The Range rover is inherently a complicated car (mechanically and electrically) due to its many luxury options. However, some things like the peeling of interior parts and door handles is unacceptable for a car of this caliber. The beloved front diff exploding and the other fun issues that come about are all serious design flaws that we as consumers should not have to deal with. To pay this amount of money for a car, we should expect a product of much higher quality especially if we maintain and service it regularly. I have owned many cars and enjoy fixing them myself. Out of all of the cars I have owned I find that the Range Rover is a good car except for some serious design flaws that should never have been. I currently have a 2000 E55 that has worn much better while being maintained in the same manner. I really love the space and ride/comfort of the Range Rover, but I wish it held up as well as the E55.
I am tall so the size of a car is very important to me. I have held onto the RR for a long time because it’s one of the few cars I fit comfortably in, but after all these miles I realize the liability is just too high. Another issue I have is that Land Rover Dealers (in the U.S.) really don’t care to diagnose/attribute a problem to its specific cause. I have met rover dealers in the west, east, and south that simply throw thousand dollar parts at whatever they think is the problem. They have never been concerned with finding an economic solution - this goes for Indy guys as well. I guess it is a business after all. It’s as if the car has the perception/connotation that if you're driving a range rover you better expect a $3000 to $5000 repair bill, and if you can’t afford it then you shouldn’t really be driving this car. A $90K car should last you more than 100 thousand miles before it starts coming apart at the seams. Driving an expensive car shouldn’t give license to whoever is fixing it to rob you. I realize this is the case with all luxury cars but the Range Rover inherently seems to attract this - at least in my experiences. I will be sad to sell her, especially since all the cross country trips and mountain adventures she has been on, but I am ready to move onto another car that can last me 200-250k with solid reliability.
We hear so many complaints about reliability on these boards not because only people with problematic cars are posting, rather there is really a problem with the dependability of these cars. Have a conversation with any mechanic that does not have a vested interest in profiting from you and they will tell you the truth. Raphael asked me the other day "have you replaced your transmission yet?" upon responding no; he laughed and said "you are a very lucky man." I just don’t believe this should be the case with a $100K car. I believe you should buy a car for its overall mechanical/quality value and longevity and not as a status symbol. In the past we bought more expensive cars because of better value and quality, but today it seems to be all about status and no one is willing to accept the responsibility of a poorly engineered car - it's not about the money it's about the principle.
