J.D. Power Survey

LOS ANGELES -- So how clunky are Land Rovers, anyway?

According to the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, the British SUV brand is at the bottom of the heap, with 204 problems per 100 vehicles. That's far worse than the industry average of 124 problems per 100 vehicles.

The poor showing is a repeat performance for Land Rover, which has been in the bottom-three of the Power IQS pack for three of the past four years.

How many vs. how serious

Land Rover executives say it's not necessarily how many problems are found but how bad those problems are. It also matters how quickly the problems are corrected on the assembly line. Land Rover has fixed the problems detailed in the survey, said Al Kammerer, director of product development for Land Rover and Jaguar.

J.D. Power executives counter that niggling early quality problems often are bellwethers for longer-term lack of durability and reliability.

"There is a very good correlation between initial quality and vehicle dependability," said Neal Oddes, J.D. Power director of product research and analysis.

Land Rover's dead-last IQS finish can be attributed largely to software gremlins that triggered a persistent check-engine light.

"Consumers just knew they had a problem with a check-engine light," Oddes said. "They didn't know what the underlying problem was, and that leads to a certain apprehension."

Land Rover replaced its BMW-sourced engines for the Range Rover with ones from Jaguar for 2006. It also launched the Range Rover Sport with the same Jaguar engines. Both required creating new engine management software applications.

But Land Rover engineers did not account for all the different electronic connections a Land Rover must mate to, compared with Jaguar. That triggered fault codes in the software that then lit the check-engine light, Kammerer said.

Those errors were especially prominent in the Range Rover, which used the new Jaguar engine but retained the original BMW electrical architecture.

"Seventy to 80 percent of all quality problems have their root in poor engineering," Kammerer said. "We have gone back and fixed those goofs and have the data to prove it."

All models involved

All IQS data are sales-weighted, Oddes said. But all three Land Rover models—the Range Rover, Range Rover Sport and LR3—contributed to the brand's poor performance.

In addition to the check-engine light, consumers dinged Land Rovers for brake noise, as well as the Range Rover Sport's hard-to-close liftgate.

Kammerer said the brake problems derived from the "witchcraft" of the brake pad formulating process gone wrong. The liftgate problems came from the body shop's stamping tolerances being out of whack. Both problems have been corrected, Kammerer said.

The real evidence of Land Rover quality comes from warranty cost outlays, Kammerer said. While he would not disclose warranty cost per vehicle—that being a highly guarded secret at most automakers—Kammerer said costs are down by "well beyond 20 percent" since last year.

avoid like the plague.

sorry to hear of your tales of woe.Can't say i'm surprised. Land Rovers have always had at best "iffy " reputations for reliability and an after sales service that is legendary for being short of adequate. Read up ANY four by four magazine for impartial advice on their range and you will see what a mess the company is in .Even when Ford bought the rights to the company based on their belief that it was a "Premium Brand" , they were shocked at the state of the company. Newer models are supposed to be better , but again too many times you hear from folks who have had issues either with the Air suspension failing continuously or such as happened in warsteiner this sept where an 07 car with low miles lost its clutch. Now i know there will be staunch supporters who will claim of blissful unhindered driving experiences , but even they will tell you that things rattle , fall off or rust prematurely. Why do balloonists continuously pick them? Is it cause they are plentiful and cheap? I buy my cars to get in and drive , not to worry -will it start , will i get there and when i have arrived will i be able to get the alarm to work. Stories like this are too common ....avoid like the plague.

Got it Spot on then

Looks like J.D. Power got it spot on then.

failed turbocharger

Enquiry:Hi Ive recently been discussing the discovery 3 with a local mechanic an he had experienced one with a failed turbocharger - not usually a major fault on most vehicles but he reckoned the way to gain access to the turbo unit was to lift the body off the front of the chassis - a lot of work to be paid for by the customer yet again! thought this may be of interest to you Joe

all you got was CACHE and heartache.

I am sorry you have had to experience first hand how poorly some Euopean models are put together. If you had a Tahoe, you would not have these major problems. The Tahoe would not have all of the bleading edge features, but, then again would deliver the basics that it's price promises. Towing with anything other than a US vehicles is asking for trouble. Us MFG know this, the rest pretend their vehicles will hold up to the " wink wink " official ratings. Japan and Europe aim for the actual targets and the US MFG deliver the expected targets. The expected targets are a helluva lot more than the advertised. I have a 3/4 ton Chevy, it has had more than 3000 pounds in the bed more times than I care to mention. Yesterday I put a crate of Egytion lime stone tile in the back without considering the weight. It squated more than expected so I calculated the wight. 400 pieces of tile = 600 sq' @ 8 pounds per sq' = 4800 pounds plus the crate and 6" of snow in the bed. I lightened the load by a thousand pounds and was on my way, in 8" of snow. No problem. Next time a US SUV, they last longer, deliver more than expected and get better fuel ecomomy. Good luck ditching the LandRover. Hmmm Its abundantly crystal clear that those who buy L.R dont buy it for ease of maitenance. They dont buy it for reliability. They buy it because L.R is catering to a specific set of people who think they need the various features of a 50g US SUV. Its for the image, its for the look. Its for the ability, with no actual intelligence from the drivers. These vehicles are touted as being the very best when in the end they are no better than standard ordinary 3 box cars.. with a 25g premium in the hoods. Very few drivers can actually drive these vehicles as designed, nor were they actually designed to be used / driven. This falls into the same perception issue that MB has with its GL, and ML. This same issue is seen in the X5, X4, X3.. Also can be followed by GM's Escalade (and its Tahoe, Yukon and related brethen). Just like Ford has its Navigator and Expedition offerings. These vehicles are marketed towards a specific type and that type which Im sure is similar to you. If you truely wanted a vehicle for "its 4x4 needs" you should have researched the vehicle, its history. You should have also its reliability, service records, resale, gas miliage, towing ability, fuel capacity, break over points.. among the hundreds of other qualifications that a vehicle is subjected to. Buying a L.R means you bought into the CACHE, not someone who actually uses the vehicle as intended / designed. No where in that cache is listed its vitals, and just how good it performs in those uses / job titles. I also dont think 5% of said vehicles encounter 1/8 of its designed job duties ever in its smooth, paved asphalt road going life. And buying another Tahoe to clog the city streets (like every other "4x4") is just saying you would support American. (And supporting American is a bad thing, because it turns your purchase into being patriotic, and not actually buying a good vehicle, from a company that actually gives a damn about you. Not to mention just how close the co is from bankruptcy, enter the price of fuel and the market that exists, and ya SUV arguement just flew out the window with the doo doo bird.) Ya should have just researched the vehicle ya want to buy. I mean for 50g, ya'd think that getting the most for your money is paramount. Apparently all you got was CACHE and heartache.

