http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/land-rover-debuts-lighter-sleeker-2013-range-rover/
It does look classy and modern, and IMO less gaudy than last year's model.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/08/02-2013-land-rover-range-rover628opt.jpg)
I still prefer the current one, pre facelift. The rear lights on this bother me.
This was the best looking Range Rover.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Range_Rover_front_20080331.jpg/800px-Range_Rover_front_20080331.jpg)
I'm not a big SUV fan but this is the nicest Range Rover - the Sport.
(http://www.neubilder.de/albums/Auto/land-rrover/Range-Rover-Sport.jpg)
I agree. Range Rover Sport is the best looking Range Rover ever. The rear of it is sporty and powerful looking, while the rest looks as classy as the proper Range Rover.
(http://www.lincah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2010-Range-Rover-Sport-Supercharged-Rear-Angle-View-588x391.jpg)
The original version of the current generation was the best imo. Don't like the grill or the vents on the current version and the next generation is just trying too hard. Probably my least favorite ever*.
*Note that its still a great looking car, Range Rover has stayed remarkably faithful to the original so I'm talking about minor distinctions.
I don't like the taillights, but the front looks decent. I'm not sure if it flows well with the boxy overall shape, but on the other hand I'm glad they didn't mess with that.
The RR Sport is also pretty small inside. My friend's dad had one, but traded it in for a full sized RR after a month or two.
The rear lights resemble those of the new Ford Explorer. The front looks "too pretty" and far less rugged. I do think it will NOT take long for me to adjust to the revisions. As others of you cited, there are other models from the company both past and present that look better. Yet this is subjective. I do give Land Rover credit for taking risks.
I will not bring up the 2013 Honda Accord (opps!) as a company criticized for not taking too much of a gamble with its new redesign. However, when manufacturers do this it's often "a damned if you don't" scenero for critics. The Accord (opps) and the Range Rover are polar opposite types of vehicles. Just using the successful Accord (opps!) to make a point...
Currently RR owners will not desert the brand over the newest model... perhaps even giving them a reason to trade their cars for the upgraded model. Enough has changed to ensure more than a few conquest sales, as well. It will definitely continue doing well, I predict.
Quote from: TurboDan on August 14, 2012, 06:38:19 PM
I agree. Range Rover Sport is the best looking Range Rover ever. The rear of it is sporty and powerful looking, while the rest looks as classy as the proper Range Rover.
(http://www.lincah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2010-Range-Rover-Sport-Supercharged-Rear-Angle-View-588x391.jpg)
The only visual flaw of the Sport is the hideous and distracting side vents, like old Buick portholes and "earlier model" Lincoln Marks (thinking 70s era) referred to as gills. Yet, these America designed really worked for each company -- back then.
The new RR got it right IMO. The oversized slats give the new model a classy look with these elegant vertice lines. They are huge, but still suttle enough and not run-of-the-mill like on the current Sport.
I seriously dig this. Classy as shit, but still modern.
Wimmer Photoshop this please without those lines coming out of the lights.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/08/02-2013-land-rover-range-rover628opt.jpg)
(http://img2.4wheelfun.de/Range-Rover-2012--19-fotoshowImageNew-5fca0697-620236.jpg)
Quote from: Galaxy on August 15, 2012, 02:10:45 AM
Wimmer Photoshop this please without those lines coming out of the lights.
This what you had in mind? Quick 5 minute 'chop job...
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3029/unbenannt2kopiej.jpg)
I prefer the greater boxiness of the current one, but I'm sure I'll get used to seeing this around. Range Rover consistently makes the only luxury SUV I'd want to buy. The only one that hasn't suffered from the shrinking greenhouse phenomenon in recent years.
I think it looks fantastic inside and out.
Here's hoping that Herr Hertz in Germany gets them on fleet to replace the current models and that they see fit to give me on during 2013 so I can try it for myself.
The front doesn't communicate well with the rest of it, in my opinion. Good looking, but not close to even the current model.
I am getting used to it all ready. Really liking the back better than the front. The interior is chic, but pleasantly simple and not complicated from what I can see from the photos.
A few more pics and a highly effective short "get into the mood" video showing a bit more of the interior... Nice, I think...
