[afako]

Land Rover and Toyota earned top brand honors for vehicles predicted to hold their value over the next three years, in the ALG Residual Value Awards released today.Land Rover was tops among premium brands and Toyota led mainstream brands.The 15th annual Residual Value Awards recognize vehicles that are predicted by ALG forecasters to retain the highest percentage of their sticker price after three years.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20141117/RETAIL/141119870?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

[Neanderthal]

Impressive. Especially considering RRover also tops many unreliability rankings.

 

[SKH]

Impressive. Especially considering RRover also tops many unreliability rankings.

Can you actually post the rankings where they are tops for unreliability, or is this just based on a gut feeling on your part?

 

[F14CRAZY]

...then quickly PLUMMETS soon after 3 years.

My best buddy owned a '95 Discovery...absolute garbage.

He also was a valet for higher end establishments in the metro Detroit area. Pretty much every Land Rover product he encountered over 2-3 years old had christmas-tree dashes with issues not worth trying to fix.

 

[Quixote88]

Can you actually post the rankings where they are tops for unreliability, or is this just based on a gut feeling on your part?

Since our pal Neanderthal isn't here right now, I'll help him out... Land Rover builds junk, and always have. I deal with some wealthy car collectors every day, some of whom have owned Land Rovers/Range Rovers in the past. Not one of them has ever gone back. I've heard some horror stories that one wouldn't expect from an economy brand, let alone a high end builder...

From one article on the subject:
No, I take that back. Land Rover didn't just finish last. They got destroyed. If you look at the survey, nearly all premium brands are clustered between 840 and 870 points out of a possible 1,000. The premium brand average was 855, and the worst non-Land Rover brands – Volvo, Acura, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Porsche – are all between 840 and 848.

And then, at the very bottom, you have Land Rover, with just 805 points. That's awful. Put another way: Land Rover's score was further away from the second-worst brand, Volvo, than Volvo was from the overall winner. You have to try to do that poorly.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...-and-jd-power/

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/stu...icle-1.1317954

If their poor reliability wasn't bad enough, their service departments, where too many customers have to spend too much time, are also ranked last:
http://www.jdpower.com/press-release...vice-index-csi

And one site just for LR owners to vent their dismay:
http://landroverhell.com/article/232...le-luxury-cars

 

[voyager]

Impressive. Especially considering RRover also tops many unreliability rankings.

Evidently, you can get away with good design. And appealing they look, particularly the new Discovery Sport.

 

[Ruperts Trooper]

...then quickly PLUMMETS soon after 3 years.

My best buddy owned a '95 Discovery...absolute garbage.

He also was a valet for higher end establishments in the metro Detroit area. Pretty much every Land Rover product he encountered over 2-3 years old had christmas-tree dashes with issues not worth trying to fix.

A '95 model !!

About as relevant today as what?

Truth is they aren't as unreliable as the junk Chevrolet tried to sell in Europe.

 

[MonaroSS]

Evidently, you can get away with good design. And appealing they look, particularly the new Discovery Sport.

If they look great and make you feel good about yourself - it's amazing the **** you will put up with...


I'm talking about hot women, must be same with cars....

 

[Edge]

I was under the impression LR's quality has gone up substantially in the last few years.

 

[CJH]

Evidently, you can get away with good design. And appealing they look, particularly the new Discovery Sport.

An appealing design will ALWAYS sell, at least in some numbers. Its the Head vs Heart arguement. Plus you add in the luxury reputation of the brand, and its a winner. See the 6 month waiting list on the new Range Rover. Besides, maintenance cost is less of an issue to this segment, for the most part - they are all expensive to maintain.

A '95 model !!

About as relevant today as what?

Truth is they aren't as unreliable as the junk Chevrolet tried to sell in Europe.

True on both accounts!!

I was under the impression LR's quality has gone up substantially in the last few years.

EVERYBODY'S quality has increased and will continue to increase. But haters still going to hate!!

 

[mchicha]

I am suspicious of this study.

 

[Quixote88]

Truth is they aren't as unreliable as the junk Chevrolet tried to sell in Europe.

Don't kid yourself... Those Korean Chevrolets weren't great cars, but they also cost a fraction of what the ATP's are for Land Rover/Range Rover here. If I'm buying a cheap car, I expect bugs and such... Not when I'm paying a premium.

