By on August 16, 2012

Owners of current shape Range Rovers are bracing for devestating depreciation, as the introduction of the next-generation car looms, making owners of the current vehicle look like pathetic try-hards saddled with an out-of-fashion luxury vehicle.

The new model (pictured above), which sheds 700 lbs and carries styling cues similar to the white-hot Evoque crossover, will debut at the Paris Auto Show in late September. A new 8-speed automatic and 5.0L V8 engine are expected to improve efficiency and performance, while the rampant electrical glitches and air suspension failures are likely to carry over to the new model.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

48 Comments on “Current Generation Range Rovers Set For Massive Depreciation As New Model Debuts...”


  • avatar
    Truckducken

    Hey, this ain’t news! Range Rovers have always been leaders in depreciation. They’re a great way to set fire to close to $10K per year. Maybe they can make it $15K or more this time.

  • avatar

    People with money who have theiR range rover on lease will take it right back and re-lease the new model – leaving everyone else to play catch up.

    I personally have no love for these things. I’d spend that same cash on a new CLS or A7 before another truck. Most people buying these aren’t using them for off-roading.

  • avatar
    Ex Radio Operator

    Trophy wife jewelry getter.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I harbor precisely ZERO sympathy for people who “invest” in a luxury vehicle when they should know full well it will depreciate massively once the next generation bows. It comes with the territory.

    You want resale value, buy a Toyota, not a Land Rover.

  • avatar
    mikey

    @philadlj….Agreed. Deprecition is a given on all vehicles. Some worse that others.

    The people buying Rovers wouldn’t be caught dead driving an outdated model.

    Kudos to all of them. We all benifit when rich people spend thier money

    • 0 avatar
      Sinistermisterman

      “We all benifit when rich people spend thier money”
      Yes, we can spot their massive ivory white luxury SUV’s doing 40 over the limit coming from a mile away. Much easier to give them a wide berth.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Wide berth?! Dude, those are exactly the guys who have the dosh to give you a Ferrari grade settlement when you give them only a regular grade berth, and they are too busy futzing with their I-something to fit in it :) The dudes in the even bigger, junked out pickups, going 50 over, are the real scary ones.

        In games of chicken, he who has nothing to lose, never loses; while he who has something, does.

    • 0 avatar
      typ901

      Mikey:

      Wrong-I am a Land Rover owner, who buys them after 3 years of previous ownership and takes full advantage of the depreciation. I make it work for me, and I do not mind driving an older model. You need to be aware that not everyone fits into the stereotypical model you are throwing out there, mine does go off road-too; shocker huh?

      • 0 avatar
        hachee

        That’s great, and obviously the more sensible thing to do – if that matters to you (it would to me, btw, and I’d probably do the same).

        But it’s too bad you feel the need to defend your purchase because of the way people perpetuate stereotypes (and again, this isn’t a criticism of your post), because there are plenty (well, some) non-deuchebags that do drive RRs, BMWs, etc.

        But at the same time, does anyone really think people buying/leasing new give a shyte about the depreciation? They don’t, because if they did, they wouldn’t be buying them. They want the car, and they pay the price. Their decision, and nothing wrong with that.

        I always think the people that frequent sites like this are really car guys, and would want to see cars like this made and bought. Don’t we want the variety, whether stupidly expensive or impractical or not? It would suck far worse if ever car was a Toyota Camry or Highlander.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Hachee,
        I appreciate your optimism as applied to the sensibility of Internet posters. Having tried to upgrade the level of discussion for years I can tell you it works. Unfortunately, the enlightened get replaced with new posters at a quick rate and any of the educated that stick around simultaneously deny your contribution and think ill of you.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        “But it’s too bad you feel the need to defend your purchase because of the way people perpetuate stereotypes (and again, this isn’t a criticism of your post), because there are plenty (well, some) non-deuchebags that do drive RRs, BMWs, etc.”

        We’ll have to take your word for it.

      • 0 avatar
        crtfour

        Exactly. I will be in the market for one by the end of the year, and the more the current model depreciates the better. I prefer well kept older models that have depreciated instead of having the latest & the greatest. It’s just nice to have something different that you don’t see all the time. And if I find one it will go off road as well.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        I have yet to see a RR driver not be a d-bag or (by definition also a d-bag) a trophy wife.

        I keep searching, though!

      • 0 avatar
        typ901

        Probert:

        Not defending man-just stating, stereotypes do exist for a reason, but can also be very wrong and we should not fall into that convenient trap…Recalling the Land Rover history, of the outgoing L322 Range Rover- it was designed by BMW and close to be ready for production when Ford bought them in 2000. So to the English comments, feel free to throw in the German and Americans into the blame for the reliability problems these experienced. People laugh at the 85k + that these cost and I say look at the cost of the Escalades’- darn close.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        tuffjuff,

        Most of the time, the RR DRIVER is the guy opening the door for the DBag. The Dbag is the guy in the back seat. Mostly.

        About trophy wives, I know one with a Phantom. Two child seats in the back, ketchup (and worse) spills all over that “priceless” interior. And a foot deep layer of McDonald’s wrappers and spent soda cups covering the lambswool carpeting. Husband’s from the South, and in the Nascar business, if it makes a difference.

  • avatar
    photog02

    What Land Rover product (or even Jaguar; why not bring them into the discussion now that they are related?) doesn’t depreciate like a boulder tossed from a cliff? What few modern British cars that are sold in the US all share that attribute.

