Manhiem on 2006 Range Rover

I wish people would actually do a little research before posting. The escalade and Sub both get better mileage than your RR, even with more displacement. You also dont have to have your mechanic and tow company on speed dial in order to drive one.

 

I semi-agree; the RR is a great looking, over-priced, unreliable, wish I could afford one truck. That being said....I personally know that a Sub will NOT fold like a can of tuna upon collison; coincidentely, the owner of the largest local body is a friend of mine and drives a RR and says that the ones that he has fixed, "don't hold up like I had hoped".

My loved ones will be in an American-built, Suburban, which I can afford.

 

Suppose the thread started got his question answered, but i'll contribute to the side track discussion.

SUVs are subjectively good... My wife only drove the ML55 yrs back, then got tired of the ride height (she feels safer closer to the ground.) She has otherwise always been driving sedans/coupes, shifting to Maserati shortly after the ML was gone.

To Frank:
SUVs are not all ugly, some are better looking or just as attractive as most new sedans. The current X5(4.8) must look better than a Nissan Skyline (G35/G37) - and as we all know the G35/37 is meant to be a stylish Japanese sedan competing with the likes of the 3 and 5 series. The new ML is a very good looking SUV, looking better than the E60 5er (IMO) - in my view alot of the new cars do not look very good in particular.. The E39 looks better and more focused than the E60 - the e46 M3 STILL looks more masculine than the E92.. Skyline now looks like some design PininFarina would reject, whilst having headlights as half as long as the car's wheelbase... and the list goes on
As for the RR, it serves its purpose... Its not a performer, or even a headturner - just a classy SUV which used to be used for the safari. RR could sell a truck which resembled the quite ugly hummer, and i bet it would sell more.. (the most recent Defender, once being the only vehicle to hold its value since the 80s.)

The only mistake I think was the design of the X6 50....but thats subjective, im sure a handful think it looks great.

 

The only good vehicles to come out of Land Rover are already over 20 yrs old...
The company jump on the trend of most british car markers, and began to sell poor quality items.

The original Defender is still one of the best suvs to drive, and had the company kept its originality, the new cars would have been produced better.
BMW's contribution was to make them now look like a hollywood strip show-off, for every third person to be seen in. (not affordable, but you still see loads..)

 

So Frank, you think this is ugly too? And I'm an idiot for trading in a Corolla for it?


Image Unavailable, Please Login

I get 17-18 with a 3.7 liter. Not bad really. If I put in a throttle body spacer I'll get 3 more

 

A big part of the depreciation is due to the poor US economy. Many of the Rovers on that Manheim market report were lease repos, or as they say on the paperwork "early terminations". Every one gets returned to the dealer as well, absolutly no one in their right minds will but one at the residual number when the lease expires. I have been buying them at a 25% discount from February prices.

As for the 4.2 supercharged Rovers. They seem to be Ok until the miles rack up. We've changed out a few transfer cases and rear ends on the ones with 50k+ miles.The air shocks are always going to be a constant replacement item, problem is they now list out at $1300+, up from $800 last year. The computers need to be reflashed every year or two as the trucks slowly lose functions(a/c controls, navigation,central locks, etc) 1 or two hours labor.

 

In reading the posts that bash Rovers, I can only assume the people commenting negatively about them have never owned one. I have owned a '02 4.6HSE, an '04 HSE, and an '06 SC... all were excellent trucks and I never had to put any money in them aside from standard maintenance. They are comfortable, ride great, feel safe, and as far as I am concerned... are always the best looking SUVs on the market. I have also had the accolades of more than one 4X4 owner that was stuck in the snow near our ski cottage in upstate NY early January when no one was getting around and I was able to raise my suspension and pull folks out of snow drifts. Even when purposely trying to get it stuck, it was never lacking traction or the ability to get through anything I tried. I know what SUV I would want if I could only own one from here on.

 

You believe that the original Defender is one of the best SUVs to drive? Out of all the cars that I have ever owned my Defender continues to hold the title of the worst driving car I have ever owned.

