NEW 2013 Range Rover

ranger rovers are overrated and depreciate like crazy. their mpg is trash and have a ton of mechanical issues. they're just a status symbol for ppl that wana show off. and the new one looks just like the ford explorer as someone pointed out

check craigslist for used range rovers. drop over 50% in value in a couple of years. 
 
ranger rovers are overrated and depreciate like crazy. their mpg is trash and have a ton of mechanical issues. they're just a status symbol for ppl that wana show off. and the new one looks just like the ford explorer as someone pointed out

check craigslist for used range rovers. drop over 50% in value in a couple of years. 
This can't be restated enough.

When Ford took them over, their quality suffered immensely.

They've been at or near the bottom of every quality ranking system in the industry for close to a decade. 
 
I wonder if Consumer Report will rank it dead last. Apparently this is the worst vehicle you can purchase in the entire market :lol:
 
grin.gif
 
This new model shares the same platform as some Jaguar vehicles. Jaguar & Range Rover are both owned by Tata Motors now.

Tata is definitely struggling in the design department seeing as they are drawing cues from Ford and not the other way around.
 
This can't be restated enough.

When Ford took them over, their quality suffered immensely.

They've been at or near the bottom of every quality ranking system in the industry for close to a decade. 


So should I cop a VW instead? FOH!!!!


Black on Black on Black will be copped and pics will be uploaded for the Beasts
 
This can't be restated enough.

When Ford took them over, their quality suffered immensely.

They've been at or near the bottom of every quality ranking system in the industry for close to a decade. 

So should I cop a VW instead? FOH!!!!


Black on Black on Black will be copped and pics will be uploaded for the Beasts
Because VW's are the only other vehicle?

Having a Range Rover doesn't mean anything when it can barely get out of the driveway without having an internal problem.
 
Man I'm always hearing about how terrible RRs. Are they really that terrible?
Go to any automotive forum and read the comments, read any professional ranking or rating system magazine/blog/article, or ask owners themselves.

Get a decent sample size and you'll see a picture emerge of an overpriced "luxury" vehicle that is not worth its weight in basic errors, mistakes, and problems. 

Its been this way for years. People just overlook it because of the message the car sends. 

Its just NOT worth it.

The only thing you'll see in new car reviews is how the vehicle handles...and its just alright. Its not particularly efficient, fast, agile, or even that off-road capable. They'll just compare to last year's model and express how they feel about it after only spending 2 hours with it. 

2 hours isn't enough for a purchase on a vehicle. 

But hey, most people don't learn and they get burned later on. 
 
^Jezza and Co, would say otherwise, as RFX stated.
But then again, they also say the E60/61is ugly. I guess I'll have to see for myself
 
Strong sensor and suspension issues. Minor but costly. If I'm forced to pay top dollar for maintenance and service pass me the new Cayenne.
 
Strong sensor and suspension issues. Minor but costly. If I'm forced to pay top dollar for maintenance and service pass me the new Cayenne.
This mirrors what I've heard.

Most of the forums I've seen negative commentary on have said that the issues while "minor" are mostly lodged by a group of people who have the money to be buying those cars anyways so they don't see it as a concern...BUT the problems themselves are the type of thing that you wouldn't expect on a premium vehicle.

For example, why the hell would the window switch and motor short out on a significant number of new Rovers? Why does the bumper randomly come off? Why are electrical problems causing signal misfires in the cabin? 

Its the type of thing that you'd expect a recent electrical engineering graduate to have figured out. Not a car company at this stage. 
 
^ ^ ^
I'm not too sure with the backend of the new Cayenne, it seems confused or unfinished. The taillights simply looks like a blob, like they just threw a clay to the corner and whatever shape it made is what they used when they designed it. The GTS though...
svtdhw.jpg




^Jezza and Co, would say otherwise, as RFX stated.
But then again, they also say the E60/61is ugly. I guess I'll have to see for myself

To be fair, the Bangle butt has really turned a lot of people off the E60. It's also the main complaint on the E63/E64. Mos will agree that the E60 is one of the best performing sedans ever but most will also agree it isn't the prettiest.
 
^ ^ ^
Again to be fair, RR did have this design first before Ford adapted it with the Flex and then the Explorer. The new RR just happens to evolve more toward the Ford design than RR but they did have this distinct style way before Ford.

The current gen Explorer came out in 2010 but the LRX concept (which turned into the Evoque) was revealed in 2008 and was probably designed way before then.
fc3f4y.jpg
 
The OG Cayenne always looked better to me. Its stance mirrored a proper SUV and not a feeble cross-over. 
 
Back
Top Bottom