Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 14, 2014, 08:39:03 PM

Title: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 14, 2014, 08:39:03 PM
Anyone here offer any advice.   Looking to pick up a used RR.  Nothing older than 2007 to 2011. 
Just wondering about reliability and maintenance
What year did they start coming with a supercharger
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: jude2 on January 14, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
My father in law is a mechanic and he said the range rovers fill the shop with problems??
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 14, 2014, 08:46:15 PM
My father in law is a mechanic and he said the range rovers fill the shop with problems??
Really. Faaaack. I can't afford that.  I've always wanted one
Perhaps I'll just lease a new one for a year.  Save long term
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Schnauzer on January 14, 2014, 08:46:32 PM
Reliability is horrible. Be sure you have a good warranty.

 http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/why-your-next-unreliable-luxury-car-should-come-from-ca-814250605  (http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/why-your-next-unreliable-luxury-car-should-come-from-ca-814250605)
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: O.Z. on January 14, 2014, 09:10:15 PM
I had Sport model for 3 years, never had any problem. Great car. Mind you I am in love with my spanking new Jeep GC Limited, at half  prize of RR Sport
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 14, 2014, 09:13:54 PM
I had Sport model for 3 years, never had any problem. Great car. Mind you I am in love with my spanking new Jeep GC Limited, at half  prize of RR Sport
I love the srt GC.   But the hemi is killer on fuel and not sure about the latest model but I know older models didn't even have a tow option due to centre exit exhaust
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: O.Z. on January 14, 2014, 09:19:53 PM
I love the srt GC.   But the hemi is killer on fuel and not sure about the latest model but I know older models didn't even have a tow option due to centre exit exhaust

New SRT is a fucking beast, 6.4 L, 350KW engine, 624Nm torque. Awesome machine, but it would drain your wallet for petrol.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: WalterWhite on January 14, 2014, 09:35:26 PM
I just think there are so many better options for far less money. Also insurance will be through the roof.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 14, 2014, 09:42:25 PM
Anyone here offer any advice.   Looking to pick up a used RR.  Nothing older than 2007 to 2011. 
Just wondering about reliability and maintenance
What year did they start coming with a supercharger


Good for going off road (how often would you really do that?) and not much else.  Exceptionally poor reliability... would not allow anyone I care about to buy a RR.  Bah!

Doom disapproves.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Tapeworm on January 14, 2014, 09:47:24 PM
As a rule: Don't buy anything from the UK made after 1960.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 14, 2014, 09:50:04 PM
I thought they were now owned by the sand niggas
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Bevo on January 15, 2014, 12:41:04 AM
I own a current sport model , so far too early, 3k miles no problems. I also alternate driving with another vehicle. Great car but I've heard many stories , lots of electrical problems and little stuff here and there
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: ESFitness on January 15, 2014, 12:54:59 AM
once your warranty runs out get ready for about $3k a year in repairs and maintenance.

I was looking at them a while back as well. general consensus was either lease it or buy brand new or with less than 20k and get a warranty and sell it before the warranty runs out.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: The_Punisher on January 15, 2014, 05:41:44 AM
shit, Range Rover are just a name...they used to be the SUV that was reliable 20yrs ago.....JD power and associate put out a list of cars that drain the wallet and Range Rover was second on the list as having more issues.....3 out of every 10 range rover will head to the mechanics after 3yrs of usage...damn.....British don't make these SUVs anymore, their prestige is no longer what they used to be...Land Rover had 220 problems per 100 vehicles.....wow

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/02/land-rover-and-jd-power/




Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Lord Humungous on January 15, 2014, 05:53:09 AM
My Discovery has been totally reliable for the past 4 years
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Trojan Muscle on January 15, 2014, 03:55:42 PM
Don't do it!  Didn't think lightening would strike twice, but I've "Lemon Lawed" 2 HSEs...
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 15, 2014, 07:24:22 PM
The only car worth leasing. You won't want to own it.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: XFACTOR on January 15, 2014, 07:49:07 PM
The only car worth leasing. You won't want to own it.

legit comment! Listen to this
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: JBGRAY on January 15, 2014, 07:53:37 PM
Junk.  Trash.  Garbage.  Unless you are getting one that isn't made for the US market.

Parts very expensive.  Reliability by way of electrical/program issues.  MUST go to a dealer to fix about 95% of your issues, tacking on absurd repair costs on top of pricey parts.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 15, 2014, 09:47:48 PM
ive decided to rent one for a month... that should scratch the itch  lol
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: macos on January 15, 2014, 11:23:02 PM
How much does a hummer H2 second hand cost?
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: LiftEaTsLeEpRePeAt on January 15, 2014, 11:31:46 PM
How much does a hummer H2 second hand cost?
20g   ?? Ive had one.  Not a fan    horrible on fuel and handle like shit.   not good for off road either.   Not that I plan to go off roading
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: macos on January 15, 2014, 11:37:21 PM

I want to own a couple, some day.

