I Guess It's No Surprise.

[TerryS]

JD Powers, and Forbes have compliled a list of the least reliable luxury cars, and not only did Land Rover score top of the list, they had 2 cars on the list, including the LR3 (Luxury?)

Today's AOL artical

http://autos.aol.com/article/general...02105609990001

[wolf]

does anyone ever pay attention to articles like that?

[BlueLion]

They may be right, but it's something about driving a Land Rover, irregardless of the problems you may run into because once the problem is fixed you have no more issues. Land Rover owners are no non-sense type of people that look for utility and functionality. I would not even consider parting with my 2000 Disco because in my opinion the only other real SUV (truck) is the Hummer. However, just think of how good it could really be if they took their time at the plant. Anyway thats my 2cents.

[Bene]

good point BL.

the never ending occorance of little issues doesnt really bother me so much. its a really cool truck, reguarless. if anything, it gives me something to do.

[keptin]

Hey....the've saved the best for last! At least rovers dont blow up when you hit them....not that ive heard of at least


Thing is....I'd never spend $70k on a range rover...there are plenty other better rover-related stuff to burn your $70k on;

-Series III Stage One $10,000.
-Diesel Engine, galvanized frame, new electronics $20,000.
-Modify EVERYTHING $25,000.
-Gasoline for a year $the rest.

[Bene]

thats true, but those nwe Range Rovers are really nice.

[DevilDisco]

Originally Posted by Bene

thats true, but those nwe Range Rovers are really nice.

X2
Those new Range Rovers are really really, nice. It was kind of like walking up to a supermodel. I was afraid to aproach it. But at least you won't get arrested or slapped for touching a Rover at a dealership.

I don't have $70k but I'd still wait for The Diesel V8. I wonder if you can transplant one of those?

[smileyq]

Well while reading that does piss me off a bit it also is a bit true. What people like consumer reports don't however mention is that Land Rover sets the trend on new technologies. Land Rover's may not be perfect but they always come out with the newest and greatest technology. Other companies then see what they can do with it with their gigantic budge. A company like GM with its trillions of dollars well no excuse there.

[Bene]

Originally Posted by DevilDisco

X2
Those new Range Rovers are really really, nice. It was kind of like walking up to a supermodel. I was afraid to aproach it. But at least you won't get arrested or slapped for touching a Rover at a dealership.

thats what I felt like was going to happen when I sat in an loaded RRS when they first came out

[DevynsDad]

I think that a lot of the reliability issue on newer Rovers is the old "perception is reality" thing. Since Rovers (and all British cars) earned a reputation for being very unreliable back in the day, they are having a hard time shaking the tag.

Another reason this is so prevelant is lazy journalism. Instead of actually looking at all of the facts, writers just continue to beat the same dead horse. Much easier than doing real, in-depth work.

Does anyone remember the first couple of years that Buick made the top five in the JD Power survey? Everyone in the press was shocked, and started coming up with explanations why this happened, like "Buick owners are old and expect less" or "Buick owners are less apt to complain." They just couldn't stand that Buick had done such a good job improving quality and was encroaching on the Toyotas and Hondas of the world.

How about Nissan? The first couple of years they made the Armada it ate through brake rotors in 10,000 miles. The Z has a toe problem and will tear through a set of low profile tires in 15,000 miles. The Quest was built so poorly the first few years that Nissan actually extended the warranty from 3/36 to 4/48 for owners of the first two model years. But does that kind of stuff ever make headlines? Nope.

[jozg44]

Originally Posted by DevynsDad

I think that a lot of the reliability issue on newer Rovers is the old "perception is reality" thing. Since Rovers (and all British cars) earned a reputation for being very unreliable back in the day, they are having a hard time shaking the tag.

That's very true. One of the (many) reasons why MG-Rover finally folded last year was because it's sales had steadily declined for years, mainly because they still had an image of poor build quality and poor reliability, which they had picked up during the 1970s and 1980s (when it was called British Leyland and the Rover Group). By the late 1990s the cars they were producing had been in production for 6 years or so and they'd ironed out all the problems and made some other changes, so (1.8 K-Series problems notwithstanding ) they were actually making very reliable, well-built cars. One survey put the MG ZS as more reliable than an Audi TT. Sadly the public and most of the medis still had the hang-up that Rovers were unreliable and badly built, and so they kept the image. There were many other reasons why they collapsed, but that's one of them.

Whenever I read these surveys that put Land Rover right at the bottom for reliability, I often wonder if any of the 'breakdowns' are actually major failures, or if they're just failures of the ancillary systems that don't actually stop the vehicle doing its job. Modern Land Rovers seem pretty reliable mechanically, with most of the problems being electronic. This is nothing new- Series IIIs will cross the Sahara with a sump full of peanut oil and running on rendered ox fat whilst some G-clamps hold the springs together and an array of baler twine holds the body to the chassis, but show the lighting circuits some water and they'll fail instantly...

Jack

[jozg44]

Originally Posted by DevynsDad

I think that a lot of the reliability issue on newer Rovers is the old "perception is reality" thing. Since Rovers (and all British cars) earned a reputation for being very unreliable back in the day, they are having a hard time shaking the tag.

That's very true. One of the (many) reasons why MG-Rover finally folded last year was because it's sales had steadily declined for years, mainly because they still had an image of poor build quality and poor reliability, which they had picked up during the 1970s and 1980s (when it was called British Leyland and the Rover Group). By the late 1990s the cars they were producing had been in production for 6 years or so and they'd ironed out all the problems and made some other changes, so (1.8 K-Series problems notwithstanding ) they were actually making very reliable, well-built cars. One survey put the MG ZS as more reliable than an Audi TT. Sadly the public and most of the medis still had the hang-up that Rovers were unreliable and badly built, and so they kept the image. There were many other reasons why they collapsed, but that's one of them.

Whenever I read these surveys that put Land Rover right at the bottom for reliability, I often wonder if any of the 'breakdowns' are actually major failures, or if they're just failures of the ancillary systems that don't actually stop the vehicle doing its job. Modern Land Rovers seem pretty reliable mechanically, with most of the problems being electronic. This is nothing new- Series IIIs will cross the Sahara with a sump full of peanut oil and running on rendered ox fat whilst some G-clamps hold the springs together and an array of baler twine holds the body to the chassis, but show the lighting circuits some water and they'll fail instantly...

Jack (with memories of driving a Series III around for 2 weeks without a working starter/ignition switch).