Impressions after Renting a Range Rover HSE
 

So I wanted to share some of my impressions of a Loire Blue on Noble Brown 2017 Range Rover HSE I was able to rent last week for 4 days. As an owner of a '13 Lexus GS350 sedan, it was quite a different kind of ride (which was my expectation) Here are some of the most standout things about the Range Rover:

1. Comfort: Around town and on the highway, its a very comfortable SUV, taking NYC potholes with class.
2. Luxury: Most materials used are well made (console trim, wood steering, buttons/dials, knobs, handles, leather).
3. Drive-ability: It is a very large SUV so city driving feels a bit more challenging than in a sedan. Its more nimble than expected. Excellent road isolation and characteristics on the highway.
4. Cargo Area: Excellent space but that was expected for the size of this thing!
5. Gas Mileage: Was decent considering the size/weight, the supercharged V6 got around 19MPG in mixed city/highway driving.
6. Seating Position: Seats and seating positions are outstanding. Can't speak to the rear seats but room seems ample.
7. Visibility: Was excellent from the front, side mirrors and through the rear
8. Prestige: The car has a very "rich" feel if that makes sense. It screams opulence and has that snob-appeal.

The not so great:

1. I understand it was a rental, but some of the materials were showing wear and tear - driver side window buttons were peeling, the start/stop button looked like it was on a car with 100k+ miles. My rental had 27K miles.
2. The Driver door hinge had an embarrassingly loud creaking noise when opening and closing. Maybe some lubricant could fix.
3. The infotainment system was a bit sluggish. The touchscreen response was a bit underwhelming.
4. There was some vibration at certain highway speed (but I attributed this to maybe an alignment issue or possible an out of round wheel).
5. The vehicle weight (5000+ lbs) can be felt particularly when braking.
6. The stop/start feature when in Drive and stopped completely seems like its more troublesome than beneficial. I believe it can be turned off.
7. One of the rear vanity lights stayed lit for 5-10min after I opened my drivers door, got in, and starting driving to my destination. It went off after shutting the car off and back on.

When I spoke to the owner of the rental car company (its a smaller local business), he said his other full size Range Rovers have suspension issues and that the Range Rover Sport models in his fleet were more reliable from his experience. All his Range Rover / Range Rover Sport vehicles are just a couple years old with under 30k miles.

Overall, I thought it was a great vehicle. There is definitely that "fussy-ness" factor that has plagued Jaguar/Land Rover products over the years but if you can get over them, the Range Rover is really in a class by itself. I understand there is certainly a premium to be paid for the brand/prestige regardless of how fussy or reliable it might be.

I would consider a Range Rover / Range Rover Sport in the future but would definitely keep my good 'ol reliable Lexus GS sedan as a secondary ride :D.

range rovers are especially expensive since you need to get 2 of them, so one can be driven while the other is being fixed

they really are fabulous vehicles when they're working haha... i actually don't think the seats themselves are especially noteworthy, no better than what's in a land cruiser, which still means they're very good

Most unreliable POS vehicle I've ever been around. My sister had one until she ended up giving it away to her neighbor in a rage. There is no excuse for the number of issues she had, it's not a sports car and at the price she paid, close to 100K, the thing should work flawlessly. F Landrover.

doug demuro essentially single handidly ruined good value carmax warranities after over $17k in repairs had to be done over a 5 year period to his range rover, all at the expense of carmax! not bad for a $3500 warranty or wherever it was

How did that ruin the warranty? :uh: He actually made out quite well. And it was also good for CarMax...it gave them good PR, and showed the public that they were willing to stand behind the warranty even if they lost money on it.

im not saying carmax got ruined I'm saying things got ruined for everyone else since carmax made their warranties more expensive after seeing what doug got away with lol

I understand your point on them raising the cost of warranty (at least on Range Rovers) to keep from losing more money, but, IMO, Doug did not "Get Away" with anything....he simply used what he paid for.

I thought that you were going to suggest that you drive one and keep the other to cannibalise for spare parts.

You can't blame Doug Demuro for ruining CarMax warranty, you blame it on Land Rover, it's their fault for making an unreliable piece of **** car. Embarassing for a car that breaks down when it never sees off road at all.

i'm not blaming doug i'm just saying that he brought much more attention to the matter, their warranties for those types of cars are much more expensive now lol

oh and it certainly doesn't need to see off road in order to break down, a decent gust of wind or simply the sun setting is often enough to make something go wrong... "they have the durability of a potato chip" is what i've heard someone once say

Based on this thread, I better not buy another one (sarcasm). Still driving my 2nd one, a 2011 in fact, out of warranty. Better knock on wood today and pray that it does not break down.

I’d buy another one in a heartbeat. There is a reason why even with all of the unreliability naysayers, it STILL has some of the highest loyalty (repeat buyers/lessors) and resale values (multiple ALG rewards) in the industry. Carry on...

My buddy made a comment what college did he go to, as in buying an unreliable vehicle, then bragging about how many repairs it needed, was a sign of being less intelligent, not more. I guess human beings need to redeem poor decision-making somehow? lol Like me, I sold facebook stock at 41. I can brag about how much I made on VMW (on paper), but it doesn't really negate my poor decision to sell facebook at 41 (I had it at 19 and had bought more in the 20's, not good, scary actually).

I thought the range rover was tiny on cargo, smaller than a CR-V? Although I'll be the first to admit I cannot discern the various models they offer. I know that every gen of X5 is tiny, and I thought Range Rovers were about the same

Always one person. Your experience is not the norm by far, there's a reason why the car has poor reviews on reliability because it's a fact Range Rovers are pieces of ****. They are status symbols that's it, the only reason my sister even got one is because she's a rich Tech Exec and wanted something that "Matched her status". Now she has a G Wagon which I also think is stupid but at least that thing has been reliable.