  • avatar
    Hank

    “…while the rampant electrical glitches and air suspension failures are likely to carry over to the new model.”

    You know, people hire out engineering of suspensions (ex. to Lotus), design (Pininfarina), and assembly (such as Karmann in the past, Fisher, et al). Why on earth do British car companies, so long known for electrical ineptitude, not farm out their electrical systems (I know they’ve had companies like Bosch work jointly, but the *jointly* meant good decisions could still be botched, and were)? Why keep letting otherwise great ideas be continually undermined by something as basic as a sound electrical system?

  • avatar
    peteinsonj

    At a glance, this thing has all the styling cues of a Flex or Explorer. Disappointing.

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      I’d say more flex than explorer.
      One thing is for certain, the ability to go off road was not a design criteria, not even god damn side moldings. The first RR was an – considering the time – off-roader made luxurious, this thing (like the previous incarnation) is just a luxury car made to look like an off-roader, a fragile one at that.

      • 0 avatar
        Hank

        I thought more Flex, too, until I kept seeing Explorers yesterday and they all looked like the new Range Rover.

      • 0 avatar
        hachee

        It does look like both the Flex and Explorer. But I’d say that’s because those cars took their cues from the last RR, and now this one, looking longer and lower (at least when parked), now looks more like the Flex. Not sure why they’d do the lights so much like the Explorer’s.

      • 0 avatar
        iainthornton

        Try taking one off road. I’m sure you’ll revise that opinion.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        @iainthornton

        Having done my off roading in a Volvo c303 (land rover parts in the portals BTW)and Hägglunds BV206 I’d say no, not in a million years. For the same reason I’m very unimpressed by the RR “reviews” when the car is driven around a Landy Test track where only the most incompetent of drivers would get stuck with a run of the mil Q7 without the widest of tires. And that’s even without bringing longevity when used off road into the equation. But sure, if one thinks that an off roader can be devoid of proper low gear, solid axles (there are some exceptions, the H1 comes to mind) and locking diffs, then this tarted up Freelander is a good off roader. But who knows, maybe the UN will ditch the Japanese hardware and go out and buy Range Rovers.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      They should call it the flexplorer – or the explorflex.

  • avatar
    Waterview

    +1 to Hank. Have someone else design the suspension and electricals.

    I would love to see more detail on how they save 700lbs without, I’m assuming, dramatically changing the dimensions. Even if you take 150lbs from the engine bay, you still have 550lbs to take from somewhere else. Either the current version is a complete pig, or the new version is made from paper mache.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      As part of the Bush tax cuts you could depreciate the entire cost of a vehicle in the first year if it had a GVWR above 5000lbs. The thinking was that this would apply mostly to commerical vehicles and work trucks.

      Well, Porsche added essentially ballast to the Cayenne to get it across the threshold. I believe Range Rover did the same.

      That meant if you bought a 90k RR and were in the 35% tax bracket you’d save $31,500 in taxes the year you bought it.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Advanced/bonus depreciation is a silly game and can sting the buyer, and especially the manufacturer. Its part of a set of policies that have destroyed one of the USA’s last areas of manufacturing leadership – general aviation.

        If you hear about a subsidy being applied to an industry, get out. Sell your stock, change your job, and move your family. If possible, hit any connected executives and politicians with your vehicle as you run away.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Thank you Landcrusher. I needed that.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      Waterview..

      I think their PR blurb said they went to an all-aluminium (or aluminium, if you’re Brit) unibody/chassis, the first ever in an SUV. Hence, -700 lbs.

      ———–

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    The front is Nissan Cube with more bling.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Agree with the consensus, looks way too much like an Explorer/Flex.

    Most people that have owned a Range Rover will tell you to stay the hell away from buying one, and for good reason. The stereotypes are true. The steep depreciation has got to hurt new sales, in my area, only after a few years they become a ghetto fabulous, douchebag-mobile with giant and elaborate chrome rims a given. It used to be a really classy and upscale SUV.

    They should farm the whole car out except for the sheet metal and interior.

  • avatar
    stuki

    They did keep the tall, upright, decent visibility greenhouse, thank goodness. That’s really their main practical selling point by now. In addition to helping offroad, it enables petite trophy wifes to see the Miata in front of her before running it over. If she was instead piloting a Land Cruiser, she would run the risk of running over a 911 instead, putting the husband who paid for her car at risk.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    Wow, this is sooo not my segment…..!

  • avatar
    naterator

    This headline reads straight out of The Onion. Cheers!

  • avatar
    dontsilencethetruth

    wow, am disappointed on the comment from Derek Kreindler,” making owners of the current vehicle look like pathetic try-hards saddled with an out-of-fashion luxury vehicle” dude have you ever owned a range rover?? and why would you think that the new model makes my 2011 vogue look pathetic and out of style??? regardless of depreciation buying a range rover is not just for anyone, I mean if you can’t afford one then don’t dare, derek you must really envy one or just can’t afford one, then comparing european cars to american is just wrong, what suv does america have to compare range rover to?? what? jeep, ford, hammer etc, seriously???? i mean america can build planes, houses, sky scrappers and anything big but america sucks ass in cars period, am patriotic but I will never drive american unless its teaching my 16yr old how to drive a shit car then later I can buy him a range, and yes sir, I own a range rover and its a 2011 model and I bet you it will still look stylish in 5yrs compared to any american suv


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States