Edmunds CarPool

I agree there are much better choices. I don't know that people compare them to CRV or RAV4, those don't have the premium nameplate. But it just looks too much like another Escape or Mariner for the extra $. For $40K, you could get a BMW X3 (3.0si!), or the new Acura RDX. If you want the off-road cred, you could get a lot of very nice and well-equipped "real SUVs" for that kind of money -Pathfinder, Explorer, Cherokee, etc.

Saw one of these yesterday - I thought then as I have every other time this vehicle comes to mind.......weak excuse for a Land Rover. I can't shake the thought of what I read when it was making it's debut. It's built on the Euro Ford Focus platform; is it not? What's with that??? When we were looking for a new ride last spring, I threw the Volvo S40/V50 into the mix (I happen to like the Volvo design lang. on this size car - best looking of the bunch, I think). I especially liked the 2.5T V50 sportswagon. One of the negatives that I couldn't ignore was that it was a shared platform with the Focus. I had similar reservations about the first S40 that was a share with Mitsubishi. So, I also agree that the LR2 is way over priced and for me it is made worse by its underpinnings.
 
It shouldn't say Land Rover on it's hood.

see karls agony post below.
 
I do wonder though, which of these would be better off road?
 
comp386: Lux vechicals needs to stand out somehow. If the main difference between lux and regular cars will now be leather, then those manufactures need to worry. and a 33% preimum in price for a car that is very similar just for the name is nuts.
 
It used to be that these cars offered perfomance and lux above and beyond a standard car. However the standard car has caught up leaps and bounds. Like you pointed out, the mazdaspeed 3 offers insanse perfomance for the price. The question you should really be asking is why is the BMW priced so much higher for such a margianly gain. Not the other way around.
 
It seems these days the car's name can add 10k price to the sticker. And thats about all it does

I disagree. It's the whole feel when getting inside such luxury cars that can make a difference.
 
For example, I sat in a 335 sedan that was inside the garage the other night. When I opened the door, the lights turned on in a very gradual way. It's "inviting".
When I looked outside with the door open, I noticed white lights on the side of the door. It was the door handles that had a LED light on each. Again, inviting and warm.
I touch the leather and I actually mistake it for the lesser grade one because the lower grade leatherette looked like it. I asked to confirm and it was definitely leather. One can remark the opposite, that leatherette does a fine job emulating leather. Yet, it was so different from typical leather-equipped non-luxury cars. It was beautiful to look at (color-wise), the texture was different, and it looked sturdy.
 
I look at the map lights and the dome light stack, and I see airplane-style bulbs, that you see over every plane seat. Strong illumination and nicely designed.
 
I look at the fit and finish, and well, there isn't anything to fault. In fact the only hard plastic I found, was the interior grab handle on the rear doors (didn't check the front ones). The rest, even the bottom of the interior of the door, was all soft touch plastic. It simply looked like it was built with attention.
 
I look at the auto shifter, and there's that nice leather boot on it and with a quality feel to it. Again, a feel of being treated right for the paid amount.
 
So you see, even with all the gismos low end cars have, the things they lack are often what makes luxury cars feel like "luxury". It's how you use the vehicle or how the vehicle treats you that really is noteworthy.
My time in that 335 was brief but I was just obsessing over every fine detail to see where there was any cost-cutting, and to be frank, it felt like a BMW, as in, it is priced on a level that makes sense versus a compact/midsize sedan like a loaded Camry or Altima.
And it's the car of my dreams now...haha.

opfreak, I agree. It's hard to find any vehicle under $60K that you can't get all of the same goodies for much less money from a "common" nameplate. Nissan has done a good job of distinguishing Infiniti in the US market, they are RWD and don't share platforms (except for Z, unless I'm forgetting others). Lexus also has some unique RWD offerings, but there's also a lot of overlap with Toyota. Most luxury vehicles are badge engineering. Or else they are artificially made to be luxury vehicles in our US market only. I understand in Germany even the taxi cabs are BMWs and Mercedes. You can get them with cloth seats, small diesel engines, and few amenities.
 
To the majority that don't care about RWD and maximum horsepower, you can get just about any "luxury" toy in a plebian vehicle. Nav, remote/keyless start, awesome music and entertainment systems, power everything, even radar/laser/whatever cruise control is available on some Toyotas. Reclining rear seats are available on many vehicles. Air conditioned seats are available on some Ford SUVS, I think.
 
