Anonymous wrote:It’s because a new Range Rover would look ridiculous parked in the driveway of an average $400K flyover country McMansion. While nobody bats an eye at a Tahoe or Yukon, no matter how many tacky options it has.
Anonymous wrote:It certainly does not look anywhere near as elegant as the new Range Rover, which costs just a little more.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, it's Tahoe with make up on. Noway I am driving that junk.
Never driven a Tahoe or Denali, huh? These are straight up bad ass luxury trucks. I'd take one of these over a Range Rover, Mercedes or BMW any day of the week. Not to mention the towing capacity, should you need it.
That’s because you are a low class. I wouldn’t say it out loud.
Anonymous wrote:My prior very very very very rich boss used to complain that she cant drive a German or Japanese car. or SUV to her Hamptons mansion. In fact most of her very very wealthy neighbors all drive Chevys.
I then as why. She tells me the Chevy Suburban is only SUV that seats up to 9 passengers. She had configuration eight as two buckets in first row. Plus she needs room for luggage behind third row.
She has four kids, husband. That is six. She then brings her Nanny which is seven and sometimes if throwing a party her Cook too which is eight.
She has a cute Porsche at her beach house for her and her husband date nights. But back and forth the rich drive Chevys, also sometimes Escalades i
Anonymous wrote:You sound out of touch. $80k isn’t a luxury SUV price point anymore. A Tahoe with leather seats is gonna be $75+
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, it's Tahoe with make up on. Noway I am driving that junk.
Never driven a Tahoe or Denali, huh? These are straight up bad ass luxury trucks. I'd take one of these over a Range Rover, Mercedes or BMW any day of the week. Not to mention the towing capacity, should you need it.
Anonymous wrote:
I cannot relate to some people's valuation of cars. These are all so ugly. The bigger, the uglier.
I just spent that much on my child's instrument, so I'm not poor. But a car would have to be much more streamlined and elegant for me to pay such a sum.
Anonymous wrote:No, it's Tahoe with make up on. Noway I am driving that junk.
Anonymous wrote:American garbage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:![]()
For $80K, its rear, rear quarter, and side profile do absolutely nothing for me. In black or white, it would just blend it with everything else large on the road; like a fed or rental car company fleet SUV. With a metallic paint, the ostentatious huge chrome grille says tarted up brash American SUV.
Compared to a $93K New Range Rover, which oozes elegance and $$$$$ from every angle, it seems like a rip-off. That said, the New Range Rover is probably more like $100K if you can even find one for sale, and 25% more dinero is not an insignificant sum.
The Range Rover is ugly. And always broken.
The Range Rover comes from a tradition of driving over rutty country roads and fields, which implies having money. The SUV is for driving around suburbia.