Is it really tough as shit??
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: ESFitness on January 15, 2014, 11:55:54 PM
20g   ?? Ive had one.  Not a fan    horrible on fuel and handle like shit.   not good for off road either.   Not that I plan to go off roading

the listed MPG is like 12-15, but in reality you get 8-10 avg.. and it's not as big inside as you expect.

there's a reason range rovers go for less than 10k, they're shit after a few years.

I loved the h2, but 8mpg sucks and it's not like I couldn't afford the gas, but it's a pain in the ass stopping at the gas station every couple days to fill up.

for a luxury truck/suv, I'd rather get a 09+ escalade or even a pre owned GL350 diesel or gl450.... gf has a GL550 and it's nice. not quite like an S-Class Suv equivalent, more like an E-Class.

hell, for $20k you can pick up a CPO Tahoe.

if you get an ML, everytime you pull up next to a GL you'll get jealous. (same with an E-Class pulling up next to an S-Class, or even a CLS (an Eclass with bodywork) pulling up to an S-Class)

I do like the QX56's though.

slim pickin's for luxury SUV's  :-\
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: macos on January 15, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
Is the latest US army standard jeep up for sale?
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Mr Nobody on January 16, 2014, 12:09:01 AM
Those things are dangerous.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: macos on January 16, 2014, 12:42:36 AM
The jeeps?
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 19, 2014, 10:51:18 AM
A car dealer’s scientific guide to the 10 worst used vehicles

10. Volkswagen New Beetle (automatic transmission issues and cheap interior components; diesel models with 5-speed manuals are by far the best powertrain option.)

9. Mazda 626 (automatic transmission issues, all models.)

8. Lincoln Aviator (a gussied-up, unpopular Ford Explorer that had unique sensor and software issues which negatively impacted the overall powertrain and electronics.)

7. Jaguar S-Type (Extensive transmission and engine issues on all V-6 and V-8 models. Along with Limited edition models with ungodly replacement costs.)

6. Lincoln LS (Same basic powertrain as the Jaguar S-Type with nearly identical results.)

5. Mazda Millenia (Engine issues, transmission issues and cheap interiors that just don't wear well.)

4. Land Rover Discovery (Expensive parts. Expensive powertrains. Electronics that are apparently the spawn of Beelzebub.)

3. Mini Cooper (Bad transmissions that are unusually expensive to replace. Cheap interior parts. Cheap hydraulics.)

2. Land Rover Freelander (A cost-cutting exercise that went way past the bone.)

1. Mazda CX-7 (Engine issues on these vehicles are legion with nearly a third of these vehicles sold with "Engine needs service" announcements at the auctions.)

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/car-dealer-scientific-guide-10-worst-used-vehicles-222709616.html


Two of the ten are Land Rover vehicles.  Bah!
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Roger Bacon on January 19, 2014, 10:56:19 AM
As a rule: Don't buy anything from the UK made after 1960.


It's also a good idea to stay away from anything made in the UK before 1960.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Bevo on January 19, 2014, 11:13:16 AM

It's also a good idea to stay away from anything made in the UK before 1960.

Uk vehicles are some of the worse built. Even Jeremy clarkson acknowledges this

That being said I hope my range rover remains trouble free ;D
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Roger Bacon on January 19, 2014, 11:21:01 AM
Uk vehicles are some of the worse built. Even Jeremy clarkson acknowledges this

That being said I hope my range rover remains trouble free ;D

I think they say you only need to worry when your British bike stops leaking oil.  ;D
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: galeniko on January 19, 2014, 11:23:14 AM
the evoque is the best looking there ever was
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: FitnessFrenzy on January 19, 2014, 11:33:20 AM
OP, get a Porsche Cayenne. That's quality!
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 19, 2014, 11:54:32 AM
the evoque is the best looking there ever was

In a detailed report Consumer Reports trashed the Evoque.  Car and Driver thought it way overpriced compared to its competitors.  Predicted reliability?  Fatal!  Bah!
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: galeniko on January 19, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
In a detailed report Consumer Reports trashed the Evoque.  Car and Driver thought it way overpriced compared to its competitors.  Predicted reliability?  Fatal!  Bah!
i know all that, but its by far the best looking suv out there.

just looks, the rest is trash, its a range rover after all ;D

they are not just overpriced they are ridicolously fraudulently overpriced.

but i wish that the designer becomes a very rich man 8)
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Dave D on January 19, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
A car dealer’s scientific guide to the 10 worst used vehicles

10. Volkswagen New Beetle (automatic transmission issues and cheap interior components; diesel models with 5-speed manuals are by far the best powertrain option.)