The features that truly distinguish "luxury" brands are often ridiculed by the press - self parking, for example. What else do "luxury" cars offer that regular cars don't? What can you ONLY get from a "luxury marque" these days, besides a snobby attitude? Perhaps better service and a nicer waiting room. That's nice, but the way I see it, for that kind of money I damn well better not need much service!

Great picture for the post Karl!

vic_pe,
Those are good points, but writers often say all the same things about VW's and Hondas and Toyotas. Perhaps the feeling of quality and refinement is worth the extra 10-20% over the domestics. But when you consider BMW and Mercedes insane options prices, the difference becomes harder to justify.

Karl, do any of the entries in this segment really make sense? I question the value of the X3, RDX, and LR2...none of them really make much sense at all, although the X3 makes a bit more sense than the other 2. That is, it makes more sense NOW after, what, 3 years? 4 years? That's how long it took for BMW to get rid of that puny 2.5 model & lower prices.
 
I completely agree with your assessment - I'm just curious as to whether you think it's a characteristic of the segment.

I also find it hard to justify the extra cost of a luxury model. Maybe that's because I don't have lots of disposable income to start with. I guess if I had lots of money, an extra 10 or 20 grand wouldn't bother me.
 
What gets me most about luxury cars is not the interior. Its the exterior. An 80k Benz or a 20k Toyota, a rock or two later and the paint job is ruined. Either way, no matter what you paid for it to start with, its ruined. Bugs, road debris, salt air, these just murder a beautiful exterior. I love washing and waxing my car, and it sickens me when I have to pull out the touch up paint. It never looks right again, and I hate knowing that something so expensive can be marred so easily just by using it for its intended purpose: driving. If I owned an expensive BMW, I still couldn't have fun in it. It may be the ultimate driving machine, but I'd be busy obsessing over the damage that its taking while I'm out on the road.
 
If they are going to charge 20k more for a car, they should use materials that aren't so easily damaged. Instead of sheet metal and paint, give me color infused carbon fiber. I know its expensive, but if you go that route for the body of the car, then you have justified the extra cost. A body that won't get nicked and scraped as easily might start to justify the price. It would also help to reduce weight, thereby offering increased performance or gas mileage...or both. Thereby further separating the regular models from their luxury bretheren.

Terrific picture, Karl! :)

vic_pe
 
Good points.
 
Still that refienment is coming at a HUGE price. and its not like the cars you talk about aren't mass produced like the others.
 
And if you play with numbers. the actuall cost is much more then just 20%. it gets to 30-40% extra padding then the 'lower' brand.
 
Then add the fact that the lower brand will general get a discount. (low apr finance, cash back) and you will be able to work with the dealer on price. (vs the bmw of the world, you want it? this is what it costs[see the smart car buyers blog, a mercedes c class for 75 bucks under msrp).
That padding becomes even higher. And while yes, all that stuff is nice, the ever day mans car can really be decked out nicely, and cost nearly 10k less then the more refined brand name.
 
Thinking about it, the reason you have decked out crv's, and 30k accords, is thats the price entry level Lux was at.
 
it used to be a 30k or so lux car was pretty decked out, now they have options that add huge costs to the car to make them lux.
 
So what did the Lux car makers do? They just added 10k to their car price, and claimed refinement, just so that they could say there more elite.
 
Then the accords/camerys of the world saw the gap, and added leathers, nav (is nav really a luxury item anymore? when you can buy one in story for less then 200 bucks?). And other refinements to their cars, and filled that 20-30k gap nicely. so much so that a decked out accord vs a decked out acrua, or in this case, a decked out crv vs a decked out LR2, has very little difference. Quality is the same, if not BETTER in the cheaper brand, performance is similar. Material quality is all they have. and talk about a huge preimum for better materials

It's interesting Land Rover is considered a luxury or premium vehicle in the US. Outside of here, Land Rover is not even considered a premium vehicle. It has the SAME "level"/prestige as an equivalent model from Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc. Don't forget that before the Discovery in '89, the Land Rover was just the Defender.........and nobody will call a Defender a premium vehicle!.......hardly anyone bought a Land Rover for personal use. The Discovery was launched to better compete with the Japanese competition. I must admit it was much better equiped than the competition was in the early '90s, but wasn't regarded as a premium vehicle.
(Before the Discovery, Land Rover was seen in Africa as a commercial, police or military vehicle!)
 
It is because of this same utilitarian image that Land Rover created the Range Rover in the '70s to cater for people who wanted a luxurious off-road vehicle. Unlike other Land Rover models, the Range Rover is really a luxury vehicle.
 
