LandRover build quality

[Nicky]

I've had a series1, two TDIs (2000 and 3000), a TD5, and now a 2015 Disco.
The latest Disco's build quality is so much higher, very un-Landrover.
How was this achieved?

[AnD3rew]

Ford.

[landy]

Foreign investment from a man that wants British luxury but can't get that from his own car company.

[shanegtr]

Ford.
I don't believe you :) I thought LR brought the quality of Ford up

[scarry]

Ford.

Thats it,they had to,to better the opposition.

I had a few td5 d2's,the difference is amazing.

Pity they haven't done this to the Deefer range as well.

[Pocket Rocket]

Pity they haven't done this to the Deefer range as well.

That would take all the fun out of it :angel:

[AnD3rew]

I don't believe you :) I thought LR brought the quality of Ford up

Nope, it's quite clear to me. BMW owned LR for the D2 but it didn't really make any difference and the Ford came along for the building of the D3 and brought modern quality control to the LR plants and changed the game.

Tata came along after and injected cash to keep it all going and get new models off the ground but it was Ford who brought them into the 21st Century.

[ADMIRAL]

Ford.
Very likely. One article I recall reading, cited Ford reading the riot act to LR component suppliers very early in their tenure. It seems that component suppliers were a part of the unreliability being experienced at the time, and that a high proportion of components were simply not to specification. ( but were accepted as part of the culture at the time )
I would think this was just one aspect of the changes initiated by them.

[Goaroving]

I believe Tata built a whole new fully automated factory for LR.

[shanegtr]

Nope, it's quite clear to me. BMW owned LR for the D2 but it didn't really make any difference and the Ford came along for the building of the D3 and brought modern quality control to the LR plants and changed the game.

Tata came along after and injected cash to keep it all going and get new models off the ground but it was Ford who brought them into the 21st Century.
I was being a little sarcastic there - and having a stab that Fords are :censored: at the same time :angel:

[AnD3rew]

Hah, yes I got it.

Fords don't have the best reputation here for quality but I think in Europe they are pretty good.

[ozscott]

So is LR climbing from behind Jeep (!!!) From 115th position to 110th or so on the JD Powers surveys?

There is also a large jump and no necessary correlation between tight fit and finish and reliability

[Melbourne Park]

People need to post some links when they make claims about reliability IMO.

Concerning JD Power, they have various ratings. Their reliability ratings cover three years I think, and they hence refer currently to 2012 vehicles which I think means they were 2011 vehicles, due to JD Power being an American sourced survey.

They also have quality and such ratings, which are not "dependability" ratings.

They also bunch models together into a brand label at times. This would hurt Land Rover I suspect because some of their models are less reliable. Hence why Land Rover them selves have said they are dropping the FreeLander name in favour of the Discovery ("Sport") name, due to the poor reputation of the Freelander.

Currently there are published details of the first 90 days experience with JD Power, and those rate Land Rover below average at 127 problems reported from 100 vehicles.

The least was Porsche, and second was - again - Jaguar. Which is close to being a Land Rover, since they are the same company and share much technology.

Brands that rated worse than Land Rover were Infinity (Nissan's luxury brand), Acura (Honda's luxury brand), Subaru, Mazda, Mitsubishi and of course, Jeep. Of course, quite a few others too.

To explain this with some figures, 5th place getter was Toyota, who of 100 vehicles sold, had 105 issues altogether in the first 3 three months. So one might say that each vehicle had on average, 1 issue.

With Land Rover, they had 127 issues for 100 vehicles, which on average, was also one issue per vehicle also.

Why is Acura more troublesome than Honda? If that is due to complexity, then it does not surprise me that Land Rover's Discovery might have some more issues than less simple vehicles. The Discovery is one of the few vehicles around which - IMO - benefit from reading the hand book. And with buttons that lower the ride which then pops up again while driving, and which can change the gears from low to high gearing, with pull gear shift controls on the steering hub and a switch which applies the "hand" brake, with a vehicle that can be bought to tow which adds complexity to various things, it doesn't surprise me that Land Rover gets more calls than Jaguar.

One wonders what the figures for each model are ...

2014 U.S. Initial Quality Study (IQS) | J.D. Power (http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2014-us-initial-quality-study-iqs)

[ozscott]

Its never 3 month reliability that gets them

[sniegy]

With working on & with these vehicles for the last 35yrs or so I can categorically say with hand on heart that these vehicles have improved remarkably 😀
I don't need facts or figures or links to prove what I know😉

Sent from Sniegy's iPhone using Forum Runner

[ozscott]

I still get dismayed when I see reliability figures that show Honda typically no 1 then Mazda etc and at the end of everyone's (not just Powers) list LR. I love the products nonetheless but they are still at the end of the pack for longer term reliability surveys. Having said that the 2012 gets an average rating in some reviews so it looks like the current shape is getting better than the start of d3. think we have to be realists about it. They are clawing up slowly. I hope the new ground up model is better again.

Cheers

[Epic pooh]

My Disco is very reliable. It's also very high maintenance to keep it that way.

In my family we say it has a lot of "personality" - it gives not a hoot in conditions that would kill most vehicles (on and off road), yet always has some bizarre issue (eg. the buzzing noise that has been stalking me for about a year that has somehow fixed itself after I took half the interior apart for another reason; my third key that will not operate lazy entry ... etc). Wouldn't part with it.

[Geedublya]

You have to remember when comparing reliability surveys that the average Landrover or Range Rover is a lot more complicated than most cars.
Your standard Honda or Mazda is a front wheel drive four cylinder with a standard radio, mechanical seats, ABS, stability control (fairly recent) and semi automatic HVAC at best.
I was shocked when I first connected my IID Tool to see my D4 had 32 ECUs. Landrover has always been at the leading edge of car technology and that can result in problems.
However saying that my D4 has only had two problems the first caused by the idiots who fitted my long range tank and connected one of the vents to the diff breather causing a closed system to be open to the atmosphere and a check engine light. The second problem has been intermittent operation of the parking sensors which have now started working again before I could locate the cause.

