shoehead

I was wondering if it is just me or if its a fact that Range rover's mechanical quality is bad. If so what problems are common.More specifically land rover range rover.
Thanks

encore888

According to the recent JD Power figures, Land Rover sadly is far worse than every other manufacturer in problems.

Last ranked in Initial Quality and Long Term Dependability.

Lexmex

Last year I want down to a Mazda dealer in Mexico City to help a friend get something repaired. Mazda invited us to watch while they did the work (under warranty even though a U.S. Mazda ), however they share their space with Lincoln, Mercury and Land Rover.

We walked around and except for one vehicle where the owner forgot to change their oil some really nasty mechanical failures, broken rods, chipped valves, engines that had to be taken out in full, even one that had blowby (something I use to hear from my uncles about in their younger days). Good thing this area was kind of hidden from any potential Land Rover buyers, but I have had a few friends with Freelanders who hate the things and ended up switching to new RAV4s.

mmarshall

That chart is WAY out of date. First, it still has Oldsmobile on it. Second, Mercedes, since then, has fallen to the bottom of the list.........with Land Rover. Third, Subaru, Kia, and Hyundai, today, are all much better than that chart indicates. Fourth, it is a J.D. Power chart.....and Consumer Reports traditionally does a more accurate job. Fifth, if you look at Jaguar's actual reliability record in the last several years, it is nowhere as high as that chart shows....particularly the X-Body. Sixth, Infiniti's showing, at best, is an average between the very reliable G, M, and FX models and the very unreliable QX56. There are many other problems with the chart also, but I don't have time to list them all.
This is why I don't recomend J.D. Power as a good source of auto relability...Consumer Reports, in my experience, does a much better job.

mmarshall

A real shame, because Land Rovers, despite their unreliability, are some of the best vehicles in the world for classic off-roading. They have an uncanny ability to combine comfort BOTH on AND off-road.....something is very difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, reliability has never been a Land Rover forte, especially in electronics.

The Toyota Land Cruiser and Lexus LX470 probably come closest to the Land Rover standard of combining both off-and on-road engineering.....and both are far more reliable.

Gojirra99

Actually, it's the latest chart available for 3-year-old vehicles . . .

encore888

It is the latest chart and it's based on a Long-Term Dependability survey which is how cars have performed over 3 years. But Land Rover also scored last on the Initial Quality study which was this year, first 30 days of ownership. And in Consumer Reports the cars have reliability as bad as Mercedes, pretty much.

UTGS400

I wouldn't think test results from 2006 would be considered "WAY" out of date.

I am surprised to see toyota dropped down so far.

uplusd

NEVER buy a range rover. Mechanical nightmare.

encore888

Here it is. Mercedes ranked...25 or so

Also a link to the Consumer Reports press release on predicted reliability, 2006. The graphics links don't work though.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...eng0604rel.htm

spwolf

you seem to be mixing things. This is reliability chart not pretty dumb "initial quality" chart. It means it tracks brakedowns for 3 year old cars.

I find it hard to believe that there will be huge improvements for any brands in 2 years.

This chart is dead accurate in what it reports - reliability for 3 year old cars. Everything else is assumptions, and IQS is basically "how happy are you with your purchase" chart, and has nothing to do with reliability.

mmarshall

I looked at the chart pretty carefully. Yes, I know the difference between the IQS and the long-term quality stats. This chart clearly said IQS ( Initial Quality ) ....not 3-year-olds.

Still, yes, it is my opinion that Consumer Reports does a better job than J.D. Power.....and there are strong reasons for that opinion, built up over many years. Unfortunately, CR does not allow access to a lot of their data on-line unless you are a subscriber.....and that defeats the very purpose of it. If you get the paper copy you don't NEED it on-line unless you want to look way back in archives.

TheRupp

Yes, I agree... but unfortunately Consumer Reports claims themselves as an NPO. Additionally, if you are a subscriber to the magazine, you don't get access to the website.

I've always been curious... what's measured in IQS's anyway? I never understood that other than an advertising point. Doesn't make sense to me.

I've heard a lot of problems with Land Rovers and Range Rovers, but as mentioned, the versatility of the vehicles capabilities between rocks and pavement is unmatchable.

mavericck

Does anyone know what specifically (parts) tend to wrong with these LRs?

sdbrandon

People still buy and love the Land Rover.

The key phrase is "reliable enough". Just because it is at the bottom does not make it a bad vehicle. And it is no way suggests how many dealer visits are required to fix an issue or all issues.

You can have one issue, like the ES350 tranny problem that may require 10 or more dealer visits.

I say buy whatever is going to make you happy and enjoy it.

People buy MB because they like them. We read these studies and we forget how reliable cars are overall. I can't remember the last time I saw a dead mercedes on the side of the road.

If Mercury is almost as good as a Lexus, that says a lot about the industry.