In view of this history, I must give Land Rover's marketing department props for successfully portraying their products as "luxury" in the US! I think the presidential hopefuls should hire Land Rover marketing guys for their campaigns!!! LOL!
 
So I fully agree with Karl that the LR2 is overpriced and not worth it. One might point out the off-road abilities, but there are much better vehicles out there if one is serious about an off-roading SUV. In short, there is nothing that separates the LR3 from the Japanese competition, so no justification to pay more.

vic_pe,
 
You're right! The things you point out about the 335i are what I call "extreme" luxury. That's one of the advantages of a luxury car. The other is the "luxury status and exlusivity" a.k.a. prestige or snob appeal.
 
The truth is that it costs a lot to make a car have those extreme luxury subtleties. When you consider these factors with other ones like excellent or super customer service at dealers, it is understandable why luxury cars cost so much.
 
But the question is, is the extreme luxury, snob appeal and ultra-service worth the extra price? If you're rich, successful or financially secure, the answer is probably. But in pure economic terms, no.
 
Let's take the $30k 2008 Honda Accord EX-L with Navigation, and a fully loaded 335i costing $50k. While I have little doubt I'll enjoy the 335i more, the fact is that the Accord is so good that I just wouldn't NEED the extras the 335i brings.......I would forget about the 335i's luxury a few weeks after being in the Accord. I just cannot think of any normal person who would say the Accord is uncomfortable or slow! And the Accord still offers more value in terms of interior space and, probably, fuel economy! In short, the Accord would meet the needs of anybody! In contrast, the many (if not most) people might not notice the BMW's extreme luxury subtleties.
 
In the end, I'd rather save the extra $20k and use on other things than spend on a 335i.......unless, of course, I'm rich, veru successful or very financially secure. If the priority is value (which it is for the vast majority of buyers), no luxury car makes sense. Of course, luxury cars are not aimed at the large majority of car buyers......

PS: It doesn't seem like the LR2 has any extreme luxury subtleties over the its competition.

For the record I think the LR2 sucks, the reliability is bad, the styling is like the last one, and its too small inside. In this segment I would have an RDX, thats the one to beat.
 
But what you said about a luxury vehicle is somewhat off. That comparison you drew between the LR2 and CRV/RAV4 is true for pretty much any luxury vehicle. Take the Audi A3 you blogged about recently, why even bother getting a $35K small hatch when you could get a full size sedan with more power and more room? Why get an Escalade when a Yukon Denali is much less? The comparisons keep going....
 
Luxury vehicles dont make too much sense ultimately if you draw such comparisons so its best to leave them alone.

Karl, is call class, luxury or status. I can buy Citizen or Seiko watch for less than an Omega or Tag Heuer. But who gets the attention on your arm? I think the LR-2 have more 4WD gadgets than the top of the line Honda CRV or Toyota RAV4. Put all three in a hill climb, sand, mud and check who gets stuck first. Same argument with a Boxster vs. Solstice.
 
True you don't want to pay a whole lot of money and get annoying quality issues all the time. Not me. Anyway most people will lease these vehicles to drive to the mall, movies or regular commuting to work.

I never read this blog but whenever Karl reviews a Land Rover someone sends me a link to it. Hey at least you declare your bias right up front that you don't like Land Rovers. Why do you even bother driving them if you don't like them so much?
 
Additionally if the LR2 is overpriced the X3 is WAAY overpriced as a comparable X3 is about 10,000 more then a LR2. The RDX is only a little over priced as it is about the same price as the LR2. Higher towing capacity, at 3,500 lbs, on the LR2 then most other vehicles in its class as well. Finally the LR2 is built in the EUCD platform primarily developed by Volvo that is loosely based on the C1 Platform of the Euro Focus, C30, etc.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EUCD_platform
 
The LR2 is so far the only small SUV to ever score five stars in the Euro NCAP crash test. The LR2 scored higher for adult and child safety.
 
http://www.euroncap.com/small_off_road_4_4.aspx
 
EDIT:
 
I didn't scroll down far enough I see the new Tiguan also managed to get five stars now. That wasn't the case a month ago so it is a recent addition. The VW still didn't score as high as the LR2 did using the raw scores.

It also comes with the ultimate safety feature:
 
It will be either at the dealer or stuck in your driveway half the time.

brett,
But you gotta admit they are reliable. You can rely on them breaking down.