[PAT303]

Very likely. One article I recall reading, cited Ford reading the riot act to LR component suppliers very early in their tenure. It seems that component suppliers were a part of the unreliability being experienced at the time, and that a high proportion of components were simply not to specification. ( but were accepted as part of the culture at the time )
I would think this was just one aspect of the changes initiated by them.

There is a name for it but can't remember what it is,Ford put the onus on suppliers to repair at Land Rovers price any parts that failed causing warranty repair,I think its the reason Wabsco got the boot and replaced with Bosch,they didn't want to know about problems their parts were causing to LR vehicles. Pat

[PAT303]

Regarding the JD survey,they don't show what the problems are,both Toyota and General Motors have had vehicles going out of control killing the occupants but those issue's score the same strike as someone not being able to fit a jumbo soft drink in a D4 cup holder. Pat

[BMKal]

With working on & with these vehicles for the last 35yrs or so I can categorically say with hand on heart that these vehicles have improved remarkably 😀
I don't need facts or figures or links to prove what I know😉

Sent from Sniegy's iPhone using Forum Runner

Having owned an RRC 2 door, a D1 V8, a D2 Td5 and now the D4 TDV6, I have to agree completely. I've been lucky reliability wise, having only had problems with the RRC. But regarding quality of fit & finish etc - the D4 is in a league of its own compared to the earlier models. I have clearly seen the improvements over the years, with each model I've owned being better than the previous. ;)

JD Powers surveys - I'd give them about as much credibility as the Whirlpool forums. :(

[Melbourne Park]

...

JD Powers surveys - I'd give them about as much credibility as the Whirlpool forums. :(

I think JD Power are just fine. But you have to be able to interpret their data.

For instance, reliability over three years, is just one of their data reflections. Also, such figures must of necessity, reflect on vehicles which are as old as the data sourced. Hence, the vehicles were manufactured three years ago. JD Power data does not reflect on improvements in reliability that a brand (such as Land Rover) may have incorporated since the three year period (in this example).

And the Discovery for instance, does not rate badly. About BMW X5 standard. And IMO, today's Disco is not less reliable than three years ago. Why? Because the vehicles are the same manufacture and design, and while improvements have happened, there is evidence from previously that Land Rover are prepared to improve on issues that have caused problems previously.

JD Power also reflects strongly on the dealer support in the country examined. Hence in say the USA, the dealers may be an issue ... which while it hurts the brand's reputation, poor dealer behaviour doesn't indicate the actual built in reliability of a vehicle.

[PAT303]

FIAT came last in the survey,it had nothing to do with reliability or dealer support.The JD survey is open to all types of miss information. Pat

[drivesafe]

With working on & with these vehicles for the last 35yrs or so I can categorically say with hand on heart that these vehicles have improved remarkably ��
I don't need facts or figures or links to prove what I know��

Sorry Peter I don't put much weight in your comment.

You work for a dealership that goes out of it's way to try to keep their customers happy.

So you and your company, naturally generate a lot of good will with your customers.

This is not the case with many other dealerships and while I might be upsetting a lot of LR owners with my comments on Whirlpool, all of my comments can be verified one way or another.

A perfect example is the guy who had the master brake cylinder failure.

Peter, he is an ex-customer of yours, and the reason he contacted me was not to tell me his story about his LR, but he wanted to know if the dual battery system in his LR could be transferred to his new LC200 he had on order.

At the time, I asked why he wasn't a Land Rover fan anymore and his reply, a common one I might add, was that he was still a Land Rover enthusiast but he had had enough of his LR braking down all the time.

BTW Peter, he could not have heaped more praise on you and your dealership.

You may remember this customer. He was the one who's alternator failed when he was on the other side of the continent and you went out of your way to try to fix his problem when the local dealership treated him like dirt.

Those of you who have read my comments on Whirlpool and are not impressed, so be it and I have had a number of people trying to be helpful, telling me these comments are likely to harm my business.

This could not be further from reality. My Land Rover orders are at an all time high but because of many ex Land Rover owners who now drive other makes, I am getting a lot of business for other makes now as well.

But I often ask LR customers, when they place orders, "Is this their first Land Rover" and many say yes, and most of these have never heard of AULRO so I point them to this forum. So my comments don't have the effect most people think they do, because most new LR owners have never seen them.

I refer them to this because, like many others who have had a gut full of the way Land Rover treats their customers, I am still a Land Rover Enthusiast, I just have no intentions of buying another one.

And folks, It's not up to people like me to get LR to do the right thing by their customers, it up to all of you who still tolerate the way Land Rover operates.

[drivesafe]

FIAT came last in the survey,it had nothing to do with reliability or dealer support.The JD survey is open to all types of miss information. Pat

Hi Pat, and while JD Powers surveys may be open to different interpretations, there are quite a few reliability surveys put out by different organisations, who all come to about the same conclusion.

A good example was a headline in the London Telegraph's Motoring section, last year, where it read. "Land Rover Tops The Reliability List again, if you turn the list upside down."

Even the pomes make jokes of how bad LRs reliability is!

It's only funny if you don't own an LR!

[Mungus]

I thought this thread was about 'build quality' not 'reliability' of which there is another thread. So in saying that I am very impressed with the build quality of my D4. Fit and finish is one of the best I've come across!

[PAT303]

Hi Pat, and while JD Powers surveys may be open to different interpretations, there are quite a few reliability surveys put out by different organisations, who all come to about the same conclusion.

A good example was a headline in the London Telegraph's Motoring section, last year, where it read. "Land Rover Tops The Reliability List again, if you turn the list upside down."

Even the pomes make jokes of how bad LRs reliability is!

It's only funny if you don't own an LR!

It's only funny if you don't own a Toyota,D4D owners joke about the first D stands for detonation,the second D for denial when they make a warranty claim. Pat

[Melbourne Park]

The problem with Toyota, is that you pay quite a bit for their under specification. They are a bit like Harley Davidson's business model used to be. The Harleys were not to customer wants, and small shops would rebuild them and hence they fitted what customers wanted.

And that's what people typically have to do with a Land Cruiser (including a Prado).