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/08/land-rover-officially-reveals-2013.html
I don't like it at all. Too long, too short, and looks like a ford flex. The current RR is much better looking.
As for the sport ... Yeah it looks good but it's tiny inside. Between the RR, RR Sport, and LR4, the Sport is by far my least favorite even though it's the best looking of the three.
The problem they have is that the current (well, perhaps the pre-facelift one) was about as perfect a design as you can get. It's great looking, and a fantastic and modern update on the original, and both, IMO, are really timeless designs. I'm not sure who designed the current one, but whoever it was, has pure talent.
I don't know if this new one was designed by the same person or team, but there's something that strikes me as just a bit off. A lot of people have been saying that it looks too much like a Flex or an Explorer, and there surely are similarities, but certainly the Fords got their inspiration from Range Rover. I've read that there's more rear legroom, but I'm not sure if that's the result of a longer wheelbase. It does look like it's longer, which is why I think it may look more similar to the Flex now. And why were the lights styled so similarly to the new Explorer? Those little "hooks" look dumb and unnecessary, as do the vents.
That said, it's still a great looking vehicle, and would probably look better with its normal, higher ride height, and smaller wheels with nice chunky higher profile tires.
Both the BMW Range Rover and this were designed by Phil Simmons, after Ford bought Land Rover he moved to the US were he designed the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and the Lincoln MKZ (that might explain the Flex influnce some are seeing) he then become head of design at Ford of Europe, before returning to Land Rover where he is responsible for the Range Rover design group.
After all that, nobody's mentioned the part where it's SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS lighter?
Lots of aluminIUm in its construction gives that massive weight saving.
Quote from: Colin on August 15, 2012, 10:41:59 AM
Lots of aluminIUm in its construction gives that massive weight saving.
Alumin
um. Stop using that newfangled spelling. You Brits are always so stuck in the past except for when it comes to this word. Davy named it three things, so Webster made the decision for him.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 15, 2012, 09:01:42 AM
I don't like it at all. Too long, too short, and looks like a ford flex. The current RR is much better looking.
As for the sport ... Yeah it looks good but it's tiny inside. Between the RR, RR Sport, and LR4, the Sport is by far my least favorite even though it's the best looking of the three.
I see the resemblance to the Ford Flex. I was thinking the same thing, plus, as I mentioned early on, the taillights resemble the Ford Explorer -- even the front cornering side lamps up front. I also agree with Raza about the front not blending into the rest of the vehicle's design. I bet those cornering lights were added at the end with the thinking it will pull the entire look together. It doesn't, still I see where they were coming from.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 15, 2012, 06:40:56 AM
This what you had in mind? Quick 5 minute 'chop job...
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3029/unbenannt2kopiej.jpg)
No, more like this:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/zupbhw.jpg)
My 5min gimping. :lol: I think paint would have been enough. :mask:
The current interior is nicer...the new one is...bland...
^Galaxy, you did it! I do not mind the line first "erased" by Wimmer, but I like how you tidied up the front and covered the Explorer-like wraparound rear/side panel. Cool!
Love the new interior. The Evoque's interior is really something special. Can't wait to see this one in person.
I'm not just saying this because I like the XC60, but I think the interior quality is better compared to the Evoque. The interior struck me as being not as nice at the XC60 sitting next to it at the Dallas auto show. It's also less expensive, a bigger inside, and far more powerful. That said, the Evoque looks fucking sexual.
I just love this new Range Rover. It's still a Range Rover and instantly recognizable as such.
Quote from: CJ on August 16, 2012, 12:00:29 AM
I'm not just saying this because I like the XC60, but I think the interior quality is better compared to the Evoque. The interior struck me as being not as nice at the XC60 sitting next to it at the Dallas auto show. It's also less expensive, a bigger inside, and far more powerful. That said, the Evoque looks fucking sexual.
:facepalm:
Quote from: MrH on August 16, 2012, 12:11:39 AM
:facepalm:
Materials quality isn't as nice. The Evoque didn't feel like a Range Rover should.
You want to try explaining what you mean by "materials quality"?
Quote from: MrH on August 16, 2012, 12:20:09 AM
You want to try explaining what you mean by "materials quality"?
I felt that some of the plastics in the Evoque weren't as soft to the touch or rich as the XC60 which, by all accounts, does actually have a very nice interior.