Im not going to start waxing japanese

Im not going to start waxing japanese... Reliable, good looking decent to drive and relatively fuel efficient (last gen was quite good, this one.. not so much). But you wanted a vehicle that is top heavy, slow, obnoxious, and had a bit of street cred. You could have bought a Jeep... plenty can be had FOR CHEAP! Ya could have also gone without luxi-barge-cache and bought Japanese.. CRV, Murano for example. Ya could have also stayed away from heavy and porky vehicles and stayed away from Body on Frame and gone with an Xterra, Highlander) And I hate to say this.. But L.R and Jaguar are no longer owned by themselves or are their own company. They were recently sold to the highest bidder (because their former parent, Ford Motor Company could no longer afford to shovel money into their money pits. They got sold to TATA, the Indian firm. They themselves are looking for money. All the while the Indian Govt, and UK are trying to put together some deal to give TATA a load of cash). Sorry ya lost out, next time dont spend so much time on seat heaters and ya V8 motors. I have a 3/4 ton Chevy, it has had more than 3000 pounds in the bed more times than I care to mention. Yesterday I put a crate of Egytion lime stone tile in the back without considering the weight. It squated more than expected so I calculated the wight. 400 pieces of tile = 600 sq' @ 8 pounds per sq' = 4800 pounds plus the crate and 6" of snow in the bed. I lightened the load by a thousand pounds and was on my way, in 8" of snow. No problem. Next time a US SUV, they last longer, deliver more than expected and get better fuel ecomomy. Good luck ditching the LandRover. Hmmm Its abundantly crystal clear that those who buy L.R dont buy it for ease of maitenance. They dont buy it for reliability. They buy it because L.R is catering to a specific set of people who think they need the various features of a 50g US SUV. Its for the image, its for the look. Its for the ability, with no actual intelligence from the drivers. These vehicles are touted as being the very best when in the end they are no better than standard ordinary 3 box cars.. with a 25g premium in the hoods. Very few drivers can actually drive these vehicles as designed, nor were they actually designed to be used / driven. This falls into the same perception issue that MB has with its GL, and ML. This same issue is seen in the X5, X4, X3.. Also can be followed by GM's Escalade (and its Tahoe, Yukon and related brethen). Just like Ford has its Navigator and Expedition offerings. These vehicles are marketed towards a specific type and that type which Im sure is similar to you. If you truely wanted a vehicle for "its 4x4 needs" you should have researched the vehicle, its history. You should have also its reliability, service records, resale, gas miliage, towing ability, fuel capacity, break over points.. among the hundreds of other qualifications that a vehicle is subjected to. Buying a L.R means you bought into the CACHE, not someone who actually uses the vehicle as intended / designed. No where in that cache is listed its vitals, and just how good it performs in those uses / job titles. I also dont think 5% of said vehicles encounter 1/8 of its designed job duties ever in its smooth, paved asphalt road going life. And buying another Tahoe to clog the city streets (like every other "4x4") is just saying you would support American. (And supporting American is a bad thing, because it turns your purchase into being patriotic, and not actually buying a good vehicle, from a company that actually gives a damn about you. Not to mention just how close the co is from bankruptcy, enter the price of fuel and the market that exists, and ya SUV arguement just flew out the window with the doo doo bird.) Ya should have just researched the vehicle ya want to buy. I mean for 50g, ya'd think that getting the most for your money is paramount. Apparently all you got was CACHE and heartache.

Disco 4

I have a 2010 Disco 4 HSE, and although I've had no serious problems thus far, the electronics do peculiar things from time to time, and the satnav is just a spectacularly bad system so I have a TomTom next to it which gets me where I want to go. Much of this car seems not to have been thought through properly. If you go to Europe you need to switch the headlights over which for most would be a main dealer visit before going and another upon returning. You have to remove the front grille and headlights to do it. This is expensive and unreasonable, and once done you are then driving illegally whilst in UK until they're changed back. Stupid.

Discovery Sport

I sold my Audi 3.2 Quattro convertible after 9 years on 28/08/15. It had had 1 fault in that time; a tail-lamp bulb failed! The night before picking up my new Discovery Sport, which was sitting at the Dealer, I was informed it had been 'quarantined' by Landrover, and further information would be available on 10/09/15. I am not sure what they expect me to do now. No temporary replacement was offered. I have £40,000 sitting in the bank waiting for the car that never was ( I ordered it on April 4th) So here here I am, sat at home with plenty of time on my hands to warn any other mugs out there. DON'T BUY A LANDROVER. They are bottom of the JD Power survey for a reason, and when things go wrong they do not care a monkey's cuss. BE WARNED!!
Please leave a comment:
* Denotes a required field
*Subject:
*Name:
*Email:
*Comment:
*Please enter the validation code shown above:

Enjoyed this Article?

Please share with other or add to your favourites.

Please Support Our Cause

Recent Comments