One point I would want to make clear is that I'm not saying the Honda/Toyota are "as good" as the LR2 for less money. I'm saying they are BETTER in every measurable way. Yes, someone is going to say the LR2 is better off road because of its "Terrain Response System"
 
Two problems: No way to easily prove this, and nobody buying any of these cars (RAV, CR-V or LR2) is really going off road. If the LR2 had a low-range transfer case you could point to a clear off-road oriented piece of equipment, but it doesn't have one, so any off-road advantage it has is purely theoretical. I'd actually like to test it out some time, maybe in a comparison test, but again, because the buyers of these cars never go off-road the results really wouldn't matter anyway.
 
So the LR has no clear ADVANTAGE over the Honda/Toyota, and it has multiple DISADVANTAGES. Take your pick: Fuel mileage, cargo space, acceleration (it ties the Honda), price, reliability, etc.
 
If you buy a loaded 335i versus a loaded Accord at least there are some areas where the 335i is better. Steering feel, handling, acceleration, engine note (BTW, the BMW isn't FAR BETTER than the Accord in these areas, but it is better, at least by some factor).
 
So saying that the choice between the Tag and the Timex is just like the choice between the LR2 and RAV4 isn't accurate -- unless the Tag has a hard-to-read face, consistently runs too slow and isn't as comfortable on your arm.
 
Paying more for very slightly more -- or even equal -- is one thing. Paying more for less makes no sense.

Karl,
don't mince words. How do you really feel.

I've always found it ironic that the brand with consistantly the worst reliability is the one most likely to venture out on a Sahara trek from Tunis to Timbuktu.

jriz,
 
What would a trip like that be without a hint of danger or the threat of death by exposure?

"So saying that the choice between the Tag and the Timex is just like the choice between the LR2 and RAV4 isn't accurate -- unless the Tag has a hard-to-read face, consistently runs too slow and isn't as comfortable on your arm."
 
Hear, hear! And props to blackadder, too, for his comments. Land Rover has had great marketing in the U.S. for years, putting the Range Rover, for instance, at the top of dream car lists everywhere. But the truth hurts. It's kind of like seeing a celebrity without makeup.

For what it's worth (getting waaay off topic here), most Tags I see on most people's wrists tend to have too many complications (chrono, moonphase, etc) to easily read the numbers vs. a Timex which is often a nice clear LCD digital. I would expect a Tag fresh from the jeweler to run fast, not slow if it had a mechanical movement (why the heck do people by quartz Tags?). And some people find the rotor on an automatic uncomfortable (Timex doesn't make any automatics any more).
 
"But if you get shipwrecked on a deserted island, the mechanical Tag will run long after the Timex has run out its battery!" Sounds to me a lot like the argument for the LR2's off-road capability.

I have taken the LR2 off-road multiple times at Land Rover events and at our dealership. I took it off-road at the LR2 launch in Santa Barbra on some very tough trails. No other soft roader would have made it on those trails period and even some stock vehicles with low range, Jeep Liberty for one, would have had trouble.
 
True story. I can drive a LR2 across our off road demonstration course easily as long as I follow the right line. It is a little tight in places with clearances approaching less then two inches but I can do it. Three years ago a H2 got stuck on our demonstration course because the chassis is so weak it flexed to the point of binding up the drive line. Most pathetic thing I had ever seen and it pinched the door shut trapping our F&I/UC manager inside. The techs had to stand on the passenger side rear bumper to even out the stress on the chassis and let him back out.
 
Oh and all of this happened within the first five feet of the course on the very first obstacle.
 
Karl it is ok to just say you don't like Land Rovers as lots of people don't. I have no use for Toyotas since they abandoned the enthusiast market and I had no use for Mercedes till I started working for someone who used to sell them and made me get them. I still don't like most of the Mercedes models but I understand them better and there are a few I do like.
 
The LR2 is also made at The Halewood plant which has earned multiple quality awards.
 
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news050615_jag_jdpowe
 
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2005069
 
In my experience a lot of the problems with past Land Rovers were build issues related to labor at Sollihul. Sure there were stupid design problems with past Land Rovers but we don't see much of that now. The problems we see tend to be human error at best and, although this hasn't happened in several years, outright sabotage at worst.

I like Land Rovers, always have.......just not the Freelander or this LR2.

Toyotas abandoned the enthusiast market, for the reliability market. Land Rover abandoned factory worker sabotage, for human error.
 
Seems to me, Toyota made a more profitable decision.

