I happened to see a new land rover LR# model, and took a peek inside. I was shocked-for a $50K plus vehicle, you get a cheap-looking plastic interior, reminiscent of a low-end Chevrolet. Why are these things so expensive? They certainly don’t look like much to me. :eek:
It’s pretty much just the bond we formed when “Born Free” first came out.
The interior is not everything. They’re very capable off-road. Not to mention, they’re sort of a status symbol.
That said, I think the interior of the LR3 looks great: neat, businesslike, with tasteful wood trim, and clean lines. And what would you expect it to be made of, other than plastic? You don’t get cars with leather-wrapped dashboards for less than $80-$90K.
Low-end Chevrolet: http://www.chevrolet.com/i/pic/aveo/2007/photogallery/popup_int_gallery02.jpg
Beats me. They’re overpriced, under-appointed, mechanically unsound, electrical nightmares. And they ride like a church pew.
They ride tough on the road, but damn, they really do the job off-road - my husband had to drive his brother-in-law’s once, and while he hated it on the road, he said it handled everything off it smooth as silk.
Having driven an old-skool landrover at 45 mph across a muddy, rutted field - in reverse - I’d say it has to be off-road performance. They’re very uncomfortable and unattractive otherwise, IMO.
Same reason why people buy any other kind of station-wagon-with-big-inpractical-prone-to-roll-over-wheels, AKA SUVs - because 50 Cent and other rappers drive them.
They got their reputation when their only serious competition was Jeep–and most Jeep models were smaller with rag tops. Later, Jeep started building larger stuff, then Chevy Blazer and Ford Bronco started edging into similar territory, but without the cachet of the older Land name. Eventually Toyota jumped into the U.S. market, then the whole world started building similar beasts.
Land simply had the prestige name long enough to keep their prices up long after they had fallen to the middle rank of quality. (Lately, even their off-road performance has been suffering from quality control issues.)
If you don’t like 'em, vote with your wallet.
Ehh.
Just bought a new Pathfinder. Honestly, I did not look very close at the Rovers because they are ridiculously overpriced, and while it may be a little better off road than say a Pathfinder(my new vehicle) or a 4Runner(the other I was considering) I would not buy one because they also seem to have serious reliability issues.
I count reliability, and dependability at near the top when I buy a vehicle. An extra half inch of ground clearance isn’t gonna do a thing for you if the vehicle doesn’t start.
In another thread, it was said that you should expect serious mechanical problems before 100,000 miles. Sounds like a ’72 Chevy to me.
The actual Land (not Range) Rovers were some of the most reliable and dependable vehicles ever built, because they were designed for farmers and the like.
Leaf springs, aluminium bodywork, diesel engines - they were crappy to ride in but you could drive one across the sahara and do running repairs with a lump hammer and porridge oats.
Nowadays, that’s not really very relevant, because not many people are ever going to take their vehicles up goat tracks or along dry river beds with a couple of hundred pounds of agricultural supplies or whatever in the back. Something like this is regarded as being ‘off-road’ and requiring an SUV when in fact it’s just a slightly crappy road and a Volkswagen can deal with it fine. If you occasionally need to put up with this to go and check on the sheep in the top pasture, then there are very few vehicles that can cope, and you certainly wouldn’t want the interior to be anything other than metal and plastic.
How an agricultural vehicle gradually evolved into a bling-bling status symbol is beyond me, but the original Landy is an automotive classic for a good reason.
For amusing Land Rover shenannigans, I recommend the movie The Gods Must be Crazy. Of particular note is the use of the front winch… (those who’ve seen the movie will know what I’m on about.)
The Anti-Christ is a Land Rover! IMO the Land Rovers you see all over the freeways are no better than any other SUV.
Correct. Now, the ones I rode in on safari in Africa were a different animal. Much larger, six-wheels, and built exclusively for off-road use. Surprisingly comfortable even when roaring across the Serengeti.
Land Rovers have gone wimpy. The rot set in when they put proper seats in them, instead of the old bench seats.
His latest ride is a Lamborghini.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/50-cent-arrested-for-being-an-asshole.php
If it’s got mud all over the bodywork, you’ve got a reason to drive the thing. If not, then piss off and buy something more sensible, because I’m driving the same roads as you in a miniscule Nissan creation, and I somehow manage to cope with everything too.
That’s the mentality I adopt each day, every day, because I encounter plenty of real Land Rover drivers, and only a smaller bunch of the fashionable/parents-gone-obsessive types.
They’re already two steps ahead of you.
Did I mention my (some would say)irrationally prejudiced view that all SUV drivers are assholes?
:rolleyes:
Bleh. Give me a Land Cruiser any day of the week. And not one of the “FJ Cruiser” monstrosities that Toyota just came out with. I’m talking about this, baby.
This past summer I traveled around the Outback (alice springs, uluru, kings canyon) of Australia doing some conservation work, and there were tons of Toyota Land Cruisers (Troopies). I suppose the proximity to their country of origin could be a factor in their use over Discos(although I know less than nothing about where Land Rovers are actually produced). Anyway, it did a pretty swell job bouncing around the outback(and we did some serious off-roading),… it even had a snorkel feature for the occasional flash flood.
Bah. Since when has mud all been a uniform colour? And where’s the chunks of grass and everything?