9. Mazda 626 (automatic transmission issues, all models.)

8. Lincoln Aviator (a gussied-up, unpopular Ford Explorer that had unique sensor and software issues which negatively impacted the overall powertrain and electronics.)

7. Jaguar S-Type (Extensive transmission and engine issues on all V-6 and V-8 models. Along with Limited edition models with ungodly replacement costs.)

6. Lincoln LS (Same basic powertrain as the Jaguar S-Type with nearly identical results.)

5. Mazda Millenia (Engine issues, transmission issues and cheap interiors that just don't wear well.)

4. Land Rover Discovery (Expensive parts. Expensive powertrains. Electronics that are apparently the spawn of Beelzebub.)

3. Mini Cooper (Bad transmissions that are unusually expensive to replace. Cheap interior parts. Cheap hydraulics.)

2. Land Rover Freelander (A cost-cutting exercise that went way past the bone.)

1. Mazda CX-7 (Engine issues on these vehicles are legion with nearly a third of these vehicles sold with "Engine needs service" announcements at the auctions.)

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/car-dealer-scientific-guide-10-worst-used-vehicles-222709616.html


Two of the ten are Land Rover vehicles.  Bah!

Great list, thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: O.Z. on January 19, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
the evoque is the best looking there ever was

looks good but small inside, new RR Sport has similar lines, looks great
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 19, 2014, 05:59:05 PM
looks good but small inside, new RR Sport has similar lines, looks great

Cramped interior, poor rear visibility, harsh ride.  Respectable off road but not competitive as a luxury SUV given its peer group.  

Doom disapproves.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: oldtimer1 on January 19, 2014, 08:41:38 PM
I think the first priority in a car you want to own and not rent (lease) for a couple of years is reliability. Range Rovers have a bad reputation for breaking down.

On a side note I was talking to a guy from South America. He said all the roads by him are not paved and no one has a 4 wheel drive vehicle. He said in NJ it seems half the cars are 4 wheel drive. He wanted to know where all he dirt roads were in NJ because he hasn't seen one since he move here.
Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 19, 2014, 09:24:44 PM
I think the first priority in a car you want to own and not rent (lease) for a couple of years is reliability. Range Rovers have a bad reputation for breaking down.

On a side note I was talking to a guy from South America. He said all the roads by him are not paved and no one has a 4 wheel drive vehicle. He said in NJ it seems half the cars are 4 wheel drive. He wanted to know where all he dirt roads were in NJ because he hasn't seen one since he move here.

Actually, you can pull reliability out of the equation if you will only own the car for 3-4 years.  These days, almost every car is reliable within the warranty period.  What you should worry about is what happens after the warranty.  How much will you have to pay to maintain the car?  That's where Land Rovers fall down.  They require frequent repair and you'll be lucky to get out of the shop for under $2000 per visit.  Handling and driving enjoyment is subpar to put it mildly.  Luxury?  No.  The only reason to have one is if you drive off road a majority of the time.  If you live in third world country and drive in jungle, a dessert, or harsh conditions, crossing small creeks, etc. then you want a LR.  Even in that circumstance there are better options such as the Toyota LandCruiser or FJ Cruiser (now discontinued).

Title: Re: Range rover
Post by: oldtimer1 on January 20, 2014, 04:46:25 AM
Actually, you can pull reliability out of the equation if you will only own the car for 3-4 years.  These days, almost every car is reliable within the warranty period.  What you should worry about is what happens after the warranty.  How much will you have to pay to maintain the car?  That's where Land Rovers fall down.  They require frequent repair and you'll be lucky to get out of the shop for under $2000 per visit.  Handling and driving enjoyment is subpar to put it mildly.  Luxury?  No.  The only reason to have one is if you drive off road a majority of the time.  If you live in third world country and drive in jungle, a dessert, or harsh conditions, crossing small creeks, etc. then you want a LR.  Even in that circumstance there are better options such as the Toyota LandCruiser or FJ Cruiser (now discontinued).



Actually, where is your reading comprehension? That is what I said. If you lease a car for 2 or 4 years you can just about buy any car without to much concern about reliability. If you are buying a car to own to get your money's worth out of a car then reliability should be at the top of your list when considering a car.  ::)