Stan, as posted in that thread, as soon as the fault message reappeared, my wife turned around and head back home.

As we live out of town, what else could she have done? 2007 TDV8 Lux

1. Ford Pinto
The Ford (NYSE:F) Pinto is probably the most notoriously dangerous car ever created. Manufactured from 1971 through 1980, the car was especially volatile and unsafe because of its impractical construction. Because the gas tank was placed in the back of the car, near the rear bumper, the Ford Pinto had a tendency to burst into flames after even mild fender benders. Unfortunately, rear-end collision tests on the Ford Pinto didn’t begin until the car was already in production, so the eight of 11 cars that burst into flames during testing didn’t do much to change the vehicle’s safety features, because Ford simply didn’t want to spend the money.
The worst part about the Ford Pinto wasn’t its life-threatening safety flaws. It wasn’t the fact that more than 3 million units were sold over its nearly 10-year run, or that there are records of fiery explosions occurring only one year after the car went into production. The worst part about the Ford Pinto was the automaker’s negligent reaction to the knowledge that these cars were unsafe.
Instead of fixing the safety issue by reinforcing the rear end, which was calculated to cost $121 million, Ford decided to simply pay out crash and burn victims since it was “cheaper,” at an estimated $50 million, Time reports. Twenty-seven people were killed in rear-end explosions involving the Ford Pinto before 1.5 million vehicles were finally recalled, in 1978, to undergo safety upgrades.

Source: Jack Snell / Flickr
2. Chevrolet Corvette
The Chevrolet (NYSE:GM) Corvette is not one of the most dangerous cars of all time due to a lack of safety features but because of the reckless nature that tends to go hand-in-hand with speed enthusiasts who purchase the vehicle.
Because of Corvette drivers’ tendency to love launching the car into speeds as fast as it can possibly handle, the Corvette has reportedly killed more people than any other car in history. An estimated 5.2 drivers and passengers die in car accidents for every 10,000 1985-1987 model year Corvettes registered in the U.S., according to a study from 1990 reported on by the Associated Press. That’s pretty high, considering that the lowest rate is calculated at 0.6 deaths per 10,000 vehicles for the Volvo 740-760 four-door.
Some Corvettes can go from 0 to 60 in only 3.3 seconds (at least these days), and a lot of overzealous drivers have had a fatally hard time appropriately and safely handling that amount of power in one tiny fiberglass vehicle.

Source: 55Laney69 / Flickr
3. Ford Mustang
The Ford Mustang’s death rate is close behind the Chevy Corvette at 4.4 deaths per 10,000 vehicles, according to a 1990 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, giving the ‘Stang an irrefutable spot on the list of most dangerous vehicles ever produced. And like the Corvette, most customers of the Ford Mustang chose this car for its sexy exterior and the sheer power found under its hood.
Besides the majority of testosterone-laden consumers who were speeding these cars straight to their deaths, Mustangs from 1964 to 1970 are especially susceptible to exploding into flames, since the gas tank was designed in such a way that its top is also the floor of the trunk. CBS News points out that Ford has been sued at least 70 times by victims burned in Mustang fires as a result of rear-end collisions. Former company President Lee Iacocca even said to CBS News that safety “wasn’t front and center. It wasn’t the priority” when creating the older Mustangs.

Source: Bonhams.com
4. 1905 Darracq Sprint Two-Seater
The 1905 Darracq Sprint Two-Seater was the fastest car in the world in 1905, when it clocked in at 109.65 miles per hour during its run at the Vanderbilt Cup. It may not seem very quick compared to today’s fastest vehicles, which can break speeds of 250 miles per hour with ease, but the Darracq was especially notable — and dangerous — because of its body construction … or lack thereof.
The body of the Darracq two-seater was completely open: there were no doors, no side walls, and no windshield. Drivers were perched precariously on an open seat behind the engine and were protected by nothing. The bucket seats were flat and failed to do as little as cradle the driver and passenger; the absence of floorboards forced passengers to brace their feet against a portion of the Darracq’s frame lest they accidentally dip a foot down onto the pavement and lose it forever; and riders were forced to cling to the air pressure pump and gas tank flange so that they didn’t go flying from this vehicle straight to their deaths.

