This week whatcar voted D4 2nd best SUV but which voted RRS and FFRR worst value cars

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/best-suvs-...1_headline

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/10/best-a...ey-298917/ Wanted a Series 2 LR since childhood but previously owned MY16 Disco Sport HSE TD4 Auto, MY13 RR Sport Black Edition TDV6 Auto, MY10 RR Sport HSE TDV6 Auto, 2007 Freelander 1 Freestyle TD4 Soft Top, 2009 Freelander 2 GS TD4 Auto, 2007 Freelander 2 GS TD4, 2004 Disco 2 Metropolis Auto, 2002 Disco 2 GS, 2000 Freelander 1 SE TD4 SW

Still hoping for a S2 one day!

In purely objective terms, the RRS is bad value for money. Especially considering its pretty poor reliability record.

For most people in the market for a biggish 4x4, the Touareg represents much better value. You get similar kit levels, it's quicker, handles better, is much more fuel efficient and cheaper to buy. It's also actually pretty good away from tarmac.

The one thing the Sport has is the badge. The best bit about the Sport is the one thing that most owners don't need/use - it's bloody good offroad. 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

Well I don't care as it puts a big on my face everytime I drive it  10 TDV8 Santorini

i love the Which comparisons, they allways compair unlike for like, If you followed all there recomendations every one would have BEKO kitchen appliances and argos home brand tv and hifi.
All cars, that are expensive are poor value for money if you are in the mind set 'they all get you from A to B.
How do you compare a Hyundai with a FFRR ???

shepp wrote:

How do you compare a Hyundai with a FFRR ???

One is reliable and cheap to buy and run. The other is a Range Rover.

 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

For sure the Tow-rag is a well engineered & capable vehicle but from any angle it is very very ugly. I can't understand why the RRS is so poor from a reliability perspective but based on my own experience reliability is the achilles heal for sure but that's with both FFRRs and RRS which I've had.

Re the comments in the which report, fuel efficiency is unlikely to be a key purchasing criteria when buying a large premium SUV, so

RRSTDV8 wrote:

In purely objective terms, the RRS is bad value for money. Especially considering its pretty poor reliability record.

For most people in the market for a biggish 4x4, the Touareg represents much better value. You get similar kit levels, it's quicker, handles better, is much more fuel efficient and cheaper to buy. It's also actually pretty good away from tarmac.

The one thing the Sport has is the badge. The best bit about the Sport is the one thing that most owners don't need/use - it's bloody good offroad.

Most people with a life get on with it; those without a life fill in questionaires and answer telephone surveys.

Us Sports owners have a life so only the moaners complain and skew the results

The RRS is a man's car, presence on the road and off, can do all it's supposed to do, sounds like a real car should, it's the car you buy because you want one ..........

Take a look at a Cayenne,Toureg, or any other......do they make you grin ?

TST

Yesterday, minding my own business with window open, parked in a quiet car park waiting for SWMBO to come out of the hair dressers, a chap pulled into a space beside me in a fairly new Passat. Completely unsolicited he remarked "one day I want one of those". Admittedly the Poles had just cleaned it and it was looking pretty good..
Previously we had a P38 so I know all about (un)reliability. Current: MY15 RRS2 3.0 SDV6 Autobiography Dynamic, Aruba Gold, HUD, Meridian 1700w
Gone: RRS TDV6 2007 Stornaway
Gone: P38 2.5 DHSE

The RRS is a heart purchase, not a head purchase. Objectively, there are much better 4x4s out there - in terms of just about everything bar the off road bit. Subjectively? Different story because the RRS does bring a warm glow (except when it needs yet something else sorted by the usually poor dealer). 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

RRSTDV8 wrote:

The RRS is a heart purchase, not a head purchase. Objectively, there are much better 4x4s out there - in terms of just about everything bar the off road bit. Subjectively? Different story because the RRS does bring a warm glow (except when it needs yet something else sorted by the usually poor dealer).

By better, I mean better fuel economy, better road manners (handling etc), better acceleration, better brakes, better reliability, better depreciation. All the objective things that one can actually measure. I'm hoping that the new RRS will cover more of these areas by virtue of losing a chunk of weight - the FFRR is some 400kg lighter. If they can do the same thing with the Sport then that will be great.

It's the subjective stuff that we love about the Sport. The "feel good" stuff that will vary between each of us and which can't easily be measured.

As for the off road ability, it's fairly moot anyway. Most RRS are treated to big wheels and high gloss polish and their owners would have a fit at the thought of their vehicles getting dirty, let alone axle deep in muck. Indeed, for most owners, the Sport (and the majority of 4x4 on the road) may as well be 2WD. I was at Eastnor LRE last week. An X5 came in to the car park while we were waiting to go out on the self-drive. Someone made a comment about it being pointless because it had all of the weight, complexity and expense of a 4WD system that was never taken off road etc. I pointed out that the vast majority of Land Rover products fit the same desciption - most of the LR stuff we see on the roads will never go further off road than the supermarket car park. 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

RRSTDV8 wrote:

By better, I mean better fuel economy, better road manners (handling etc), better acceleration, better brakes, better reliability, better depreciation. All the objective things that one can actually measure. I'm hoping that the new RRS will cover more of these areas by virtue of losing a chunk of weight - the FFRR is some 400kg lighter. If they can do the same thing with the Sport then that will be great.

It's the subjective stuff that we love about the Sport. The "feel good" stuff that will vary between each of us and which can't easily be measured.

As for the off road ability, it's fairly moot anyway. Most RRS are treated to big wheels and high gloss polish and their owners would have a fit at the thought of their vehicles getting dirty, let alone axle deep in muck. Indeed, for most owners, the Sport (and the majority of 4x4 on the road) may as well be 2WD. I was at Eastnor LRE last week. An X5 came in to the car park while we were waiting to go out on the self-drive. Someone made a comment about it being pointless because it had all of the weight, complexity and expense of a 4WD system that was never taken off road etc. I pointed out that the vast majority of Land Rover products fit the same desciption - most of the LR stuff we see on the roads will never go further off road than the supermarket car park.

I think one of the reasons the sport is so popular is that it has a wide age group that want a sport, it looks just right and its name is just right, now, they are getting cheaper for the earlier models the owners are getting younger, but yet the older end are still buying them also (Beancounter & awd) to name a few but i have noticed that about 75% of drivers are female