Really ??

Land Rover, Defender, Discovery, Range Rover & Freelander

Year..........Total.........Defender.........RangeRover.........Discovery.........Freelander
......................................................Classic MKI/II
1989......55,240......23,437............28,509.......0.........3, 296.................0
1990......68,471......21,210............24,194.......0........23,067.................0
1991......54,588......18,915............16,412.......0........19,261.................0
1992......57,062......17,416............15,334.......0........24,312.................0
1993......67,910......17,482............14,780.......0........67,910.................0
1994......93,100......22,265............13,667....2,669....54,499.................0
1995..... 127,158....27,600..............4,000..25,639....69,919.................0
1996......126,578....31,724.....................0..29,815....65,039.................0
1997......127,962....36,169.....................0..30,066....58,352..........3,375

Totals.....778,069...216,218.........116,894...88,189..385,655.........3,375

Yep Gaylanders really pulled LR out of an economic blackhole when it was introduced..
You could put up the production figures for years that the freelander was actually sold ;)
Land Rovers have always sold well regardless of model but not made much profit on the sales due to the cost of manufacture especially with the separate chassis models! That's why most manufacturers use the monocqe design.
 
Last edited:
Really ??

Land Rover, Defender, Discovery, Range Rover & Freelander

Year..........Total.........Defender.........RangeRover.........Discovery.........Freelander
......................................................Classic MKI/II
1989......55,240......23,437............28,509.......0.........3, 296.................0
1990......68,471......21,210............24,194.......0........23,067.................0
1991......54,588......18,915............16,412.......0........19,261.................0
1992......57,062......17,416............15,334.......0........24,312.................0
1993......67,910......17,482............14,780.......0........67,910.................0
1994......93,100......22,265............13,667....2,669....54,499.................0
1995..... 127,158....27,600..............4,000..25,639....69,919.................0
1996......126,578....31,724.....................0..29,815....65,039.................0
1997......127,962....36,169.....................0..30,066....58,352..........3,375

Totals.....778,069...216,218.........116,894...88,189..385,655.........3,375

Yep Gaylanders really pulled LR out of an economic blackhole when it was introduced..
Yer figures misrepresent what peeps are saying. You've only listed the Freelander sales for the first year. It only started late that year. What about all the years thereafter?
 
Yer figures misrepresent what peeps are saying. You've only listed the Freelander sales for the first year. It only started late that year. What about all the years thereafter?


1st full years sales were 47,000 rising to 70,00 at end of 1999 as I said hardly dragging LR out of a black hole.
 
1st full years sales were 47,000 rising to 70,00 at end of 1999 as I said hardly dragging LR out of a black hole.

But it did, it was cheaper to make because it used an easy to manufacture monocoque body. It also used engines from other Rover models to further keep costs down! Although in hind sight the latter might have been its downfall. Once the press blew the HG thing out of all proportion its days were numbered.
 
1st full years sales were 47,000 rising to 70,00 at end of 1999 as I said hardly dragging LR out of a black hole.
What were the sales figures for the other vehicles in those years? If you compare 40000 and 70000 to 127000 that's a significant increase. I admit it's not ten fold but a rise of 10% sales for any well established company is often far from reach. +30% would be considered amazing for most companies and beyond expectations.

The Freelander filled a gap in the market as the rr and disco moved more upmarket. They also spotted a gap for buyers wanting smaller vehicles. It could be argued they didn't see a gap, they created a gap and filled it. It could also be argued the Freelander wasn't LR's answer to a market need. Could be a case of a solution available which the market chose to buy.
 
What were the sales figures for the other vehicles in those years? If you compare 40000 and 70000 to 127000 that's a significant increase. I admit it's not ten fold but a rise of 10% sales for any well established company is often far from reach. +30% would be considered amazing for most companies and beyond expectations.

The Freelander filled a gap in the market as the rr and disco moved more upmarket. They also spotted a gap for buyers wanting smaller vehicles. It could be argued they didn't see a gap, they created a gap and filled it. It could also be argued the Freelander wasn't LR's answer to a market need. Could be a case of a solution available which the market chose to buy.

the market was already there and going to Honda CRV, Suzuki vitara, subaru forester, rav4 and similar vehicles. it was this market that the gaylander was aimed at.
 
Interesting sales figures in that link:

Landy+analysis+vertical.png
 
Nah not at all. Bmw isn't shy of a penny.
They were when they flogged off LR. Wheels were set in motion to build a betterer brand but the time it would take to pay oft was a problem for bmw and they were forced to make the choice. They had to sell LR to keep finances ok for bmw. bmw did a lot to help LR. It just took time for it to show in new vehicles and the investment they made.
 
They were when they flogged off LR. Wheels were set in motion to build a betterer brand but the time it would take to pay oft was a problem for bmw and they were forced to make the choice. They had to sell LR to keep finances ok for bmw. bmw did a lot to help LR. It just took time for it to show in new vehicles and the investment they made.

they did pinch quite a lot of LR technology :eek: thank god they dint know what to do with it and produced ****e like the X5 :D
 
they did pinch quite a lot of LR technology :eek: thank god they dint know what to do with it and produced ****e like the X5 :D
That's true. I guess the technology was allowed to exist at LR because bmw let it. I expect their plan at the beginning was to keep LR. Or at least own it for a lot longer. It's been profitable for many years and sales have been steadily increasing since the early 90's so the business was good and had a future. Even selling off rover must of hurt a bit. Cash flow rules, a bit like Freelanders. ;)
 
That's true. I guess the technology was allowed to exist at LR because bmw let it. I expect their plan at the beginning was to keep LR. Or at least own it for a lot longer. It's been profitable for many years and sales have been steadily increasing since the early 90's so the business was good and had a future. Even selling off rover must of hurt a bit. Cash flow rules, a bit like Freelanders. ;)

:cool:FREELANDERS RULE :D
 
I've been through enough ****e with my Hippo not to be totally blinded by unconditional love for the vehicle. It's a fantastic car for what it's supposed to do, it's a mini range rover that will get me wherever I need to go in any conditions in any season. I don't eggspect it to win the Dakar, if I want to do that then I'll fecking build something that'll do the job properly.

Hair dressers drive Freelanders.
Murderers drive Disco's.
Inbreds drive Fenders.
Snobby ****s drive Rangies.
I shall not even speak of the Nissan with a LR badge that offends my every sense.

It's six o' one half a dozen o' t'other.
 

Similar threads