And while people might criticise Land Rover, they are well specified from the factory. Not so a Land Cruiser, which needs lots spent on it to achieve similar towing flexibility or off road capability. As an example, the standard Prado has a tow capacity of 2,500kg, due to its weak suspension, which is tailored for shopping mum ride tests. Re-engineered, it can tow 3 tonne.

Depreciation also exists for Prado. Two years ago, a big discounted Prado GXL could be bought for around $74,000. Now, the updated and better equipped GXL costs $62,000, before discount. Try the depreciation cost for the a couple year old Prado GXL. Re-engineering that $74k GXL for a proper handling suspension, and it will have cost you over $4,000 extra. $74k plus $4k makes its cost $78k. Imagine the depreciation cost on all those 150 series GXLs out there now! And with the pre 2012 Kakadus, their suspensions did not work properly. Too bad for all those buyers - Toyota just fixed the suspension, and left the old one with its faults. My Kakadu Prado (it had the better suspension but its rear axle capacity was next to useless) regularly lost its phone numbers. This was dangerous. And you have to stop a Prado to operate the phone manually. Same too with the Sat Nav. Just imagine how ridiculous it is to not be able to use a Toyota Sat Nav system, even if you have a passenger to run it? Crazy ... 200 series use a lot more fuel than a Disco as well. Prado's secondary battery space have numerous failures. Even a 25kg secondary battery can cause the whole front mud guard structure to fail. How common is that sort of failure on a Disco?

Much of Toyota's reliability is due to thorough servicing. They change the fluids much more often than does Land Rover. If people treated their Land Rovers to as many fluid changes as do Toyota users, their reliability would be a quantum leap better IMO.

The strange thing is though, that other Land Rover users I've met, have not had issues except for one who had an air failure, all fixed perfectly and free of charge by Land Rover Australia. That chap too has his engine re-mapped and does done a lot of very tough work including severe off road work, he has a steel bull bar etc and tows a substantial off road van.

With a 200 series, the spring length on a 200 series is the same for a KDSS suspension vehicle as a standard 200 series. Experts claim that their is no increased articulation possible on a KDSS vehicle compared to a none KDSS vehicle. So you pay a lot more, and for what? And the rear suspension on a Land cruiser is too soft to tow - you have to add air bags, and heavier springs. Then you have a poor ride around town. The solution is to spend close to $5k on air bags and a new suspension. With a Land Rover, you don't have to spend a cent.

Check the extra cost of running a 200 series due to its high fuel use. The 200 diesel is efficient when towing over 3 tonne. But otherwise, its fuel use is huge. The lowest fuel record I found on a 200 series was a country (Seymour) 200 series, with 46k on it, a couple of years old. It only had 13.6 litres per 100 k. Around town, their figures are far worse. Do the numbers - 200s cost a huge amount to run in fuel. Put the difference into a repair fund, and the Disco will be a cheaper vehicle to operate, even if it does suffer some failures.

And with a 200 series, you don't get a workable around town rear view camera unless you buy a Sahara. And a Sahara comes with very basic technology. Have you seen how poorly the seats fold up on a 200 series or a Prado? Have you heard all the crazy beeps and warning chimes on a Toyota that drive people crazy?

Talking of quality - go check the safety records. Land Rover get excellent results now for safety stats. Much better than Toyota do actually. Have you steered a Toyota compared to a Disco? One is all over the road ... they feel not far from a solid axle front end in their lack of precision. They wallow dangerously with dips and such too ... and Prado seats are dangerously poor ... Land Rover seats are totally superior ... that is safety too. And a Land Rover seats have proper articulation ... a Sahara or high end Prado promises seats that are fully adjustable ... but they only move upwards a very small amount ... their adjustment is close to useless for me. The weird thing is that my 1997 Prado has far, far, far superior seats to any Prado seat ... including the top model Prados, which cost more than a Disco does, and really, they are a far less capable vehicle that are very unfriendly to improve. With a Land Rover, you don't need to improve their suspensions at all (except for the wheel size but you'll get your money back on wheels anyhow).

Discos rightly get criticised for fuel capacity ... but a 200 series has a tiny secondary tank, and they use a heap more fuel ... they also need a new rear tank ... and Prado doors have issues too - they fail due to the tyre weight and I guess quality issues.

And don't brand me anti Toyota - I am buying (for my Mum) a top model Lexus NX Turbo for pick this Thursday. I want my Mum to have the auto braking technology ... which is way over priced on a Toyota or Lexus. Toyota have the technology, but charge an extra $6,000 for it on an NX. On a German vehicle, such tech costs from $1,500, if its not free. And yes, the coming Discovery Sport ships with that autonomous emergency braking as standard on their cheapest Disco Sport. And if people talk about quality, then Safety is actually the most major quality issue in a vehicle. Have people experienced the horrible visibility out of a 200 series? And the lack of efficiency in their interior?


Another thing about Land Rover, is that if customers treated them like Toyotas, they'd be more reliable. Take the gearboxes - which are actually very good units ... a problem is that people don't treat their Land Rovers with the same frequency of fluid changes as does Toyota owners (sorry for harping on that).

As far as the alternator on a Disco goes - Mr Traxide here has above criticised the Land Rover alternator. Yet to my face, as I have a Traxide system - he's praised the Land Rover alternator to me, personally. I feel duped that on one hand he praises the Land Rover alternator to me, yet here, he says they in his experience have performed badly.

Interestingly, my 1997 Prado had an alternator failure when it was new back then ... due to poor installation. The cost (paid by Toyota of course) of the new one, was back in 1997, $1,650. I guess that now a Disco alternator is costly, but back in 1997, $1,650 was a heck of a lot for a Toyota alternator too. I also understand too, that a Disco alternator has a much higher capacity than the Toyota Prado units supplied ... I regard that capacity as good feature, but I guess too, that if you use all that capacity, with many extra loads on it due to towing and lots of power demands, in very high heat conditions, that failure rate probability might increase compared to the lower capacity Toyota units. Adding demands on 4WD standard components can have a downside ... including secondary battery systems must increase the probability of alternator failure I guess ...

[drivesafe]

It is not the alternator, by itself, that makes the Land Rovers ideal for dual battery systems, it the way LR's variable voltage control of the alternator works, combined with the high current capacity of the LR alternator, that makes it capable of charge banks of batteries, with out any form of assistance, EG no need for a DC/DC device.

