Would you buy a Range Rover?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just to correct an earlier comment in this thread....land rover makes both range rover and land rovers. range rovers can be extremely expensive. We bought an LR a few years ago, and it was in the same pricerange as an Acura MDX. The LR had some features we liked more. I personally don't like driving the LR bc i think they are pretentious, but in reality, it cost about the same as an MDX (where are almost a dime a dozen in bethesda)...

The LR3 screams "I want to snub my nose at you but can't afford the real thing". Plenty of better cars in that price range.

Agreed, but the LR4 is a stud of a luxury SUV. Typically problematic like most LRs, but a cool, fun more baller SUV than the Tahoe/Escalade/Q7/Cayenne alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just to correct an earlier comment in this thread....land rover makes both range rover and land rovers. range rovers can be extremely expensive. We bought an LR a few years ago, and it was in the same pricerange as an Acura MDX. The LR had some features we liked more. I personally don't like driving the LR bc i think they are pretentious, but in reality, it cost about the same as an MDX (where are almost a dime a dozen in bethesda)...

The LR3 screams "I want to snub my nose at you but can't afford the real thing". Plenty of better cars in that price range.

Agreed, but the LR4 is a stud of a luxury SUV. Typically problematic like most LRs, but a cool, fun more baller SUV than the Tahoe/Escalade/Q7/Cayenne alternatives.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people would buy a crappy driving SUV over a wagon.

The E-class wagon looks a heck of a lot nicer and is going to be better to drive and park, if you are looking to blow a lot of money on a "Family" car.

This.

+2

rich people with taste buy E63 S AMG wagons.

DH LOVES that car, but I cannot bring myself to own a station wagon. Even if it can take on a 911.

[Anonymous]

I drive a Mercedes R350, and have put 114,000 miles on it so far without encountering anything but routine maintenance issues. Also, as each year passes, I see fewer and fewer of them on the road, as they are no longer sold in the U.S. My only criticism of the Range Rover is that they appear to be the ubiquitous affluent person's car du jour, and they are now everywhere in certain neighborhoods, or around certain schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people would buy a crappy driving SUV over a wagon.

The E-class wagon looks a heck of a lot nicer and is going to be better to drive and park, if you are looking to blow a lot of money on a "Family" car.

This.

+2

rich people with taste buy E63 S AMG wagons.

DH LOVES that car, but I cannot bring myself to own a station wagon. Even if it can take on a 911.

you aren't stylish enough to own an estate car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the market for a family SUV. DH and I both love the Range Rover minus all the maintenance problems. We can afford it. Since it is unreliable, we would probably also buy another more reliable SUV for when RR would be in the shop.

Would you buy the Range Rover knowing you will probably buy another family car due to RR's unreliability?

"Since it is unreliable?" Not in my experience it isn't.

I drive a 14-years old RR that I bought from a RR dealer for cash when it was 4 years old (with 21.5 K miles on it.) Presently about 51K miles on it.

What "unreliability?" Have never spent more than a few hundred a year on it, routine maintenance and such. If winter conditions are passable, it'll get me there.

My other vehicle is a fifteen year old Volvo V70R AWD that I bought new from a Volvo dealer, also for cash. Its electrical system has a cerebral hemorrage every few thousand miles. It is presently inoperable.

I got in a no-report necessary collision with a riceburner auto a few miles from home. A neophyte driver ran into me. His car sustained about $2.5 damage; mine had scratches in the paint. RR paid for itself then. Screw gas mileage: mass + size = safety for your loved ones.

Transported to Africa, I could probably chase rhinos (RINOs ?) with my RR. Never have and never will take it off road. But it gives me the giggles to think I can go
ten thousand places your sedan can't go.

Sometimes just the satisfaction of having what I always wanted is worth paying the necessary to have it. If other areas of your finances are well provided for, and you want a RR, treat yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the market for a family SUV. DH and I both love the Range Rover minus all the maintenance problems. We can afford it. Since it is unreliable, we would probably also buy another more reliable SUV for when RR would be in the shop.

Would you buy the Range Rover knowing you will probably buy another family car due to RR's unreliability?

"Since it is unreliable?" Not in my experience it isn't.

I drive a 14-years old RR that I bought from a RR dealer for cash when it was 4 years old (with 21.5 K miles on it.) Presently about 51K miles on it.

What "unreliability?" Have never spent more than a few hundred a year on it, routine maintenance and such. If winter conditions are passable, it'll get me there.

My other vehicle is a fifteen year old Volvo V70R AWD that I bought new from a Volvo dealer, also for cash. Its electrical system has a cerebral hemorrage every few thousand miles. It is presently inoperable.

