Impressions after Renting a Range Rover HSE
04-14-19, 05:16 PM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
Really?!? IMHO they are actually quite cheap inside. Lots of hard plastic and questionable materials.
Leases aren't great on RRs, and for tax purposes people with businesses actually need to buy them to get the Section 179 accelerated depreciation.
BTW, I know I need to sample a RR myself. if possible, I might do that in the near future, even though I don't have any review-requests for it. I've tried to once or twice in the past, but the supply/demand situation for RRs in the D.C. area usually mean very few in stock, especially unsold ones. And, obviously, people need money to buy these things, as they start at roughly 100K....though I suspect that the majority of them, even in the D.C. area here with lots of money, are leased.
04-14-19, 05:21 PM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
they have had a very long time to watch and think things through and see where the market goes. I really hope they don’t mess up their past ways of doing their body on frames as I have always found them very satisfying and quite appealing.
04-14-19, 05:25 PM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
The Tacoma still sells a ton though...
04-14-19, 05:31 PM
#34
Lexus Fanatic
I know this is a contentious subject, but I assume you mean the C-channel frames?
IMO, they need to do a lot of work with the Tacoma. Not impressed at all with the ones I saw at the show last week, although the Ford Ranger, an 8-year-old Australian design transplanted to the American market, was not much better, and GM's Colorado/Canyon puts both of them to shame. GM, overall, really does a nice job on how they design vehicles, if they could only get some of the reliability gremlins out.....that's the one area where Toyota is clearly superior.
IMO, they need to do a lot of work with the Tacoma. Not impressed at all with the ones I saw at the show last week, although the Ford Ranger, an 8-year-old Australian design transplanted to the American market, was not much better, and GM's Colorado/Canyon puts both of them to shame. GM, overall, really does a nice job on how they design vehicles, if they could only get some of the reliability gremlins out.....that's the one area where Toyota is clearly superior.
04-14-19, 05:41 PM
#35
Lexus Fanatic
But there are lots of things to like about the Tacoma.
I really like the smaller, 2Gen GMC Acadia, in Denali trim....in some ways, more than the Buick Enclave. If I had to, for any reason, move from my Lacrosse into any SUV on the market short of perhaps 100K, that would probably be it. But the reliability horror-stories in the Acadia forums (which I've read), and CR ranking it as one of the 10 Most Unreliable Vehicles in the American market, give me great pause and concern...and GMC's standard factory warranty is a year shorter than Buick's in both departments.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-14-19 at 05:48 PM.
04-14-19, 06:22 PM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
About the Range Rover remember...
04-14-19, 07:28 PM
#37
Pole Position
Smaller sample sizes don't mean much. but our Lexus actually once left us stranded, and we've never had anything other than minor stuff with all our JLR vehicles.
As Steve says, the full-size RR is tremendous to drive. It's an incredibly capable vehicle, and RR owners are much more likely to take their cars off-road than some might think. The full-size RR does compete with the LC/LX, but only up to a point - you can get a RR with an MSRP more than twice that of the LC/LX. Not that mine was haha.
It's notable that the bashing comes mainly from non-owners. Owners by and large really do like their Range Rovers - and very much so.
As Steve says, the full-size RR is tremendous to drive. It's an incredibly capable vehicle, and RR owners are much more likely to take their cars off-road than some might think. The full-size RR does compete with the LC/LX, but only up to a point - you can get a RR with an MSRP more than twice that of the LC/LX. Not that mine was haha.
It's notable that the bashing comes mainly from non-owners. Owners by and large really do like their Range Rovers - and very much so.
04-14-19, 07:53 PM
#38
Lead Lap
Smaller sample sizes don't mean much. but our Lexus actually once left us stranded, and we've never had anything other than minor stuff with all our JLR vehicles.
As Steve says, the full-size RR is tremendous to drive. It's an incredibly capable vehicle, and RR owners are much more likely to take their cars off-road than some might think. The full-size RR does compete with the LC/LX, but only up to a point - you can get a RR with an MSRP more than twice that of the LC/LX. Not that mine was haha.
It's notable that the bashing comes mainly from non-owners. Owners by and large really do like their Range Rovers - and very much so.
As Steve says, the full-size RR is tremendous to drive. It's an incredibly capable vehicle, and RR owners are much more likely to take their cars off-road than some might think. The full-size RR does compete with the LC/LX, but only up to a point - you can get a RR with an MSRP more than twice that of the LC/LX. Not that mine was haha.
It's notable that the bashing comes mainly from non-owners. Owners by and large really do like their Range Rovers - and very much so.
there's really nothing else that can deliver the range rover experience like the range rover... the land cruiser / LX will never be able to match the range rover's on road driving manners considering it's still essentially decades old (and hopefully stays that way for decades more) when the range is unibody and meant to be much more modern
if someone handed me the keys to a new supercharged V8 range rover and a new LX 570 and said don't worry everything's covered now go have fun for the day, i'm definitely picking the range... but if someone said you have limited resources to keep one of these running for the next 25 years, no question it'd be the land cruiser
04-14-19, 08:01 PM
#39
Pit Crew
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2005 RR had the highest SUV buyer avg income level at $300k with a max price of $89k (source: automotive news). In 2015, the Land Rover brand’s avg income level was $450k (source:Bloomberg). No specific numbers for RR in the article. I suspect the RR average was higher than $450k because the Evoque and Discovery buyers most likely lowered the average. Sticking with 2015, the avg income level for the LX was at $350k (source: media post).