NOTE, Toyotas are having the very same parts fail in their alternators and probably at the same ratio of numbers. ( they have had some many fail, there is a kit available for them )

The difference is that in almost every case where the Toyota alternator fails there is a warning for some time before the total failure of the vehicle.

Unlike the way the alternator can fail in a Land Rover, giving next to no warning and in many cases, no warning at all, and that is where my criticism lays.

[drivesafe]

Talking of quality - go check the safety records. Land Rover get excellent results now for safety stats.

Not sure where you got that gem from, but there is no other make of vehicle with so many Recalls, relating to safety issues, than Land Rover, and I am talking about NEW Land Rovers.

The list of Recalls I posted on the other forum, were posted on this forum first, by someone else.

So a little checking and you will see that safety issues are a major problem for new Land Rovers.

[drivesafe]

Here is something many of you might consider if you are thinking of upgrading your current LR.

Just after Christmas, I had a return customer fitting another one of my kits to his new ( second ) D4.

He was telling me he was already looking at another make, because, like most D4 owners, while he loved his first D4, he and his wife were fed up with failures and decided it just wasn't worth the cost of keeping the D4 once the warranty ran out.

While getting his last service before his warranty ran out, he mentioned his displeasure with the reliability of his D4 and that he was looking at replacing it with another make.

The dealership secured the sale of a new D4 by offering him a free two year extension to the 3 year factory warranty.

So if you are interested in upgrading, demand that they give you a 5 year "FACTORY" warranty.

[RHS58]

If I was so unhappy with the reliability of my vehicle, I don't reckon I'd be persuaded to purchase another with the addition of extra "factory" warranty.

[drivesafe]

Hi RHS, and he didn't tell me what other make he was looking at, but as he put it, while repair costs were being covered by the warranty, he could put up with the problems as he, as I posted, loved the D4.

I was in the same position, that I was happy to put up with the faults and failures, as I was supposed to have had a new car warranty.

In my case, the LR warranty wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and as my RR literally began falling apart on the production line, having no warranty meant I have a $170,000 4x4 that can not be used on road, let alone trying to take it off road, which is what I bought it for.

When people make fictitious statements like, "Land Rover get excellent results for safety stats" when the exact opposite is the case. It is not until LR owners themselves, start to FORCE Land Rover to make safer products, LR is just going to continue with the same old same old.

[Melbourne Park]

It's only funny if you don't own a Toyota,D4D owners joke about the first D stands for detonation,the second D for denial when they make a warranty claim. Pat

Yes... the issue that is well known though, is that Toyota used two brands of injector, and one caused in various cases engine failures.

Eventually Toyota changed the injector design or supplier, and hence fixed the problem. It did take them quite a long time to do so, though ... Toyota is not famous for being fast to respond to an engine issue.

My wife's RX350 had a drive train noise. My wife could not hear it, but I could, under light engine load, the noise was there - I did not like it. Lexus replaced the CV joint ... they had to pull the engine out to do so. The Lexus is well made IMO and regularly tops quality and customer satisfaction ratings. Lexus said the early RXs could get that issue, but on late ones it was rare. But it did happen to my wife's RX 350, and the vehicle was not heavily driven ...

IMO the Germans only build cars to last for 10 years ... especially the high volume sellers. the gorgeous new C class Mercedes here even have mis-aligned panels, and some have wiring looms hanging loose under the dash ...

Back to Toyota - its 200 series 4.5 litre V8 diesel also had reliability problems (and some say they still do), and if one buys a used 200 series diesel, then people don't want the pre-update models, because they had various problems, but critically, some serious engine issues, with one side of the V8 failing ... very expensive stuff ..

As with most modern vehicles, supplier issues are often the route cause of reliability issues.

And another IMO, is new designs. One thing about the Discovery, is that its now a very mature design. And with better controls on suppliers, is why its reliability is getting better. But the real proof I guess is owning one for a long time ... it seems too that Discoveries are moving towards a focus on the shopping trolley market rather than focusing on 4WD features ...

[Melbourne Park]

Not sure where you got that gem from, but there is no other make of vehicle with so many Recalls, relating to safety issues, than Land Rover, and I am talking about NEW Land Rovers.

The list of Recalls I posted on the other forum, were posted on this forum first, by someone else.

So a little checking and you will see that safety issues are a major problem for new Land Rovers.

Are they?

I'll give you two gems then.

Firstly, the top safety choice for its category in Europe from NCAP, is the Range Rover Sport.

Secondly, statistics from the USA where driver deaths are listed.

The safest vehicle being ... the LR3. No driver died in one.

However, if stats included those drivers in the cars hit by LR3s (D3s) then those stats may not be so good ...


From years 2006 to 2009 for vehicles made from 2005-08:
144,159 Discos were sold, and no fatalities. NADA.

Similar too was the over 100,000 Range Rover sports - also no deaths.
The Range Rover of that time had rated well but their score of 22 is still 22 more than the Disco / Range Rover sport mix. And now, the LR4 / D4 is safer, with a lot more tech and also the 3 litre ones stop very well.

The most dangerous car was the Nissan 350Z with 143 driver fatalities.

Ford Rangers performed badly ... but I do not know if they are related to today's BT-50s. The stats are not out on today's BT-50s and Ford Rangers ... I presume and hope they are a lot better than before.

Best value for someone wanting a cheap safe 4 door car must be a SAAB 9-3 - it performed like an E class Mercedes. Honda's larger size Accord (ours is made in Thailand) did well, and the CR-V did brilliantly. The RAV not nearly as well, but it was still I think second or third best small SUV for safety (non luxury). So a CR-V is a good safe buy too ... (if you base actual driver fatalities as a reasonable statistic. I do. )

Curiously the Mazda 3 had less the Mazda 6 (which is bigger).

Best 2WD car was the Mercedes E class, with only 12. But its AWD version was one of the 6 vehicles (one third of which were Land Rovers) who had no fatalities.

As far as recalls for safety - I have a few cars, and many are Toyota / Lexus. They also have recalls. Toyota though seem reticent to make the recalls, but eventually they have to. I'd prefer companies were keen to fix a safety problem, and recall it. The big companies though seem to be more and more run by their cost accountants.

As far as Land Rover goes ... its no wonder Mum's love taking the kids to school in a Discovery. Its very safe, easy to park, fits lots of kids, and you can see out of it. The problem is that (most often) wifes are being found guilty of steeling their husband's Discos. Now that is a major problem for the those partners out there that do not drop the kids off to school and sports ... *



* I used "partner" because I think I am fearful of being accused of being sexist ...

[drivesafe]

Firstly, the top safety choice for its category in Europe from NCAP, is the Range Rover Sport.

They must make them different for Australia, when you consider the number of RRS owners who could not take delivery of their new RRS earlier this year.

Something about risking burning their new RRS to the ground if they turned the air conditioning on.

And this is just the latest manufacturing stuffup from LR.

So how does that go, safe in Europe, BBQ in Australia???????????????????

[Melbourne Park]

Hi RHS, and he didn't tell me what other make he was looking at, but as he put it, while repair costs were being covered by the warranty, he could put up with the problems as he, as I posted, loved the D4.

I was in the same position, that I was happy to put up with the faults and failures, as I was supposed to have had a new car warranty.

In my case, the LR warranty wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and as my RR literally began falling apart on the production line, having no warranty meant I have a $170,000 4x4 that can not be used on road, let alone trying to take it off road, which is what I bought it for.

When people make fictitious statements like, "Land Rover get excellent results for safety stats" when the exact opposite is the case. It is not until LR owners themselves, start to FORCE Land Rover to make safer products, LR is just going to continue with the same old same old.

I am not making the stats up.

And you yourself have told me - before I bought it Timothy - that I'll love the D4, and that your own RR was a lemon. And that the problem was with Land Rover Australia, rather than Land Rover ... and I have a high end Traxide in my D4 - you know me ! But not my internet name !!!!!

So you recommended the Land Rover to me over the phone ... before I bought it ... knowing there was a Traxide sale coming ... and now you're saying that they are crap!!! Totally different to when I asked you for your opinion about buying a new Disco over the phone ...

Is that really you there writing this stuff Timothy?????



I could quote further stuff too on LR safety ... although they don't crash test them very often. IMO though, crash tests are only part of the story.

I can't find the link for those stats, but the later report is here, and it doesn't list the Discovery.

It has the RR sport though, and its not quite as good, but rates close to the top.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5001.pdf

And here is the link for the previous safety data which I quoted:

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

[Melbourne Park]

...

[Melbourne Park]

They must make them different for Australia, when you consider the number of RRS owners who could not take delivery of their new RRS earlier this year.

Something about risking burning their new RRS to the ground if they turned the air conditioning on.

And this is just the latest manufacturing stuffup from LR.

So how does that go, safe in Europe, BBQ in Australia???????????????????

Actually the top rating vehicle I spoke of was not the RR Sport, it is the Disco sport, coming very shortly I think.

But as I said before - new vehicles are always a reliability issue. For every brand, IMO at least. And if from a smaller producer - one should wait a few years IMO!!

And things are not perfect one even the top quality brands. Take for instance perhaps the top quality brand nowadays - Porsche. A close friend's assistant (my friend is a surgeon) bought a new Macan (the AWD crossover based on the Audi Q5). My friend also has one on order. After taking delivery, he wanted the roof racks put on his Porsche. But - it cannot be done. It weakens the body too much. It was to be installed in the factory. On the production line. Now - that is not a "quality" issue ... it's not a statistic that will be revealed. But its sured wrecked his experience.

And as you yourself told me - not worries with a second battery in the current D4s. I was worried about turbo heat ... and the current D4s now have a good AGM battery in them ... the guy I bought my battery from said that my D4 battery was super quality ... the older ones not good. One might blame LR for that ... but is that really their fault? And they've fixed that problem now it seems. And the turbo oil pipe issue was changed by LR ... they do fix things that aren't right ...

The battery guy had a low opinion of the yellow top he sold me too ... he said they haven't change the design for 15 years, and they've now been surpassed ... hmm ...

And from my buying experience - sales people often don't know much about what they are selling. Toyota people especially... Lexus though are good. and IMO, Land Rover people can be good, but you need to find the right person. Some dealerships are really bad too ...

I've just gone through a process of buying for my Mum, and quality is an issue for sure. The C class is brilliant, but has real quality issues IMO. Love its alloy doors though (nice and light). Air suspension in them is now cheap. I think air suspension will be common in a decade. But I think LR must have the off road system patented, as otherwise Mercedes would have done it on one of their GLs IMO.

I did not consider the Disco sport for my Mum, although its very safe. Because:
- I want one now
- the indicator stalk is on the left side (she can't handle that)
- I suspect the steering wheel weight will be heavy compared to a Lexus NX.
- Hopefully the NX is reliable (Lexus tries a lot harder on that score than Toyota)
- NX rates close (NCAP) to the top if fully equipped
- The NX controls are similar to her current vehicle (an Is-250) so she doesn't have to learn much.
- She liked the NX too ...

Incidentally the best anti-accident avoidance technology is the Forester's system IMO and from the tests I've read. It doesn't use radar, but a stereo or 3D image from cameras, and the computers work out what is going on.

[scarry]

Actually the top rating vehicle I spoke of was not the RR Sport, it is the Disco sport, coming very shortly I think.

But as I said before - new vehicles are always a reliability issue. For every brand, IMO at least. And if from a smaller producer - one should wait a few years IMO!!

And things are not perfect one even the top quality brands. Take for instance perhaps the top quality brand nowadays - Porsche. A close friend's assistant (my friend is a surgeon) bought a new Macan (the AWD crossover based on the Audi Q5). My friend also has one on order. After taking delivery, he wanted the roof racks put on his Porsche. But - it cannot be done. It weakens the body too much. It was to be installed in the factory. Now - that is not a "quality" issue ... its not a statistic that will be revealed. But its sured wrecked his experience.

I've just gone through a process of buying for my Mum, and quality is an issue for sure. The C class is brilliant, but has real quality issues IMO. Love its alloy doors though (nice and light). Air suspension in them is now cheap. I think air suspension will be common in a decade. But I think LR must have the off road system patented, as otherwise Mercedes would have done it on one of their GLs IMO.

I did not consider the Disco sport for my Mum, although its very safe. Because:
- I want one now
- the indicator is on the left side (she can't handle that)
- I suspect the steering wheel weight will be heavy compared to a Lexus NX.
- Hopefully the NX is reliable (Lexus tries a lot harder on that score than Toyota)
- NX rates close (NCAP) to the top if fully equipped
- The NX controls are similar to her current vehicle (an Is-250) so she doesn't have to learn much.
- She liked the NX too ...

Incidentally the best anti-accident avoidance technology is the Forester's system IMO and from the tests I've read. It doesn't use radar, but a stereo or 3D image from cameras, and the computers work out what is going on.

The "best anti-accident avoidance technology" is educating the nut behind the wheel;)

[Disco4SE]

If I was so unhappy with the reliability of my vehicle, I don't reckon I'd be persuaded to purchase another with the addition of extra "factory" warranty.
You will find that the "Extra Factory Warranty" isn't worth the paper it is written on..........


Cheers, Craig

[Disco4SE]

Check the extra cost of running a 200 series due to its high fuel use. The 200 diesel is efficient when towing over 3 tonne. But otherwise, its fuel use is huge. The lowest fuel record I found on a 200 series was a country (Seymour) 200 series, with 46k on it, a couple of years old. It only had 13.6 litres per 100 k. Around town, their figures are far worse. Do the numbers - 200s cost a huge amount to run in fuel.

A local that I know added a bulbar, larger diameter wheels, roof rack, rear wheel carrier etc etc etc to his 200 series. He is flat out getting 18 Lt per 100 Klm's. Not too good for a modern day turbo diesel..........


Cheers, Craig

[Melbourne Park]

A local that I know added a bulbar, larger diameter wheels, roof rack, rear wheel carrier etc etc etc to his 200 series. He is flat out getting 18 Lt per 100 Klm's. Not too good for a modern day turbo diesel..........


Cheers, Craig

And if you go easy on them to get fuel economy ... that's bad for them!! Same too with a Land Rover I presume.

[Melbourne Park]

The "best anti-accident avoidance technology" is educating the nut behind the wheel;)

Absolutely! But as we get older, such aids help. If one has a physical issue too, such aids help.

But perhaps too, the nut behind the wheel also effects reliability?

I changed the oil at 13k ... and it cost over $300! Ouch ... but if I treat it like a Toyo, maybe I'll be luckier with the reliability issues.

I've heard too that the tyre wear is high because people forget about the huge weight ... same too with the power steering pump - its so easy to turn the wheel when the vehicle is stationary, but with all that weight, doing so puts a lot of stress on that system IMO.

Running too high tyre pressures off road - IMO - would increase a lot of loads onto the suspension components ...

I wonder too about cracking windscreens - its a fairly vertical screen. Do d3s/D4s suffer from such damage more than other 4WDs?

[Melbourne Park]

A local that I know added a bulbar, larger diameter wheels, roof rack, rear wheel carrier etc etc etc to his 200 series. He is flat out getting 18 Lt per 100 Klm's. Not too good for a modern day turbo diesel..........


Cheers, Craig

You might tell him to try dropping down a gear when on the highway ... while using top gear can improve fuel consumption, if there is a load, then in a 200 its worth trying putting it in 5th.

[shanegtr]

You might tell him to try dropping down a gear when on the highway ... while using top gear can improve fuel consumption, if there is a load, then in a 200 its worth trying putting it in 5th.
I remember when the 200's first come out, all the owners where whinging that the auto didn't shift into 6th until 130km/h. Not sure if Toyota patched the software to change that?

[Melbourne Park]

I remember when the 200's first come out, all the owners where whinging that the auto didn't shift into 6th until 130km/h. Not sure if Toyota patched the software to change that?

They did.

But the threads show that for towing, the 200 often achieves better fuel economy in 5th. And the big diesel in the 200's main feature is its lower maximum torque. In theory I think an 8 speed would make up for that, but I have not checked the gearing ratios.

One thing I do not like about the D4, is that I don't know what gear I am in. I wish the dashboard told me. I have to change gears in order to find out... In the D4, having the instant fuel readings is interesting ... it would be more fun if the auto showed what gear I was in ... I guess from the speed and the tachometer readout. Then I flick down a gear and up again ...

[DiscoMick]

Thats it,they had to,to better the opposition.

I had a few td5 d2's,the difference is amazing.

Pity they haven't done this to the Deefer range as well.

Puma Defenders seem pretty reliable.

Sent from my GT-I8730T using AULRO mobile app

[scarry]

Puma Defenders seem pretty reliable.

Sent from my GT-I8730T using AULRO mobile app

The D4 range of vehicles are extremely complicated,and very reliable.

The Puma is also reliable,it is a pretty simple type of vehicle,but still has ongoing issues that have been in the Defender range for years.
And other issues such as output shafts,etc.

[Celtoid]

You will find that the "Extra Factory Warranty" isn't worth the paper it is written on..........


Cheers, Craig





IF .... you buy it from Landrover!


The same money from the same Underwriter used to buy you an 'As New' warranty.


I say 'used to', as I purchased it for my old D4 in 2012. Not sure if the same product is available anymore.

[DiscoMick]

Some of the things that people complain about in reliability surveys really aren't about reliability at all, such as larger than normal or inconsistent panel gaps, badly-fitted carpet or other things which have nothing to do with whether the vehicle will get you home.
Another point is that 4WDs often get treated rougher than city cars, so its no wonder their treatment might cause more issues than something only driven to the shops.

[Celtoid]

Some of the things that people complain about in reliability surveys really aren't about reliability at all, such as larger than normal or inconsistent panel gaps, badly-fitted carpet or other things which have nothing to do with whether the vehicle will get you home.
Another point is that 4WDs often get treated rougher than city cars, so its no wonder their treatment might cause more issues than something only driven to the shops.

Strangely enough, operator error induced faults can still get recorded as a fault .... cause it upsets the owner ....

[Melbourne Park]

My 2014 oct SD D4 beeps its reverse warning alarm because my van has LED lights. So I switch the volume on the radio dial down. I could put an old fashioned light bulb onto the trailer lights somewhere - but I don't see the need.

I doubt gearbox changes modes due to the trailer lights not being known by the car to be connected when towing either.

I have read though that when off road its good to use the manual settings or at least he sport mode on the gearbox, as it stops the gearbox changing gears and locking and unlocking a lot, which doesn't benefit longevity I've read.

An extra fuel tank is a good thing, and pays for itself in the bush. But for me, I don't like all that weight sitting in the spare wheel area, which puts all the weight on the rear axle. I prefer the idea of the 90lt Outback Accessories Long Range tank, which maybe can be located behind the front seats. Thats much further forward and takes a heck of a load off the rear axle. When trailering, one has to add the ball weight, and it all adds up.

For me, putting a 32kg tyre wheel tyre on a roof rack, means the car has less rear axle weight, and its more standard too IMO.

Traxide will get you to fit it at his place too - he's in Southern Qld, a drive I think from Brisbane. Timothy knows people who can fit it for you too.

[DiscoMick]

My 2014 oct SD D4 beeps its reverse warning alarm because my van has LED lights. So I switch the volume on the radio dial down. I could put an old fashioned light bulb onto the trailer lights somewhere - but I don't see the need.

I doubt gearbox changes modes due to the trailer lights not being known by the car to be connected when towing either.

I have read though that when off road its good to use the manual settings or at least he sport mode on the gearbox, as it stops the gearbox changing gears and locking and unlocking a lot, which doesn't benefit longevity I've read.

An extra fuel tank is a good thing, and pays for itself in the bush. But for me, I don't like all that weight sitting in the spare wheel area, which puts all the weight on the rear axle. I prefer the idea of the 90lt Outback Accessories Long Range tank, which maybe can be located behind the front seats. Thats much further forward and takes a heck of a load off the rear axle. When trailering, one has to add the ball weight, and it all adds up.

For me, putting a 32kg tyre wheel tyre on a roof rack, means the car has less rear axle weight, and its more standard too IMO.

Traxide will get you to fit it at his place too - he's in Southern Qld, a drive I think from Brisbane. Timothy knows people who can fit it for you too.


On the fuel tank, isn't the main point to get the fuel as low as possible to benefit stability? My Defender has a 110 litre tank in the same place as the original tank, and it doesn't seem to cause any issues. Is the weight of say an extra 35 litres of fuel really going to make much difference to the weight on the rear axle? My Defender also has rear drawers, which weigh about 35 kilos from memory. Even when I also hitch the camper trailer up the rear doesn't seem to drop noticeably. On the other hand, when I carry extra fuel on the roof rack I do make sure its right in the middle to balance the weight.
Can't comment on D4s, but I would assume they should be well engineered to easily cope with that much extra weight, which is no different to loading up extra luggage in the rear. Doesn't your air suspension just adjust the ride to keep it level?

[Tombie]

An extra fuel tank is a good thing, and pays for itself in the bush. But for me, I don't like all that weight sitting in the spare wheel area, which puts all the weight on the rear axle. I prefer the idea of the 90lt Outback Accessories Long Range tank, which maybe can be located behind the front seats. Thats much further forward and takes a heck of a load off the rear axle. When trailering, one has to add the ball weight, and it all adds up.

How much further forward do you think it is...

If its behind the back seat - its right over the rear diff :cool:

[Melbourne Park]

As I said, I think it can be behind the front seats. Behind the middle passenger seats would still be forward of the entire spare wheel area, which is where the typical spare tank goes.

And then ... when you put in the spare tank, many hang the tyre off the rear of the vehicle, via swing out wheel carriers. Which puts even more weight over the rear axle.

When I looked at the D4, the most concerning aspect of the vehicle, was the amount of weight on the rear axle and the capacity of the rear tyres, compared to the D4's competition. I think that hanging a rear tyre off the vehicle and having an extra tank with 100 litres of fuel where the spare tyre went, is fine for a vehicle that will not be towing. But a two tonne trailer should have a minimum of 200kg on the rear two ball, for proper trailer control. That's an extra 200kg on the rear axle. Or 320 kg for a 3200kg trailer. Then add a fridge. A fridge slide. A drawer setup with things in it, and a tool box with tools in it. A proper jack. A spade. A snatch strap. 150kg?

Hence for me, I'd prefer not to add a tyre out the back and add a fuel tank at the back where the spare tyre normally goes.

[Tombie]

114 tyres are 1180kg a tyre, well above axle rating.

Plenty here are towing, with a LR tank, Kaymar Wheel carrier and 3.5t on the back without issue..

[cafe latte]

Strangely enough, operator error induced faults can still get recorded as a fault .... cause it upsets the owner ....

Very true.. The auto electrician dropped me off in town in my car, actually his wife did, I was not really that happy about her driving my Defender actually :eek:. As she drive off I could see she was rushing the gears big time clunking the drive line for sure :eek: . I was just glad it was only a short drive back to the garage, not too many gear changes!! Anyway my point is is is she bought a new defender very quickly something in the drive line would fail for sure due to the way she drives not due to any particular fault IMO.
Chris

[AnD3rew]

I have a 105 litre LR tank and rear wheel carrier. I also tow a 1 ton camper trailer and have a fridge and tools etc in the back. I do think it pushes the limits of the car doing that. You can certainly feel the difference between a full tank and an empty tank even when not towing.

Having said that it does cope with it.

[Melbourne Park]

114 tyres are 1180kg a tyre, well above axle rating.

Plenty here are towing, with a LR tank, Kaymar Wheel carrier and 3.5t on the back without issue..

Yes, I've seen the pics! Great!

But ...

Let's do my numbers then, I guess mine must be wrong.

D4 GVM is 3,240, less its tare of 2,558 = all up legal 680kg carrying weight.

Take off 350kg toe ball , and you have only 330kg left. I've included the tonque weight in that 350kg.

Add two passengers at 160kg, and you have 170kg left.

Add a tank of fuel in the main tank which weighs 70kg and you've got 100kg left.

104 litres of fuel in a long range tank and that is 90kg. You've 10kg left. I've not included the weight of a tank. Lets say you've used some fuel then.

Add you're extra wheel and tyre @ 33kg snd the carrier at 7kg, and your 30kg over the limit.

Add 25kg for the spare front battery and your 55kg over.

Add a fridge with food in the back at 45kg, and your now 100kg over.

IMO its better to put the diesel in the trailer and you'll be legal.

Any good news here? Well ... a 200 is 80 kg worse off, until they are upgraded. Then, they are 160kg better off. They need to carry more fuel though because they use more fuel.

Also LR Australia won't provide a brake kit ... why not? They actually say that their D4 will handle 3500kg towing without one. Illegal of course not have a proper setup. Yep I spoke to LR Australia. And guess what, their standard towing approval in the UK has three levels: 750kg, 3,500kg and 4,000kg. All quite confusing actually ... maximum toe ball is always 350kg though.

[Melbourne Park]

And the maximum axle weight for the rear one is 1,855kg (front is 1,450) and yes - if you add them together you get an extra 65kg capacity.

People upgrade their 200 Landcruisers and with Auto engineer approvals they get away with it. But ... their rear axle maximum is 1950kg. OK, that is heaver than a Disco's 1855kg. But not by that much actually ... And I reckon those dual wheel carriers on 200's with their heavy wheels and tyres (which remove weight from their front axles) would be over their limit on their rear axles, despite auto engineer re-ratings of the whole carrying capacity of the vehicles.

But that stuff should be in a F250/GMC/Silverado thread!! But when you add a rear carrier, you take off weight from the front axle, because the carrier is behind the rear axle. Its a simple formula to work out, based on the wheelbase. For instance, on the Disco, if you add 350kg on the toe ball with a trailer, then the load added to the Disco (standard tongue length) is an extra 500 kg to the rear axle (and 150kg off the front axle) , not including the toe tonque weight either.

Does anybody know the front rear balance on a Disco's tare weight? I reckon its 55% on the front ... but I am only guessing ...

[gghaggis]

Remember to factor in that the European definition of "kerb weight" includes the driver and 60 ltr of fuel.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Tombie]

Yes, I've seen the pics! Great!

But ...

Let's do my numbers then, I guess mine must be wrong.

D4 GVM is 3,240, less its tare of 2,558 = all up legal 680kg carrying weight.

Take off 350kg toe ball , and you have only 330kg left. I've included the tonque weight in that 350kg.

Add two passengers at 160kg, and you have 170kg left.

Add a tank of fuel in the main tank which weighs 70kg and you've got 100kg left.

104 litres of fuel in a long range tank and that is 90kg. You've 10kg left. I've not included the weight of a tank. Lets say you've used some fuel then.

Add you're extra wheel and tyre @ 33kg snd the carrier at 7kg, and your 30kg over the limit.

Add 25kg for the spare front battery and your 55kg over.

Add a fridge with food in the back at 45kg, and your now 100kg over.

IMO its better to put the diesel in the trailer and you'll be legal.

Any good news here? Well ... a 200 is 80 kg worse off, until they are upgraded. Then, they are 160kg better off. They need to carry more fuel though because they use more fuel.

Also LR Australia won't provide a brake kit ... why not? They actually say that their D4 will handle 3500kg towing without one. Illegal of course not have a proper setup. Yep I spoke to LR Australia. And guess what, their standard towing approval in the UK has three levels: 750kg, 3,500kg and 4,000kg. All quite confusing actually ... maximum toe ball is always 350kg though.

Well done.. You've written one of my previous threads almost verbatim...:twisted:

Except I correctly factored the Driver and Fuel in :angel:



This is a tangent to the original discussion about fuel tank behind/in front/above/below the axle... one that is GCM/ATM/GVM based not "where should the weight go" based.


Remember also to factor in; most people with a SWC & LRT also have a BB....

[Melbourne Park]

Remember also to factor in; most people with a SWC & LRT also have a BB....

What do the letters stand for??

My main point though ... if you are towing, then its best to put the extra fuel into your trailer, if you add the numbers up.

IMO too, I'd prefer to have an extra fuel load forward of the rear axle, but it seems there isn't room?

And do you know the weight distribution of a D3 or D4 in tare condition? Often manufacturers supply that information but I have not been able to find Land Rovers figures.

[Tombie]

Spare Wheel Carrier
Long Range Tank
Bull Bar

No, I can not find the distributed split either. And mines so modified I doubt I could do it justice on a weigh bridge.

Either way - I wholeheartedly agree that when loading a vehicle one must be aware of what is going where. And to pack appropriately.

It is a true reality that many of the rigs are over GVM/Axle loading.

[Melbourne Park]

I made a call out to Land Rover two weeks ago! I had run the vehicle before leaving my home, I had checked the electrical outlets to my van, with the motor running. Then I drove out to pick something up, and I had a big issue with the Disco.

A third party answered, and queried a few things.

But then I did not need them ...

I had an appointment, and had dropped in to buy an LCD resister device for my trailer before a long conference was due.

When I turned the Disco off - I could not find my keys!! I could not lock the car, but also, I would not be able to start it.

So I rang the Land Rover assistance number.

However - when I pushed the starter, the motor started ... so the keys were somewhere hidden in the car. I found them in between the front passenger seat and the central binnacle.

I think I need to put some foam rubber into that gap - its not easy to fish things out of there, or see them.

I wonder whether Land Rover will score unreliability points for total driver stupidity (being mine)?

:rocket:

PS - I was not late!!! I'm not sure if the vehicle could have been started either by someone without the keys.

[Tombie]

Had the same happen to me... Had bounced out the console and down the passengers footwell...

Caused some anxiety I can assure you!

[DiscoMick]

Yep, I've had similar happen, plus other non-vehicle things, so I'm obsessive about my keys now - they are only ever in one of 3 places:


1. In my pocket
2. In the ignition
3. Bedside


I never put keys anywhere else. I can't believe people let their kids play with their keys, considering how much they cost to replace and how inconvenient it is to lose them.