be a markedly different proposition to buying a brand new one.
TommyBuoy said:
I can't see an issue with this at all.
Every manufacturer has a range within a particular model. The more you pay, the more performace / comfort / off road ability (delete as required) you get.
This.Every manufacturer has a range within a particular model. The more you pay, the more performace / comfort / off road ability (delete as required) you get.
I'm not sure I understand what point the article is trying to make - that people who buy lower-range models are being swindled because they don't have higher-range gadgets on them? Sounds like a complete non-issue.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff