Are these reliable?

If you can afford one, why would you care?

>>14259313
Hahahahahahaha

>>14259319
>>rich people don't need reliable things

>>14259319
I found one for dirt cheap and less than 100k miles.

I'm actually a poorfag but it seems like a good deal.

>>14259339
Get a corolla and stop being a retard

>>14259339
It will bankrupt you. It's a British luxury SUV, not exactly poorfag material to begin with, and if it's dirt cheap there is definitely something wrong with it.

>>14259346
The thing is... a Corolla of the same year and similar mileage would cost me only like 30% less.

>>14259361
Go for a 1994 corolla. They are the best year. You don't need a new corolla. They didn't improve anything

>>14259357
>and if it's dirt cheap there is definitely something wrong with it.
The owner is a richfag and has a brand new one parked on the driveway.
Seems like he just wants to get rid of it fast.

>10 posts
>nothing even close to an answer

>>14259367
And why would he want a new one?
Sure, it could just be for the sake of having the new, prettier, even more luxurious model, but there could be something else that made him buy a new one.

>>14259313
Land Rover had some pretty bad years with electrical and stuff, but I think it was earlier than 08.
I'd find out when those years were. I bet if you called your Land Rover dealer they'd actually just tell you... at least try it.

>>14259377
Several people said no

>>14259385
This one is a 05 actually.

>>14259417
I'm pretty sure that's part of the bad years. Probably why it is so cheap.

>>14259367

Even if there is nothing wrong with it at the moment, Land Rovers are literally the most unreliable car brand statistically. Also, when something does go wrong, it will be fucking insanely expensive.

This is a car you do NOT buy used and expect to keep running reliably. If you want a comfy SUV that won't completely shit the bed and then bankrupt you, buy a used Lexus.

>>14259377

There have been several posts telling OP that buying any used Land Rover would be a horrific idea.

Shit, you've got evidence of it, Doug Demuro bought one in 2012 and he has put in over 6.5k in repairs alone. Of course, he fortunately has a Carmax Warranty to cover it, but can you afford to take a car and stick 6.5k ontop of maintence over the course of 3 years?

File: ford-flex-17649.jpg (853KB, 2248x1252px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 2248x1252px

Or you can save your money and just buy this. Looks almost identical anyways.

>>14259669
This board is brought to you by Ford.

>>14259645
Pretty much this. I love Range Rovers and Range Rover Sports (the new one is great), had various ones in my family over a long time, but it's a truck you keep around in warranty and just say fuck it if it breaks.

The new Range Rover's and Sports are actually pretty good but they still always have little things. The old ones were always a problem: air suspension issues and electronics.

I think I just buy it and sell it immediately.

Having a Range Rover sounded pretty sweet but it seems like they're unreliable pieces of crap.

>>14259669
I'm not a soccer mom

File: 1443605952013.gif (152KB, 500x516px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x516px

>>14259705
They are great if you aren't poor. But if you weren't poor you'd be getting a new one which are good.

Poor people shouldn't try to be rich, it just makes them poorer.

After 50000 they go to shit fast

>>14259313
>L322 Range Rover reliable

The short answer is with the BMW V8, no. With the Jaguar V8, more so than the BMW engine ones but still not great.

>>14259669
the funny thing is that the sub 2008 range rovers are not much better than a Ford in terms of build quality. They are selling kinda cheap because they are actually incredibly unreliable and expensive to fix. Even Londons Met police chief claims that his Range Rover was constantly breaking just after 100k miles, so thats why he got a new one, lol. If you want a more reliable European SUV get a BMW X5 or an Audi Q5

poor mpgs

>>14259313
They are usable. BMW level reliable and BMW level expensive to fix when it is broken.

>>14260765
>BMW X5 or an Audi Q5

Problem with them is that their off road capability is practically 0. Where as the Range Rover can still go places and do things where there is no road and/or drive competently in the snow (which is what that 90% of the owners bey them for).

>>14260854
Can't do shit on the snow without good tires, having a Range Rover doesn't help that. A 1st generation Cayenne is a good option if you want an inexpensive off road capable SUV. So is the Tuareg or whatever that VAG SUV thing is, but those aren't cheap in any way other than purchasing it.

>>14260920
>Can't do shit on the snow without good tires

That goes for every car ever. Most people though, buy SUVs for driving in snow and that all the 4 wheel drive use they get. Unless OP plans to take that thing off road or needs to tow something there's no reason for a Range Rover, just get a Subaru for snow.

I love Land Rovers, I just can't recommend any new one to anybody. The L322 in addition to the engine problems I mentioned earlier, the electronic system is immensely complex and a royal pain to fix if something goes wrong. And the new Rovers just aren't as good off road as the older ones, I could recomend a Classic Range Rover or a P38 that has a cool spring conversion. The Disco I or II are also good, in my opinion a better truck than the Range Rovers, but they need to be looked after and the minor things need to be taken care of before they become big. And most owners don't do that for some reason.

>>14260990
>And the new Rovers just aren't as good off road as the older ones
You're a moron, full stop. Time to get out of the past.

>>14261002
If your trying to say that a new Disco or Freelander is as good or better off road than a Defender, than your crazy. Every new Land Rover is riding on a vulnerable air suspension that breaks all the time and an independent suspension. They are also a lot bigger and heavier than the old trucks, all of which lead to being an inferior off road vehicle.

>>14261040
The air suspension does not break all the time and is not any more vulnerable than a coil spring. The new Range Rovers and Discoveries since the 3 are the best off road vehicles Land Rover has ever produced. The only downside to them is being heavy, but that's pretty well masked by the available traction aids that the older Land Rovers completely lacked. You couldn't even get locking differentials until the LR3.

>>14261056
They are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than coils. A coil spring is just a piece of steel, air suspension has a compressor, valve body, plastic lines, air tank, and rubber spring. There's a reason the coil spring conversion kit is popular for new Rovers. And all those electronic driver aids are just there to help hide the inherent problems with the design, you just admitted that. The shit we've done with our Defender 110 I'd be surprised to see a new Rover keep up.

Also remember that the Camel Trophy was killed because they switched to using the new Rovers and they couldn't keep up with the old Defenders.

>>14260854
an X5 with proper wheels/tyres can be used for offroading, seen some in action. You sometimes see videos of x5's, mercedes G's, Audi Q's etc sucking at offroading but almost always they use summer road tyres in those videos

>>14261149
>They are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than coils
Nope. They are in the exact same position and thus equally vulnerable. Which is to say not at all, because nothing will reach where they are located very easily. The air bags are NOT at all weak, considering the pressures they are under. The rest of the air suspension control isn't vulnerable, either. The only inherent problem with the new designs are that they are heavy. They could probably improve the weight if they went to a unibody design, but for some reason they don't seem to want to.

I'm sorry, but the current Discoveries and Range Rovers are better off road.

>>14261195
You never see a G sucking at off roading.

>>14261211
There are a few videos of it sucking actually, lol. Cant post FB links here but there is this video of a BMW 7 series f01 being much better in the snow than a Mercedes G lmao

>>14261324
>>14261211
nvm, found it on youtube lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBHS94Ev6_4&app=desktop

File: image.jpg (19KB, 300x230px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x230px

>>14261201
A weaker and much more complicated design, and your trying to say it's not more vulnerable than solid axles with coils or leaves.

>>14261337
Yea, that's a fairly smooth surface covered in snow. Lighter things go up hills more easily with limited traction, good job with your cherry picking.

>>14261337
And as we all know the tires make the difference on snow. We never see the tires in that video. If there are summers on the G-wagon and studded snows on the BMW, the of course the Merc is going to slide everywhere and BMW drive like nothing.

File: OP.png (238KB, 555x670px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 555x670px

>>14259339
>found one for dirt cheap
>>14259367
>Seems like he just wants to get rid of it fast

The classic story of a poor person that is obsessed with status symbols. Go ahead, buy it, you won't listen to the thread anyway, you gipsy.
These luxury cars are very expensive on maintenance. Period

Yes, that will get you some pussy, make sure to arrange the date in a mcdonalds, so she can see you, pull up into that thing.

>>14261398
>>14261365
hey, there is only less than 500lbs difference between a f01 750li xdrive and a 2013 G550. This isnt the only video of the G sucking btw, not really cherrypicking. New SUVs are often equipped with hill climb assisting tech as well. Of course tyres make a difference, thats what I was stating at first, however it does look like the G has proper winter tyres in that video though, which is kinda strange

>>14261447
>isnt the only video of the G sucking

But thanks to the magic of the Internet, you can find videos of everything sucking at some point in time.

Being a good off roader is just as much, if not more so, the ability of the driver than it is the vehicle. Though the capability of the vehicle is part of it.

get one with a carmax warranty

>>14261508
Sure, but I still believe for some reason that the latest G55s and G63s arent as good for offroading as the Gs from the 90s. Maybe it is only the tyres, but imho the suspension has been adjusted in favour of on road driving nowadays. A different story with the 6x6 G, holy shit that thing is insane.

ecoboost is at least as fast, handles better, has most of the same features, etc. compared to a range rover.