The pedals are not centered properly (could be because it was designed to be RHD)...4 turns to lock...bad breaks...the gear knob is way to far away. I remember reading a Car and Driver review saying something about needing a gorilla to help you drive it.

I think they built the car and then thought oh wait a human needs to drive this thing…the ergonomics where an after thought.

That said I loved the car tremendously partly for its flaws...but I just cannot believe that you think it is one of the best driving SUVs.

 

You are absolutely right - it is quite rugid, but that makes it exquisite, much like a lamborghini countach (or CarreraGT for that matter.) The last time i drove LR Defender (90) was in Kampala, Uganda (where you would hardly notice the bad things) - and what i meant, was that is is one of the best trucks i have driven both on and off road.

The LR below (60th anni SVX) is the only suv i would consider, aside from a G55 - nonetheless I understand the purpose of an suv and strongly dissagree with Frank.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Respectfully, put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard. Those of us that hate range rusters are the 30% that have owned them and been unexpectedly stranded on the side of the road. Go to any Range Rover Forum - it is truly scary!

 

That SVX is very cool. I wish they still sold the Defender in the US, I think they stopped because it was so much more expensive than a fully equipped Jeep Wrangler. People were not willing to pay for the extra ruggedness of the Defender, which in their defense they most likely did not need.

I never really took my D90 off road but I have had a number of adventures in 88” Land Rovers and my old Series II 109” building wells in Peru and living in Ethiopia

 

The American version of anything is usually worse (including the hummers) - and built driven by the key principal of "Sell more, spend less"
but when it comes to off road, with a wrangler you dont care about damaging it. If you try and take an H2-3 off road, you may come out on foot.. The H1 demands respect, but began much like the Lambo LM... in the military.

 

The H2 at least is just a Chevy Tahoe so it’s useless off road. The H3 looks a little better underneath but who knows. The H1 is a really amazing truck...would never want to drive another one on public roads again but just the way all of the drive train components (apart from the engine) sit inside the cabin like in a sports car, you know it’s a serious piece of machinery. The one I drove had night vision (like my S63) and the Central Tire Inflation System which made it all the more cool.

 

Seriously, you lost all credibility in your second sentence. The H2 is one of the few vehicles you will find on the trails in stock form. It makes sense that your Defender never left the pavement.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have no problem with an suv at all if that's what you need for work, pull a trailer, ect... It's just most people I see on the road in an suv are alone and using them to commute. So either they can't afford the suv and another car to use to commute, or they are a little dense to choose a poor handling 12-15mpg behemoth to commute in. On the odd occasion we need something heavy duty to pull a trailer, we rent. And what's it with all you people hauling your dogs around in your vehicle...I have two dogs that I love, but they only get in my car when I haul them to the vet for something. But good luck on those things as gas continues to creep up until it stabilizes at about $6/gallon or so...

 

I have 2 Suvs.......
both are black and weigh over 5000.lbs
I enjoy commuting in each one
I enjoy the above average ride height and commanding view
I enjoy the winter wonderland abilities
I enjoy the cargo capacity.
I enjoy not driving a sedan

But most of all I enjoy knowing my chances of getting killed by a drunk driver are greatly diminished in a larger vehicle.

You are making suggestions that this is not a free country.....

 

Why should anyone feel obligated to buy another vehicle to commute in if they enjoy driving THEIR suv?

Could you explain what difference it makes to you whether or not someone else wants to take their dog somewhere with them? I have a German Shepherd that I "haul around with me" because I ACTUALLY love my dog and enjoy taking her places. I take her to work sometimes, I take her to the beach sometimes, I take her to the state parks to run through the woods sometimes......

I've read a lot of stupid things on this forum, but your posts in this thread rank right up there with the most ridiculous. That's why they make more than one type of vehicle - not everyone likes the same thing.