Last edited by kwr; 04-14-19 at 08:05 PM.
04-14-19, 09:13 PM
#40
Lexus Fanatic
The income levels are not even close. A fully loaded full size RR (excluding the $500k Sentinel) is more than twice the price of an LX and Land Cruiser. All full size RR owners could buy the lower priced LX or Land Cruiser.
In 2005 RR had the highest SUV buyer avg income level at $300k with a max price of $89k (source: automotive news). In 2015, the Land Rover brand’s avg income level was $450k (source:Bloomberg). No specific numbers for RR in the article. I suspect the RR average was higher than $450k because the Evoque and Discovery buyers most likely lowered the average. Sticking with 2015, the avg income level for the LX was at $350k (source: media post).
In 2005 RR had the highest SUV buyer avg income level at $300k with a max price of $89k (source: automotive news). In 2015, the Land Rover brand’s avg income level was $450k (source:Bloomberg). No specific numbers for RR in the article. I suspect the RR average was higher than $450k because the Evoque and Discovery buyers most likely lowered the average. Sticking with 2015, the avg income level for the LX was at $350k (source: media post).
04-14-19, 09:32 PM
#41
Pole Position
pretty much anyone i know or know of that has owned a land rover / range rover product describes it as a very love hate relationship since they can be so unreliable yet are pretty much in a class of their own when they're working
there's really nothing else that can deliver the range rover experience like the range rover... the land cruiser / LX will never be able to match the range rover's on road driving manners considering it's still essentially decades old (and hopefully stays that way for decades more) when the range is unibody and meant to be much more modern
if someone handed me the keys to a new supercharged V8 range rover and a new LX 570 and said don't worry everything's covered now go have fun for the day, i'm definitely picking the range... but if someone said you have limited resources to keep one of these running for the next 25 years, no question it'd be the land cruiser
there's really nothing else that can deliver the range rover experience like the range rover... the land cruiser / LX will never be able to match the range rover's on road driving manners considering it's still essentially decades old (and hopefully stays that way for decades more) when the range is unibody and meant to be much more modern
if someone handed me the keys to a new supercharged V8 range rover and a new LX 570 and said don't worry everything's covered now go have fun for the day, i'm definitely picking the range... but if someone said you have limited resources to keep one of these running for the next 25 years, no question it'd be the land cruiser
The data doesnt account, however, for how much owners like the cars. For the vast majority of the time, they are quite exquisite machines.
04-15-19, 07:31 AM
#42
Lexus Fanatic
No offense, but where do you get a comparison like that? While options, of course, can affect the prices, both the LX and Land Cruiser start out at 85-86K. Range Rovers start at 89K, and the Sport models at only 68K.
04-15-19, 07:36 AM
#43
Lexus Fanatic
IMO noticeably better, however, especially in fit/finish, than any other Lexus product displayed at the show....yes, including the latest LS. It was one of the few newer Lexus products I wasn't disappointed to look at.
04-15-19, 10:56 AM
#44
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
pretty much anyone i know or know of that has owned a land rover / range rover product describes it as a very love hate relationship since they can be so unreliable yet are pretty much in a class of their own when they're working
there's really nothing else that can deliver the range rover experience like the range rover... the land cruiser / LX will never be able to match the range rover's on road driving manners considering it's still essentially decades old (and hopefully stays that way for decades more) when the range is unibody and meant to be much more modern
if someone handed me the keys to a new supercharged V8 range rover and a new LX 570 and said don't worry everything's covered now go have fun for the day, i'm definitely picking the range... but if someone said you have limited resources to keep one of these running for the next 25 years, no question it'd be the land cruiser
there's really nothing else that can deliver the range rover experience like the range rover... the land cruiser / LX will never be able to match the range rover's on road driving manners considering it's still essentially decades old (and hopefully stays that way for decades more) when the range is unibody and meant to be much more modern
if someone handed me the keys to a new supercharged V8 range rover and a new LX 570 and said don't worry everything's covered now go have fun for the day, i'm definitely picking the range... but if someone said you have limited resources to keep one of these running for the next 25 years, no question it'd be the land cruiser
I don't have much experience with the newer Land Cruisers or the new Lincoln Navigator but i'm sure they are great in their own right. The Range Rover definitely commands a premium price, but it does have a lot of features even on the lowest priced trims. I did drive the previous generation with the NA 375hp V8 and it was thirsty, but pulled strong. I haven't driven any Range Rover with the supercharged V8 but imagine that would be a whole heap of fun