I got in a no-report necessary collision with a riceburner auto a few miles from home. A neophyte driver ran into me. His car sustained about $2.5 K damage; mine had scratches in the paint. RR paid for itself then. Screw gas mileage: mass + size = safety for your loved ones.

Transported to Africa, I could probably chase rhinos (RINOs ?) with my RR. Never have and never will take it off road. But it gives me the giggles to think I can go
ten thousand places your sedan can't go.

Sometimes just the satisfaction of having what I always wanted is worth paying the necessary to have it. If other areas of your finances are well provided for, and you want a RR, treat yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the market for a family SUV. DH and I both love the Range Rover minus all the maintenance problems. We can afford it. Since it is unreliable, we would probably also buy another more reliable SUV for when RR would be in the shop.

Would you buy the Range Rover knowing you will probably buy another family car due to RR's unreliability?

"Since it is unreliable?" Not in my experience it isn't.

I drive a 14-years old RR that I bought from a RR dealer for cash when it was 4 years old (with 21.5 K miles on it.) Presently about 51K miles on it.

What "unreliability?" Have never spent more than a few hundred a year on it, routine maintenance and such. If winter conditions are passable, it'll get me there.

My other vehicle is a fifteen year old Volvo V70R AWD that I bought new from a Volvo dealer, also for cash. Its electrical system has a cerebral hemorrage every few thousand miles. It is presently inoperable.

I got in a no-report necessary collision with a riceburner auto a few miles from home. A neophyte driver ran into me. His car sustained about $2.5 damage; mine had scratches in the paint. RR paid for itself then. Screw gas mileage: mass + size = safety for your loved ones.

Transported to Africa, I could probably chase rhinos (RINOs ?) with my RR. Never have and never will take it off road. But it gives me the giggles to think I can go
ten thousand places your sedan can't go.

Sometimes just the satisfaction of having what I always wanted is worth paying the necessary to have it. If other areas of your finances are well provided for, and you want a RR, treat yourselves.

Not really. SUVs are less likely to sustain damage in a collision, but the increased danger from rollovers cancels that out, so they aren't any safer. I've seen enough soccer moms try to take corners at the same speed they do in a Camry to think that is a real danger If you have one of the newer SUVs with anti-rollover technology, then you may be safer in the SUV. An SUV is more likely to do damage to another vehicle as well. Of course if you are a lobbyist, you already don't care about that, so never mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just to correct an earlier comment in this thread....land rover makes both range rover and land rovers. range rovers can be extremely expensive. We bought an LR a few years ago, and it was in the same pricerange as an Acura MDX. The LR had some features we liked more. I personally don't like driving the LR bc i think they are pretentious, but in reality, it cost about the same as an MDX (where are almost a dime a dozen in bethesda)...

The LR3 screams "I want to snub my nose at you but can't afford the real thing". Plenty of better cars in that price range.

Agreed, but the LR4 is a stud of a luxury SUV. Typically problematic like most LRs, but a cool, fun more baller SUV than the Tahoe/Escalade/Q7/Cayenne alternatives.

No, the LR4's are driven by soccer mom who couldn't afford a Range Rover.

[Anonymous]

*soccer moms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Since it is unreliable?" Not in my experience it isn't.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't outweigh the mountains of empirical data indicating that Land Rovers are well below average in reliability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people would buy a crappy driving SUV over a wagon.

The E-class wagon looks a heck of a lot nicer and is going to be better to drive and park, if you are looking to blow a lot of money on a "Family" car.

This.

+2

rich people with taste buy E63 S AMG wagons.

DH LOVES that car, but I cannot bring myself to own a station wagon. Even if it can take on a 911.

you aren't stylish enough to own an estate car.

Lol. Yes, unfortunately I'm only stylish enough to own a RR autobiography and an Aston Martin. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

autobiography????

[Anonymous]

I'm British. Range Rovers have a certain connotation there. The green welly, Barbour jacket wearing, weekend hunting on country estates set.

They were the first SUVs (in the UK).

Landrovers are what the real farmers drive, not the land-owning gentry who have never got their hands dirty and leave running the farm to the peasants. They drive their kids to boarding school in a Range Rover.

It reminds me of the old (80s) joke:

What's the difference between a range rover and a hedgehog?
With the Range Rover the pricks are on the inside.

[Anonymous]

Case in point:

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/what-does-your-ride-say-about-you-here-are-13-stereotypes/

How do I prove that I am considerably richer than you? By buying a massive car that could, in theory, traverse the most intimidating terrain on planet Earth. And then I shall use it to cruise the streets of Knightsbridge, to intimidate you in your second-hand vehicle as I pick up my pretentiously named children from school. All from a seating position high above you in what I believe is a metaphor for our places in society. Look away, peasant!