My brother in law has had three LRs. Two Discos and a RR Sport. The First Disco '99 I think was junk, constantly in the shop. He replaced it with a '03 Disco. Better, but still junk. Had all kinds of electrical problems from the keyless entry to the windows not rolling down. Even the computer went out on a camping trip.
 
He replaced this with the new RR Sport (I know, I know, some people never learn). He has had this thing for 5-6 months. It has been in the shop for at least a month over that time frame with various fuel delivery and other electrical nightmares.
 
No the problems are not fixed, it is just that they are less than the dreaded years prior to Ford's takeover. BMW saved LR with designs and some solid engineering, but the quality was never there.

I just remembered - I saw a Black RR Sport a couple of weeks ago, go through a light I was sitting at with a HUGE cloud of blue white smoke trailing behind it....I mean huge! I had my windows up so I didn't hear what it may have sounded like but it wasn't a pretty sight.
 
Is that a BMW or Jag V8 in that (or niether)?

Used to be BMW (right after Ford bought LR -- Ford didn't want to make last-minute engine changes), but for the last few years (since 2004?) it's been a Ford-based engine.

Thanks Karl, I'm familiar with the BMW part .... they kind of went with it because things were so far along. I do get confused after that - is it a similar engine to the ones in a Jag which also seems to be similar to the one in the AM Vantage. Where and with who did this engine design really begin life? Sorry, I know I could probably scour the web and help myself - just figured it's quicker/easier to ask here.

I suppose I'm the guy who buys the less-than-perfect vehicles just to get something stylish and distinctive. I guess I assumed an LR2 would be less reliable than an Acura RDX, but the dealer service is so phenomenal that I could tolerate a few glitches.
 
It will be a sad day if Land Rover goes away. Kind of life losing Alfa Romeo and getting the Miata. We got a "better" car, but all the stuff you can't measure got lost in the shuffle...

Billymay, nobody wants Land Rover to go away. I for one love Land Rovers (well, not the LR2 because I consider it a washed-down version of the real thing)....but we want something more reliable! I don't see why a car cannot be distinctive, stylish and reliable!

My problem with the LR2 isn't that this doesn't compare to a Honda or Toyota. I wouldn't be caught dead in a Rav4 or CRV, so I don't care how the specs compare. But I do have a problem with how this LR2 looks like a tarted-up Escape. Even though they aren't remotely the same in any way and don't share platforms or components, why did they make it look so mainstream? Why would they style this to look like a rebadged Ford when it isn't? Normally, Land Rover is so spot-on with distinctive good design and product positioning that people will overlook the British quality and hope for the best. But with the LR2, they missed the mark entirely and this is just another plain SUV that will be measured against the generic competition.

All the V8s in Land Rovers on this side of the pond are Jag based not Ford based. They are 4.4 liter versions of the AJ-V8 in naturally aspirated engines and 4.2 liter V8s in the supercharged engines. Really I don't understand why people think the AJ-V8 is just based on one of the Ford Modular V8 engines. They have completely different specs in almost every way.
 
The Jag derived V8s came out in October of 2004 for the debut of the 2005 MY LR3. The Range Rover picked up the Jag engine in the 2006 MY that started around April/May 2005. The Range Rover Sport has always had the Jag V8.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_AJ-V8_engine#Land_Rover_4.2
 
http://www.racinggreencars.com/modern/The%20Jaguar%20AJ-V8%20Engine%20Strengths%20and%20Weaknesses.pdf

"All the V8s in Land Rovers on this side of the pond are Jag based not Ford based"
 
And we all know that Jaguar is not affiliated with Ford in anyway, shape or form.
 
Well, other than Ford owns Jaguar. Maybe that Jag V8 is Ford based after all.

But it is not and if you looked at the technical specs you would see that. You obviously didn't read the links that I posted above.
 
Here is another one...
 
http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html
 
The AJ-V8 started out as an all aluminum engine with the dreaded Nikasil cylinder liners that plagued BMWs of the same era. Later on cast iron liners were used instead of the Nikasil. They were all DHOC with four valve per cylinder The Modular Ford engines all started as iron block SOHC two valve designs.
 
Bore, Stroke, valve angle, bore center, deck height etc. are all different between the two engines.

Thanks for the info, BR.

Does Ford own Jaguar?
If the answer is yes, then any engine designed and built by Jag is Ford based. It was built with Ford money, 'cause Jaguar sure as hell hasn't made any since purchased by Ford.

According to Consumer Reports:
Among the 36 makes, Land Rover is the least reliable, on average.
 
I'm guessing those factories haven't won any awards recently.