:confused: What areas are you talking about? I can't find anywhere in the XC60 that is considered soft touch that isn't leather wrapped in the Evoque.
Quote from: Galaxy on August 15, 2012, 03:17:58 PM
No, more like this:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/zupbhw.jpg)
My 5min gimping. :lol: I think paint would have been enough. :mask:
Aha. :praise:
Quote from: MrH on August 16, 2012, 01:11:30 AM
:confused: What areas are you talking about? I can't find anywhere in the XC60 that is considered soft touch that isn't leather wrapped in the Evoque.
No too familiar with the Evoque, but I was astonished by the interior of my Volvo XC60.
I love it, and 700lbs is ridiculous. Sign me up.
Quote from: 68_427 on August 14, 2012, 08:03:07 PM
The RR Sport is also pretty small inside. My friend's dad had one, but traded it in for a full sized RR after a month or two.
Depend what you call small. A cousin of mine have one, and I have spent a total of 9 days inside, in two vacation trips we did this and last summer
A HSE diesel V6 none the less, no clutter, no black smoke, no noice, nothing. Just awesome.
Ford Explorer
420lb lost! That's almost 1000lbs! It is SERIOUSLY the Ford Explorer lol.
The first ever two vehicles delivered to their (royal) buyers
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/sheikh-mohammed-receives-first-2013-range-rover-479834.html
If I had tons of money, I would absolutely order a new SC RR.
I have a running list of cars I would have if I had a few hundred million bucks, and the Range Rover is always on it :praise:
it's a BIG change for them actually, both them have been G-class people for long. The Big guy has been using for a decade or so a G63 AMG custom built .... long before the G55 AMG would first come out.
Another thing I noticed, while the Big men's car is white, as his old Merc was, his son's iss light gray, just like his Merc was too
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on November 19, 2012, 06:03:44 PM
If I had tons of money, I would absolutely order a new SC RR.
I have a running list of cars I would have if I had a few hundred million bucks, and the Range Rover is always on it :praise:
Don't worry... you can get a Range for $25K in 4 years ;) LOL
#BritishDepreciation
I've seen several of these on the road now ... It's growing on me, but still not as good looking as the outgoing model IMHO.
Everyone touts how classy the Range Rover is. Am I the only one who does not think this is the case? I think the LR4 is classy, but not the RR.
Quote from: CJ on August 16, 2012, 12:15:00 AM
Materials quality isn't as nice. The Evoque didn't feel like a Range Rover should.
Yeah, you must be on drugs.
Everything about the Evoque feels a step or two above the XC 60. I'm not saying the XC 60 isn't a good car, but the Evoque's build and materials is at least a notch or two above the Volvo.
Also, I briefly drove the new Range Rover yesterday. My brief thoughts:
- I like it in white better than I thought I would, but I'm still not sure I like the sleeker, longer look over the previous model.
- Superb inside. It makes my moms Range Rover feel a bit cheap by comparison.
- Not a fan of the 'slats' in the front door. Along with an air suspension that allows for greater ride height, they relocated the air intakes allowing for greater fording depth making actual air vents on the door pointless. I would have preferred fake intakes that looked real, or none at all.
- Less body roll than before, and a greater sense of control. It feels like a lifted XJ, not an SUV. It's no sports car, though.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 01, 2013, 10:39:03 AM
Everyone touts how classy the Range Rover is. Am I the only one who does not think this is the case? I think the LR4 is classy, but not the RR.
The LR4 has increasingly become my fav in their lineup. I like the RR though, and I really like the outgoing one. I think it's the most classy of the mega-expensive SUVs.
I think LR is making some major brand management mistakes with the Range Rover name, though. RR should be reserved to their top of the line. RR Sport, ok, a bit of a stretch but I'm ok with it. But why does the Evoque need to be the "Range Rover Evoque"? I think it's a big mistake, and a dangerous path to go down from a branding perspective. The hood of the Evoque even says "Range Rover", give me a break it should say "Land Rover" like the LR4.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 01, 2013, 10:39:03 AM
Everyone touts how classy the Range Rover is. Am I the only one who does not think this is the case? I think the LR4 is classy, but not the RR.
