ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
I may be wrong, but this does feel similar to the introduction of the Freelander. It was seen by many as not belonging to the Land Rover stable of vehicles and detracted from the brand. Although, I do see on this forum that some people are now taking them off-road. What do you think?
Click to expand...

But the Freelander was a new product in the Marque, the Evoque is marketed as a Range Rover and it isnt, if they have called it the Land Rover Evoque, fair enough, but it shouldnt be unde the Range Rover brand as it just cheapens the flagship pinnacle of the best of the best.
 
My tuppence . . .

Had a 1988 EFI Classic for about 7 years and loved it, until the sun roof started leaking, and rotted the a-pillars. Easy to maintain, without requiring specialist equipment.

Several other cars later, I missed the RR a lot, so bought a 1998 P38. Same reason as others already posted, i.e. the last proper range rover, that can be maintained myself. Nanocom Evo II helps hugely, and avoids the need for LR workshops to guess at what's wrong and charge the earth.

Only three real gripes are:
  1. The ridiculously high price for small electronic parts genuine from LR, that should be replaced FoC because they were badly designed in the first place. . . .e.g. RF Receiver for FOB.
  2. Bad quality electrical connectors, that are not available as replacement parts.
  3. Stupidly high price for replacement keys.
Pete
 
ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
The point being that the Evoque has also been taken off road and has proved some measure of capability?
Click to expand...

no....

that wasnt what you said..

you said the freelander. Which has been out since about 1998. The Evoque is a totally different vehicle. If you mean the evoque you should say the Evoque.

my 9 year old boys pushbike goes offroad, so does that have a modicum of offroad ability?





oh by the way if you intend to use any quotations from this you should have said people fill out a form (the name eludes me at present as its been many years since i did anything like it) to give you authorisation to do so. Similaly, all your previous "interviews" should also have had this carried out.
 
Last edited:
That's another very valid point. The initial request was for people willing to engage in customer research in return for an LRE Centre voucher.

Anyone volunteering for the research will be provided with a breakdown of the intended research activities and will need to sign a form allowing me to reproduce the information for JLR purposes.

The discussion that subsequently resulted on this forum is not part of any formal research. No actual statements made on this forum will be reprinted in any final report produced by myself without permission.

I did ask for approval from the website management to post my customer research request, however no response was received.
 
Last edited:
LR products:- over complicated, unreliable, overpriced, designed to last 3 years. I think that covers it.
 
ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
I'm trying to keep the conversation going to understand more. Can you please explain to me what you mean by traditional engineers?
Click to expand...

Im sorry (well I am not) but no.

The age of a traditional engineer seems long gone, instead the market is being flooded with graduate engineers that cant tell the difference between a screw and a bolt!

Bring back the days of proper apprentiships I say!
 
vilguy said:
Im sorry (well I am not) but no.

The age of a traditional engineer seems long gone, instead the market is being flooded with graduate engineers that cant tell the difference between a screw and a bolt!

Bring back the days of proper apprentiships I say!
Click to expand...

Well I for one would teach Nigel Clarke and his R&D people the difference between a screw and a bolt, they wouldn't want a second lesson:D
 
OK, what pieces of constructive advice would you give to the R&D Team?

What actions would you recommend to get a better balance between off road capability/overall reliability/usability and luxury?
 
ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
OK, what pieces of constructive advice would you give to the R&D Team?

What actions would you recommend to get a better balance between off road capability/overall reliability/usability and luxury?
Click to expand...

My advice to the R&D team would be to pick up your P45's on the way out, R/R already had what you are dreaming about years ago but they(?) in their wisdom had to make things over complicated, unreliable and very expensive.:)
 
tomcat59alan said:
My advice to the R&D team would be to pick up your P45's on the way out, R/R already had what you are dreaming about years ago but they(?) in their wisdom had to make things over complicated, unreliable and very expensive.:)
Click to expand...

How would you simplify the RR? What would you remove, what would you keep and what would you add?
 
ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
How would you simplify the RR? What would you remove, what would you keep and what would you add?
Click to expand...

Do your own research, look at what causes problems. Complicating things isn't always progress. Things were designed so that only the main stealers could fault find and fix problems only most can only guess and charge through the roof. Just how long do JRR think they can keep screwing there customers.
 
I will send my chauffeur to participate my good man... chin, chin, and tally-ho and all that,
 
Typical student, half a bloody days work (well that's what he/she will call it), probably on the **** in a subsidised bar now.:D
 
Looks to me ImperialcolleRRproject that you'll get all the feedback you need from this thread alone! And you get to keep the vouchers. I'd love one if you have one spare at the end....however as a P38 owner I don't qualify. Bugger.
 
Last edited:
ImperialCollegeRRproject said:
How would you simplify the RR? What would you remove, what would you keep and what would you add?
Click to expand...

The Range Rover is fine, and it should be the cutting edge of all that is technical in the world of luxury and off road ability....

My gripe is that they have cheapened the brand with needless, money grabbing, pathetic 'oh lets make a smaller, cheap car and get that skinny slag that's married to that gay footballer to do some 'design work' on it and stick the Range Rover name on it and wrench the feck outta the mugs who want a Range Rover but can't afford the real thing....'

It is like what they say about the Porsche Boxster...there is only one reason to one a Boxster, cos you can't afford a 911.....

Tell the R& D guys to retire the Evoque, and concentrate on the real thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Land Rovers of London
Christmas Land Rover Meet Up in London - 3rd December
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
D
Good electrician for land rover vogue L405 in london
Replies
2
Views
636
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
W
Introducing WildTrax Adventures, a dedicated Land Rover Co.
Replies
0
Views
1K
WildTraxScotland
W
Peshy
Advice needed for a complete Land Rover newbie - Range Rover vs Range Rover Sport
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Birdbrain
Birdbrain
Blob
Back to LR after a long time, and going all-in.
Replies
15
Views
2K
WhiskyLassie
WhiskyLassie