But hey, random strangers won't momentarily think you're wealthy before realizing you got it used, so the rover has that going for it.

>>14261575
>latest G55s and G63s arent as good for offroading as the Gs from the 90s.

Same point I'm trying to make for the Land Rovers and meeting resistance.

>>14261603
Yeah I didnt read those long posts but you are actually correct

>>14261620
I know I am. I'm a Land Rover enthusiast and mechanic. And go off roading with my '66 IIA and my dad's '93 Defender 110. They are brilliant trucks off road, and much better than new ones. Especially for someone who know how to drive off road.

Also stopped with trip because of a move from computer to smartphone and said screw it.

>>14261685
You mean the series 2? wow, never actually seen one in real life, are those ancient things still usable on roads/highways? Coming from a post-USSR country I havent had much experience with western offroaders, only driven/been driven in some UAZ's and Nivas

Do it OP they're excellent cars

>>14261743
You will occasionally see an old Series on the roads here in the US. They are fine on highways where the speed limit is usually 55mph. But on interstates where 65-75mph is the limit they aren't that great unless you have an overdrive in it. Not a lot of trucks have an overdrive and they aren't the easiest things to find if you want to put one on.

File: image.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

>>14261743
I don't have a pic of my '66 on my phone, but I do have one of my '73 Series III.

>>14261743
Being in an ex-Soviet country you may be able to search for and find some interesting American 4x4's. The first Jeeps were made by 3 different companies and we're all different, they were the Ford GP, Willys MA, and Bantam BRC 40. About 2500 of each were made and the vast majority were given to the Soviet Union during WWII when the US standardized on the Willys MB. I've had a theory that somewhere over there, there has to be a yard filled with old US Jeeps that nobody really pays attention to. Since the American vehicles were better engineered and built that the Soviet ones.

File: maxresdefault-5.jpg (61KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x720px

>>14259668

>"Hey everybody, Doug Dumburo here with with imported, RHD 1989 Nissan Skyline GT-R from Japan and I'm going to show you what it's like to get fast food in a drive through window when you're on the wrong side of the car!"

>luxury oriented
>offroad cpability
>reliable
Just buy a Land Cruiser or whatever the Lexus version is

Land Rovers are CRAP. Just like any british vehicle.

Just google: Doug Demuro Range Rover.

>>14262393
Please die and stay die.

File: lr-2001-st-safety-boot-l.png (199KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 450x450px

only thing Land Rover seems to be good at

>>14259313
A Range Rover is like a satellite launched from the dealer that never quite reaches a high enough orbit to escape gravity. It just goes in ever tightening concentric circles around the delership until it plows into the service department and never leaves.

I had a 2000, previous gen with the last of the Rover V8s. It was a slow pile of shit that got 10 mpg. Also it overheated and the block warped, junked at less than 150k miles. A Tahoe, Explorer or even a Durango is a far superior machine.

>>14262532
Or when it suddenly disappears from the grid only to be discovered 15 years later in an underground bunker located in eastern Europe, dismembered

>>14262424
lol, I'll bet their "steel cap toe" is actually made from alluminium.
>>14259313
Do these have the same 10 spline axles the old Landrovers have?

>>14262399
dead

>>14261575
The G63 is crap only because you are stuck with 20" wheels and that stupid front valance ruins approach angles. The G55 was absolutely fine since it did not have these limitations. Also there are non AMG Gs, so what's your point? If you weren't an idiot you would know that the G-Wagen available in the states from the 1990s is the same as the official MB Gs. Europa never imported the 461s after the 463 came out, and I'm pretty sure the only differences between the 463 and 461 in the current day is the 461 not having the facelift and being available only in basic trim.

>>14261685
>I know I am.
But you absolutely aren't

>>14262298

Honestly, yes, Doug Demuro is annoying, however; his anecdotal experience is completely relevant to the point I was making. I'm not autistic enough to let my dislike for someone hinder my ability to see facts when needed.

>>14259377

Do not buy the automobile.
It will eat what little money OP has left.

File: ericb82312.jpg (16KB, 360x403px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 360x403px

>>14259313
Yep

>>14261407
Your kind is just as bad as people obsessed with status symbols.

>>14263912
people who tell you hurtful true?

>>14263635
I was talking about the G500 as well. It is nothing without proper tyres.