Source: High Contrast / Wikimedia Commons
5. Chery Amulet
The Chinese-made Chery Amulet is known solely for being incredibly unsafe, as quickly proved by one of the few safety tests performed on the vehicle by a country other than China itself. In the test, performed by EuroNCAP, this tiny sedan crumpled up like a piece of paper. The Chery Amulet performed so poorly that the crash dummy, more resilient than a human body, had to be disassembled to be removed from the vehicle. Needless to say, this dangerous car received a 1.7 out of 16 points.
Amulet manufacturers responded to the test by saying that it was “probably rigged” in an attempt to discredit the Amulet in competitor OAO Avtovaz’s favor, but couldn’t say how the testing may have been fixed. Another test, performed by Russian car magazine AvtoRevu, gave the car a zero rating. “We have never seen such terrible deformation of a car’s body,” AvtoRevu reporter Yury Vetrov said. Coincidence?
Unfortunately, the Chery Amulet was once Russia’s No. 1 Chinese vehicle, selling more than 10,000 units there in 2007 alone.

Source: Bull-Doser / Wikimedia Commons
6. Ford Explorer
The Ford Explorer may not be dangerous to its own passengers, but it still presents a danger to others. The Ford Explorer is 16 times more likely than any other family SUV to kill passengers in another vehicle during a car crash, PBS’s Frontline reports. Despite the body count associated with it, the Ford Explorer is among the most popular SUVs in the world.
In 2000, however, the Ford Explorer endured internal safety issues. An unreasonably high rate of tire failures on Ford Explorers caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to reach out to both companies in concern, and the issue would eventually lead to Firestone closing an entire manufacturing plant in Illinois. Plus, the Ford Explorer was top heavy, making it even more likely to roll if swerved during driving.
Internal documents discussing this and other problems in 1990 were exposed, showing that Ford chose not to take full proper safety measures. Instead of slightly altering how the cars were manufactured, the company only reduced the recommended air pressure in the tires from 30-35 p.s.i to 26 p.s.i. This would eventually lead to a high number of rollovers, since the tires disintegrated more easily and could peel off, presenting dangerous situations in Ford Explorers traveling at highway speeds.
An estimated 250 deaths and 3,000 serious injuries resulted from this corner-cutting. As a result, Ford and Firestone recalled 27.4 million tires in 2001.

Source: Mr.choppers / Wikimedia Commons
7. Chevrolet Corvair
The notoriously unsafe Chevrolet Corvair was so dangerous that it earned itself the entire first chapter of Ralph Nader’s eye-opening book on car safety, Unsafe at Any Speed. Called “The One-Car Accident,” the Corvair was exposed as one of the most unsafe cars of all time by Nader’s detailing of its flaws, including a volatile swing-axle suspension that was susceptible to buckling, the lack of a roll bar, and dangerous and substandard tire pressure requirements. There was also the issue of the single-piece steering column, which could easily impale the driver, as well as the faulty heating system that bled fluids and expelled noxious fumes inside the vehicle.
Since the engine was located at the back of the Corvair, the car’s suspension was irregularly built and lead to — according to Nader — major stability issues. In response, General Motors did attempt to fix the rear suspension of the Corvair, though it did so while simultaneously hiring private investigators to try and discredit Nader’s book by uncovering dirt from his past. Though Nader made major waves with his report, the Corvair is now considered by many to be no less dangerous than other vehicles manufactured in the ’60s.

Source: Andrew Duthie (awduthie) / Flickr
8. Ford Bronco II
Before the Ford Explorer safety controversy there was the Ford Bronco II, which also spurred an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, due to its exceptionally high rollover rate. When 40 people rolled the Ford Bronco II in 1987 alone, the NHTSA took notice but eventually closed the case without taking any further action, despite the fact that tests showed the Ford Bronco II could tip at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour.
Worse than its safety issues was Ford’s reaction, considering that manufacturing tests exposed the Bronco’s flaw (rolling five out of 12 J-turns) and was promptly ignored due to cutting cost corners. Frontline reports that Ford knew the Bronco II was killing passengers in rollovers more than other SUVs but chose to do nothing instead of widening the vehicle by 2 inches, because the company didn’t want to shell out the cash.

Source: Michael Gil (MSVG) Flickr
9. 1985 Yugo GV
The 1985 Yugo GV is the laughingstock of cars everywhere and is often called “the worst car ever made.” Manufactured in Yugoslavia, the Yugo GV was so unsafe it could actually be blown off a bridge via a gust of wind — which happened in Michigan in 1989, per Popular Mechanics, in an incident that killed the driver instantly. Cheap parts and shoddy construction meant just about everything caused this car to literally fall apart while it was being driven, and the vehicle reportedly rarely surpassed 50,000 miles without breaking a belt.
Parts of the Yugo GV were so poorly constructed that vibrations caused by driving would often cause them to shake and break into pieces like the junk they were, and terrible wiring often caused electrical shortages and fires inside the vehicle. To be fair, the Yugo GV cost only about $4,400.

Source: David Hunter (tandemracer) / Flickr
10. 1966 Peel Trident
Even less safe than the similarly modeled and dangerous Isetta, the 1966 Peel Trident was a tiny two-seater vehicle with practically no safety features whatsoever. The driver and passenger were exposed beneath a cramped glass bubble, the wheels were tiny, and the entire vehicle was very Flintstones-esque. The Peel Trident was manufactured for one year and only around 45 units were ever made.

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/10-star...z3SBquqCxu

From Forbes.com.

Top 20 Most Dangerous Vehicles


To distill our list of the 20 most dangerous vehicles on the market, we looked at SCORE (Statistical Combination of Risk Elements) data from Informed for Life, a non-profit vehicle safety information organization, for 2007 model-year vehicles, including vehicles with a full range of crash-test results from NHTSA, the IIHS, or a combination of the two; to also consider the role of accident avoidance (or the lack thereof), we broke any ties with Consumer Reports‘ accident avoidance scores. CR first measures the vehicle’s maximum stable speed through emergency handling, essentially simulating a quick swerve around an obstacle, then factors in driving position, visibility and seat comfort–all issues that the organization deems important in successfully avoiding an accident.

A score of 150 means that the relative risk of driver fatality is 50% higher than for the average passenger car, and in the group’s 2007 ranking list, the most dangerous vehicle, the Buick Rendezvous, at 161, has more than three times the relative risk of fatality that the Hyundai Entourage and Kia Sedona minivans, at 51.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/cars-dang...slide.html

And guess what! Not one JLR Product in there, plenty of Fords though!!

Hi Paul and I am well aware of many of those failures and if you want to read just how unsafe the uS automotive industry was, get a copy of a book by Ralf Nader.

The book is called UNSAFE AT ANT SPEED.

It’s an eye opener and even though it was first published in 1965, much of it is still relevant today. 2007 TDV8 Lux

PaulTyrer wrote:

And guess what! Not one JLR Product in there, plenty of Fords though!!

You think that's bad ... read this : http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/...ser-review

For those who don't click links - Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

(Although ANT speed? ) Land Rover Addict
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Previous
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2009 5.0V8SC Autobiography
2006 4.2V8SC Autobiography
2004 4.4V8 Vogue

I'm sorry drivesafe but you are coming across a bit like a Safety Campaigner hell bent on targeting LR - and I'm not meaning to be rude by saying that.

I think we can all be sure that your question has been answered - "Does LR make the worlds most dangerous vehicles?"
Answer: NO

drivesafe wrote:

PaulTyrer wrote:

And guess what! Not one JLR Product in there, plenty of Fords though!!

yes but I think you will find that is because LR is a small volume manufacturer, and I'm not say in this case that they should be on the list, it is just that they do not qualify because of their small volume.

Hi again Paul and you have the cart before the horse.

As I originally posted, my wife turned around when she got the “Suspension Fault” message.

At no time was there any indication that the alternator was about to or had failed.

It was after turning around and she was returning home that the vehicle had an alternator failure at which time the steering locked.

Also, Riccarton and Paul, I specifically stated that in the case of that list, I was NOT implying LR should be on it.

I’m off to bed but don’t let that stop any of you from posting more replies, and If you don’t see me reply for a day or two, it’s because we are about to be hit by a category 5 cyclone and as I posted, I live out of town and we will most likely loose power and phones, possibly a few days.

Cheers all and good night. 2007 TDV8 Lux

If anyone cares to establish the facts for UK vehicles, here is where to go: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/default.asp

I have had alternator failure and not had the steering lock come on, the only time the steering lock would come on is if the voltage of the battery dropped so low that it thought it was powered off, not saying it could not happen but
1) I would suspect on a very heavy electrical use engine this would has stopped running first e.g. power to the injectors
2) You should of had other warnings for other more power hungry circuits shutting down first so I would expect the dash to light up like a Christmas tree like it did in my case on a 2007 TDV8.
I know LR products have there issues and I am not biased (I do love LR Products though) but as I stated earlier it's no more than any other top end high development product manufacturer, Mercedes being one that always get ribbed, if you don't want this issues buy a basic model car with nothing in it so not much to go wrong.
So many people go out and buy Jags, Rangies and even Rolls Royce's for as they put it "Champagne cars for Lemonade money" and don't have the budget to maintain these cars, they buy a 8 year old LR product (2007) and because it is £20,000 they expect it to be as reliable as a brand new £20,000 Ford and only need a £300 a year service this is never going to happen no matter how rose tinted your glasses are an 8 year old Rangie is a 8 year old 4x4 no matter how much it costs. I know the you mention brand new Range Rovers in your first comment but I had the budget to go and buy one when they first come out, sense told me to wait until they iron out the flaws and buy then, so that is why I have waited until this year to get one.
I have had lots of offline discussions about LR products with members of other forums like the Land Rover Hell forum and must of the comments on there are bull by people who don't even own a Disco 3 etc, I have caught many out by asking them questions particular to their 4x4 which I made up and don't exist and they too have the same problem with the watts link on the back axle of their D3 So don't believe all you read and just enjoy your FFRR for what it is a masterpiece of refinement that can tackle just about any terrain with a few features that none of us like.

2013 F1 - Renault alternator failures anyone? Both Red Bull and Lotus. High profile, maximum budget FAILURES. It happens to everyone!!! Land Rover Addict
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Previous
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2009 5.0V8SC Autobiography
2006 4.2V8SC Autobiography
2004 4.4V8 Vogue

Just browsing through the VOSA Recall site and come up with the following, from 1992 to 2015:

Land Rover - 114 (Includes Defender, Disco, Evoque, Freelander, FFRR and RRS)
Jaguar - 59
Ford - 231
Ferrari - 57
Lamborghini - 7.

So as Lamborghini have the least number of recalls they must be safer than the rest, except that those recalls have been either:
a) Fuel Leakage
b) Risk of Fire
and
c) Rear brake discs detaching

On the Land Rover, the one entry for the Full Fat RR 'Risk of Fire' is this entry:
There is a possibility that a short circuit may occur in the cigar lighter bulb holder when the vehicle lighting system is operated.'
Fix: Disconnect the illumination feed to the lighter and remove the bulb.

Hardly 'Life Threatening'!!

Good morning folks and going on info supplied in a number of replies, I have changed the title of the thread to more accurately reflect what has been demonstrated in a number of these replies.

Please continue with your replies, even those with a “head in the sand” type reasoning. 2007 TDV8 Lux

Nothing to do with this RR reliability topic but am interested to know what the REAL reason for "check coolant level"
issue mentioned by RR2008HSE turned out to be as the daily "bong" and message is driving me nuts despite checking everything related!