elpeede wrote:

Interesting... people who have a massage as I understand it have on on a hard bench.. maybe that says something about the seats in the other brands

Interestingly when I was buying my 08 last year a guy walked into the dealership and asked what seat options they had on the Range Rover.

When he learned there was no massage function he walked out.


Still can't believe they had better seats in the early ones... doesn't make sense.
Could never get really comfortable in the 08 like I could in the 06.

I drive everyday for 2-4 hours but don't really understand why you would need a massage function... more comfortable seats may be a bonus (Damn you BMW)

Last edited by Royle on 9th Feb 2011 1:49pm. Edited 1 time in total

I think in the 130k price sector it's not what you need, it's how much stuff you can fit in the car compared to the competitors...

comports wrote:

Funny you mention that. I was standing outside in canary wharf a couple of weeks ago, getting some "fresh air" (whilst having a cig ) and an Electric FFRR went past. Something sign written down the side but only caught the words "Zero Emmision....."

I was stunned - Quiet as a mouse it was...

And a quick search turned this up.. Circa £150K

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7...ction.html

thats the one

if i remember correctly 0-60mph in a tad over 7 secs

spoilsports - half the fun of owning a RR is upsetting the yogurt knitters etc

SAppie wrote:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/255361/

Autobiography Ultimate Edition

no good! no V12

the people with that amount of disposable income expect a decent engine not some cheap V8

elpeede wrote:

Interesting... people who have a massage as I understand it have on on a hard bench.. maybe that says something about the seats in the other brands

I think the mistake Landrover made was calling the Sport a Sport. The Evoque is a clear model all by its self. But calling a RRS a Sport is a bit like calling a Escort an XR3i.. it tends to suggest its the same car but "sporty" which it isn't.. hence branding error in my eyes. In fact the number of people who aren't Range Rover owners / fans actually know they are a totally different vehicles I would guess would be quite low.

Accepting Range Rover is now a brand in its self ... they need to be more inventive next time around. But I'm sure they will be as they also want to appear greener as well so we'll probably have names like the RR "Compost" and RR "Bio-degradeable".... leave it out in 100 showers and it just melts away

Want:

 

they do look nice dan...

touched up my drivers door cill this weekend, marks scratches etc on the paintwork from getting in and out.

Anyway i remembered this thread while doing the above, have you seen the factory orange peel around these areas just because there generally unseen, no way would i being paying 130k for a range rover with factory paint no better than a ford focus. 2004 black Vogue TD6

The quality of the finish where LR think no one will ever look is dissapointing. It makes one worry about the rest of the car.

There is a lot of rust underneith RR's in general and specifically on the subframe etc. I've already said about the rusty rear wheel arches due to no protection for exposed paintwork. There wasn't a spot of rust on my 1996 P38 and the interior was certainly in much better condition, which is certainly an area that lets the RR down.

But people who can spend 120K on a car don't care if it starts to rust after 8 years because they will have traded up long before then.