+1 (only one of mine is silver)

 

The problem is not your view, just that you are misinformed actually.. In Europe (where fuel cost even more than in US) most people who use suvs do so because it makes them feel safer when they transport their family (or a group of people.) Headroom, better usage of space within the interior and a generally more efficient way to move people around comfortably..
Car makers have caught on to that and have adjusted the way they make suvs.. Most suvs are now sporty and are designed to drive like a sedan, for the best of both worlds driving experience. Other suvs are more for off road, but still cater to comfort the passengers because they must match the qualities of the sporty suvs (atleast in the interior.) On another note, in Europe people are given more engine choices... You will find x5s with 2litre diesel engines, yet they have the full sports package so they appear as a 4.8i... You will also find diesel Range Rover Sports and HSEs... I am not sure which village you come from, but suvs have developed their own niche in the automotive industry, and it has been that way for years. All the most successful car manufactures (who mass produce) have atleast one suv on the market, besides Alfa Romeo and Fiat (but Fiat have people carriers instead ("minivans" as you call them in America.)

The fact is, is that in America you can not avoid paying more money for fuel.. Unless you drive a hot hatch, its almost impossible - American cars (including imported European ones) are all sold at the highest trims, for the most part... For example, you do not get the S300 Mercedes... You only get the S500, 550, 55 and 65... Thus, there is no way for someone to get a NICER car, with a smaller engine (like in the rest of the world.) So you bringing up fuel and low mpg is not as valid as you think, because even with a fair sedan, you will still only get around 25-30mpg, which is still expensive for most people. Most suvs share engines with sedans anyhow, so your statement is not completely true.

 

Well I am willing to be wrong. I test drove one a few years back and the interior was very much like my Suburbans so I figured it was very much the same car.

The problems that I saw for me using it off-road was the fact that it had an automatic transmission, mediocre ground clearance and that it weighed about 7000lbs. I will say though that it did have decent protection underneath.

 

The perceived safety from an SUV is not real though. Statistics are overwhelming that you are much more likely to be involved in an accident in an SUV than a sedan...especially if you are an inexperience driver such as a teen. They are very poor handling vehicles as compared to any other design. Their high center of gravity make them subject to rollover by a quick correction maneuver suck as a teen over correcting when they run off the road onto a soft shoulder while tuning the stereo. They are a coffin for a inexperience teen driver. There is not a weekend that goes by that a teen is not killed in a SUV rollover accident in the greater Atlanta area...good for the funeral home business I suppose. Their heavy weight also makes for long braking distances which is never good...the car makers have pushed SUVs on the public because they are cheaper to make, hence a higher profit margin. Fortunately, they are now paying for being so shortsided. I agree that we do not currently get the high mpg engine choices of the ROW ... but that is changing. Hybrids are being offered in more and more vehicles and diesels are soon to be in vogue. MB and VW have had them here for years and BMW will soon have them here as well as several other manufacturers. And 20-30mpg now looks pretty good to most in the USA compared to the 12-15mpg of most SUVs. FYI, it is the weight, gearing and shape of the SUV that causes their poor mpg, not just the engine.

 

That is the main problem you face.. Why are Teens driving SUVs with big engines in the first place? You dont find that anywhere else in the world. In east africa where trucks/suvs are needed often, young adults will drive them, but they actually know how to manuver, and the suvs there are mostly diesel anyway. One of my daughters got her license when we lived in the states, and the american license is a joke to get.. anyone can get one as long as they have papers... They dont teach driving skill or security to anyone on the road.. Most people can not drive manualbox... So i wouldnt be surprized if the flipping of a vehicle were a factor for you folks... I have been here in the east coast for weeks now and see grown people driving worse than my nieces and nephews overseas.. That is an entirely different topic anyway -
I am not sure which SUVs you are talking about, with poor handling (maybe the ridiculously huge American ones), but all the european suvs are designed to handle like a sedan, atleast to a mediocre level... A Porsche Cayenne or VW Tourag or Audi Q5/Q7 (etc) will be safer than a Chevy Caprice, or Caddy CTS, and ofcourse a Tahoe or Escalade, just because of the engineering... You can flipp any vehicle (even a Carrera GT) - the chances of flipping an suv may be more, but that is just due to basic physics - at the same time, when you DO flip a car, you are MORE likely to face more physical damage than in an SUV.. We could carry on about numbers all day, in the end people buy what they are comfortable with dont they.. In they US, they have some of the worst drivers (almost as bad as India), yet they make the worst cars and trucks, when it comes to safety and gas mileage.. The SUVs you are blatantly refurring to are the Tahoes and Excursions, etc... those weight the most, look the worst, and drive the worst... Are they even capable of off road? Highly Doubt it.... so yes, they are infact useless as you have been implying...