Ha! I bought Facebook at $36, sold it at $17 :egads: Thought it was all hype and it wouldn't recover. Oh well...wish I had that one back!

Sorry to hear that your fam had an awful experience for 100k at least it shouldn't leave you stranded or be in the shop often...Its absolutely correct that the Range Rover, G Wagon and other high end vehicles in this category are status symbols. I've always been a Toyota/Lexus guy but none of the their SUVs appeal to me for some reason - to me the current RX has too many angles, the GX is long in the tooth, the highlander is one of the most popular Uber cars in my area--just everywhere no uniqueness, Rav4 no thanks.

I've driven a slew of Lexus RX350's (2012-2016), the Audi Q7 (2016), Cadillac XT5 (2018), BMW X5 (2013), Range Rover Sport (2011 and 2017), Jaguar F-Pace (2017), and the Full Size Range Rover (2017) all for a week or more.

The Range Rovers standout the most for some reason..the way they handle, their driving characteristics and how substantial they feel (really no tinny or cheap feel anywhere). But their reliability is terrible unfortunately. I'd only ever consider one with an extended warranty (and I still had my trusty Toyota in the garage).

sounds like you have a lemon

well i first bought bitcoin back in 2012 when it was under $100 per BTC, and now look where it is...

i'd only buy enough BTC at a time to make the occasional silk road purchase since i wasn't sure how long either would really be a thing for, then silk road got seized so i kinda stopped being interested which turned out to be a great move lol... oh well i still have .74 BTC which cost me maybe $70 or so at the time, so i guess i technically still did quite well but oh man i try not to think about what would've happened had i only bought more of it back then

My friend's brand new '18 disco was finally lemon lawed after 3 transmission problem, all 3 time had to be towed.

But it was my friend and not me, so I guess it doesn't count as data:D

How do you know my experience is abnormal? BTW, you don’t (and I really don’t care :)). For most part, the question is rhetorical. The high resale value and repeat buyers likely means the negative reviews are offset by positive ownership experiences. Someone is buying them. Surely, there is more to the story...

How do I know? Because every single person I know with one has had numerous issues. Not electrical issues but catastrophic failures such as transmissions going out or it just shuts off leaving them stranded. Not to mention if you just google, you'll see the overwhelming articles about the reliability being poor. So yes your experience is abnormal.

High resale value? From what I have seen, that's not the case.

I believe both the Toyota Land Cruiser and full size Range Rover models have similar resale values...if you compare models typically costing around $90k for both brands, the resale value is about the same. Usually takes about 5+ years and you'll pay about half of the MSRP price. The other comparison might be a similarly equipped Lexus GX vs the Range Rover Sport...but you'll likely find cheaper used Lexus GX models than used Range Rover Sports.

Anything that is on par with Toyota/Lexus resale (in this case the Range Rover and its smaller sibling the Range Rover Sport) I would say has high resale value.

Its crazy to think that a brand that is notorious for being unreliable has resale value on par with one of the most reliable brands out there :uh:

They are fabulous vehicles. Without a doubt the nicest to drive SUVs I've driven. Reliability, definitely hit or miss.

......better than the Land Cruiser/LX570?

From most appealing:

1. Lincoln Navigator
2. Land Cruiser
3. Range Rover
4. Lexus LX570

The new Navigator has been a huge success for Lincoln and the Aviator and Nautilus seem to be on the same track. Congratulations to the Lincoln division.

Not even a contest, RR is much nicer to drive, much nicer inside too.

Land Cruiser is a different targeted buyer, but same income level if not higher than a RR. LX and RR compete together. Neither are better than a Navigator.

I'd never buy a Navigator over a Range Rover. I would buy a Navigator over an LX.

The LX, at least the latest one, seems to be perhaps the only Lexus product still using some of the nice durable, well-finished interior materials and bank-vault doors of yesteryear, (though not as solid as the ones on the Mercedes G-Wagen, which was not at the show, as M-B, for reasons I don't know, did not have a display this year. I looked at an LX at the D.C. show, and it was the only current Lexus product I was really impressed with, though some of that can still be found in the current GX. I'll take Steve's word on driving a RR (having not sampled one myself)...but, IMO, it's hard to beat the way the LX is built on the inside and the G-Wagon on the outside.

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.

I do agree. I think Lincoln has done it right with their Navigator. I am interested to see where Toyota goes with their body on frame models, 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.

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.

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.

The Tacoma still sells a ton though...

I don’t think they need to do a lot of work. It needs a full redesign. But there are lots of things to like about the Tacoma. If you like past Toyota trucks from the 80s, the Tacoma is starting to go back to that type of appeal. Glad they put the new height adjustments in for the drivers on the 2020 models.

Yes, I agree......that is basically what I meant. But, even Toyota's vast development funds (arguably the largest ones in the auto industry) are not limitless, and, short of that, at least a new interior. Lexus managed that for the mid-cycle 2010 update for the ES, in response to complaints about the cheapening of the interior after 2006/2007. They also did mid-cycle work, in 2016, on the Avalon's suspension/tires and interior after the complaints with the 2013/2014 redesign.


....until you sit in or drive a Colorado/Canyon. Agreed, though, the GM trucks will, on average, spend more time in the repair shop.

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.

About the Range Rover remember...

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.

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

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).

Thanks for the info. I do remember when the 08 LC and LX were brought to market, Toyota said the average income was $250K and $450 for each, it was in their press releases. I was not aware that the average income was that high for LR.