I was under the impression LR's quality has gone up substantially in the last few years.

Yes, they topped Dodge & Mini this year to keep from being dead last:

http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/2014-Vehicle-Dependability-Study-Press-Release.htm

EVERYBODY'S quality has increased and will continue to increase. But haters still going to hate!!

It's not about "hating," it's about being realistic.

I harped on Chevrolet & Pontiac when their cars were garbage. Same for Ford, Kia, etc... And those aren't "Premium" nameplates... I harped on Cadillac too. All of those brands have shown significant improvement over the past 15 years (Well, except for Pontiac of course!). I cannot say the same for Land Rover. They are still a hit or miss brand as far as quality is concerned.

This is exactly why I harp on Cadillac building on the Escalade sub-brand (Cadillac is number 3 on the 2014 reliability ranking link above). There's money to be had here, especially in the upper range. Build mega-Escalades and the buyers will come... Sorry about paraphrasing Field of Dreams... Range Rover continues to sell well & keep its residuals because there is very little competition in the upper SUV range. The current Escalade is a nice starting point, but they're leaving money on the table by not building models that average over $100k in price.

 

[F14CRAZY]

A '95 model !!

About as relevant today as what?

Truth is they aren't as unreliable as the junk Chevrolet tried to sell in Europe.

People tend to not forget bad experiences with something large and expensive such as a large luxury SUV

 

[Ruperts Trooper]

Don't kid yourself... Those Korean Chevrolets weren't great cars, but they also cost a fraction of what the ATP's are for Land Rover/Range Rover here. If I'm buying a cheap car, I expect bugs and such... Not when I'm paying a premium.

I don't have access to reliability statistics, other than UK based ones - on Days Off Road, Land Rover are less than Volkswagen, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Jeep, Audi and Porsche - but more than Lexus, Jaguar, BMW and Volvo.

In the UK, Land Rover is let down far more by dealer performance than vehicle reliability - is that the same in North America?

 

[richmond2000]

I would guess the low NEW sales # is helping the demand for used ones keeping there resale up VS a BMW/Escalade that are EVERYWHERE
its a "simple" supply and demand situation + LR are NOT giving there product away with cheep leases like BMW ETC

 

[Neanderthal]

Can you actually post the rankings where they are tops for unreliability, or is this just based on a gut feeling on your part?

Gut feeling. What else is there SKH?

Since our pal Neanderthal isn't here right now, I'll help him out... Land Rover builds junk, and always have. I deal with some wealthy car collectors every day, some of whom have owned Land Rovers/Range Rovers in the past. Not one of them has ever gone back. I've heard some horror stories that one wouldn't expect from an economy brand, let alone a high end builder...

From one article on the subject:
No, I take that back. Land Rover didn't just finish last. They got destroyed. If you look at the survey, nearly all premium brands are clustered between 840 and 870 points out of a possible 1,000. The premium brand average was 855, and the worst non-Land Rover brands – Volvo, Acura, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Porsche – are all between 840 and 848.

And then, at the very bottom, you have Land Rover, with just 805 points. That's awful. Put another way: Land Rover's score was further away from the second-worst brand, Volvo, than Volvo was from the overall winner. You have to try to do that poorly.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...-and-jd-power/

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/stu...icle-1.1317954

If their poor reliability wasn't bad enough, their service departments, where too many customers have to spend too much time, are also ranked last:
http://www.jdpower.com/press-release...vice-index-csi

And one site just for LR owners to vent their dismay:
http://landroverhell.com/article/232...le-luxury-cars

Thanks for dealing with my light work, Quixote! :drive:

If they look great and make you feel good about yourself - it's amazing the **** you will put up with...


I'm talking about hot women, must be same with cars....

The psychology is similar. But it's easier to trade in a caah than a female wymmnn!

A '95 model !!

About as relevant today as what?

Truth is they aren't as unreliable as the junk Chevrolet tried to sell in Europe.

Past is prologue, said Shakespeare and a few thousand others.

 

[Jesda]

Can you actually post the rankings where they are tops for unreliability, or is this just based on a gut feeling on your part?

I owned a Range Rover.

I will not make that mistake ever again.

I do, however, have a fondness for the Evoque and its Ford-based powertrain is less frightening.