 

I do not know what studies you are reading but a study by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety states that in a crash between a car and an SUV, the car is the looser.

The high bumper and stiff frame make them much safer for the passengers inside the SUV but because of this they are much more dangerous to other motorists. So in a cash people in the SUV have advantage. People in the car have an even greater disadvantage in a collision than one involving two cars. So on the school run with all the other parents in their SUV it is only natural that you want you children to be as safe as possible, so you buy an SUV.

Yes they are more likely to roll over…but the vast majority of those are single vehicle accidents…so if you are a good driver and don’t do hand brake turns in your SUV you should be fine…and even safer in a multiple vehicle crash than in a regular car.

I have never been involved in a crash on the road where the accident was my fault…thus I am a safe driver worthy of owning an SUV…which makes sense because when some guy in a little Toyota rear-ended me in my Range Rover while I was at a complete stop it is only fair that my car walk away with a scuff and his car got totaled.

Because I drove a Range Rover I was safe and really I saved him lots of money...if I had been driving my Mini I probably would have had to sue him for all sorts of personal injury and pain and suffering. I can understand that as a personal injury lawyer you do not like SUVs because they take away your business

 

I am for the most part referring to large SUVs made by the big three in the USA. However, the Japanese and Euro manufacturers have also got on the high profit SUV/truck bandwagon to a lesser extent...although I suspect they will bail out now that oil is going up with no end in sight...the USA makers will have a harder time though as they had almost all their eggs in the SUV and truck basket. As far as driving skills are concerned, most in the USA have none. I do have a great personal injury law practice as a result thereof. I taught my now 30 year old daughter how to drive with a 5mt and bought her a 5mt as his first car. I also required her to attend the Teen Driving School at Road Atlanta at 16 and enrolled her in a high performance driving school at 18. I am buying my now 14 year daughter a 2009 GTi 6mt as her first car which I will teach her how to drive in and then give to her when she turns 16 after she completes the Road Atlanta Teen Driving School. I will do the same with my now 10 and 12 year old once they reach 16. I would NEVER let one of my children get in an SUV or truck with a teen driver...remember, friends don't let friends drive SUVs...

 

A note of follow up on this thread. When I started the post a couple of weeks ago the Range Rovers, and there are a ton of them on the market, were not selling in the high 40's to low 50's for good 2006's. RossoCorsa provided the Manheim data and said it was probably best to buy on EBay as prices were falling so fast. True capitulation. At any rate, I thought I should be able to buy one in the $43-45K range but everyone seemed to be about $5K plus. I wanted the truck for a trip I'm leaving on in a few days so I ran out of time and stopped looking. I did a quick glance last night at EBay and now I think I could buy them all day long in the $42-45K range. In the past couple of weeks, I think the price settled to what they will actually sell for. That feels like a big drop or market adjustment in a short while and it should be just the normal heavy depreciation from here on. It's all a guess but it was interesting to see the market move so quickly.

The M5's and E55's seem to be dead in the water and might need a similar "adjustment". I didn't know they got such lousy mileage until this thread.

 

If you're basing your view on economics, it's quite rare for a (second) commuter car to be financially viable. I drive approximately 50 miles/day in my Grand Cherokee. The additional savings that I'd realize by purchasing a second commuter car (I need the Jeep often enough to justify owning it), would be negated by the costs of ownership (depreciation, insurance, maintenance, etc). It just doesn't make sense for me to buy a second car.

My Newfoundlands are registered therapy dogs and I take them to hospitals so that they can visit patients. I also enjoy taking them for rides from time to time simply because they enjoy the trips. YMMV.