The new RR isn't classy anymore. The old ones were. Even the RR Sport is classy still.
Who says the new RR isn't classy, hasn't seen one yet
Quote from: Submariner on February 01, 2013, 11:37:09 AM
Yeah, you must be on drugs.
Everything about the Evoque feels a step or two above the XC 60. I'm not saying the XC 60 isn't a good car, but the Evoque's build and materials is at least a notch or two above the Volvo.
I visited the Volvo showroom some times back and was horrified on how dated all their models were, and how crappy the build quality was, even on the S80. The XC90 looked like a late-90s car. WTF :facepalm:
Quote from: AltinD on February 01, 2013, 02:32:53 PM
Who says the new RR isn't classy, hasn't seen one yet
Agreed - it looks much better in person than photos.
Still, I think I like the outgoing model a bit more.
Quote from: Lebowski on February 01, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
I think LR is making some major brand management mistakes with the Range Rover name, though. RR should be reserved to their top of the line. RR Sport, ok, a bit of a stretch but I'm ok with it. But why does the Evoque need to be the "Range Rover Evoque"? I think it's a big mistake, and a dangerous path to go down from a branding perspective. The hood of the Evoque even says "Range Rover", give me a break it should say "Land Rover" like the LR4.
The original plan was for the Evoque to be called a Land Rover but, at the last minute, they changed it to Range Rover so they could justify charging a higher price.
Marketing. Gotta love it! :facepalm:
Quote from: AltinD on February 01, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
I visited the Volvo showroom some times back and was horrified on how dated all their models were, and how crappy the build quality was, even on the S80. The XC90 looked like a late-90s car. WTF :facepalm:
Dated, fine. Build quality? They feel like fucking vaults.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 01, 2013, 05:47:32 PM
Dated, fine. Build quality? They feel like fucking vaults.
The doors are flimpsy, like the japanese, not vault-like as the Germans. things (i.e door hinges) are welded in pure view and just painted over without even smoothing, the headliner is not seccured, on the S80 you could just pull it loose with your fingers. I was scared from what I saw
Yep, Volvos aren't what they used to be. Hence their falling sales and my current lack of enthusiasm for them.
How long before they go the way of Saab, I wonder?
Quote from: Madman on February 01, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
The original plan was for the Evoque to be called a Land Rover but, at the last minute, they changed it to Range Rover so they could justify charging a higher price.
Marketing. Gotta love it! :facepalm:
The thing is it's still cheaper than an LR4, which is badged a LR. It makes no sense, and it cheapens the real RR.
Quote from: AltinD on February 02, 2013, 05:29:40 AM
The doors are flimpsy, like the japanese, not vault-like as the Germans. things (i.e door hinges) are welded in pure view and just painted over without even smoothing, the headliner is not seccured, on the S80 you could just pull it loose with your fingers. I was scared from what I saw
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a newer Volvo. Flimsy doors? Buddy, time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Quote from: Madman on February 02, 2013, 07:04:30 AM
Yep, Volvos aren't what they used to be. Hence their falling sales and my current lack of enthusiasm for them.
How long before they go the way of Saab, I wonder?
Falling sales? Have you seen the sales of the S60? XC60? They're doing much better in the hands of the Chinese. Not what they used to be? Of course not. They're better.
They need to make this, minus the Ohlins and sell it for M3 money:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h-DahvoYh4A/T9yInIAMW4I/AAAAAAAH8Jg/yRv2NqlqZ3I/s1600/Volvo-S60-Polestar-0003.jpg)
And proceed to sell like 2 of them.
Chris Harris said it's better than the C63. :huh:
If you want an AWD sports sedan, there's nothing else that would compare to it at M3 (or slightly less) money. I think they could sell a good amount of them.
Quote from: CJ on February 02, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a newer Volvo. Flimsy doors? Buddy, time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Newer ... you mean like those displayed at the showroom in December 2012 when I visited? And yes, the doors of the XC90 are.
They absolutely aren't. I've been in countless XC90s. The doors are rock solid.
Also, got to see some new Range Rovers today. Classy.
Quote from: CJ on February 02, 2013, 11:14:34 AM
Falling sales? Have you seen the sales of the S60? XC60? They're doing much better in the hands of the Chinese. