Thread: LandRover build quality

Originally Posted by BMKal

...

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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��

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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!

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!

Originally Posted by drivesafe

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

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 ...

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.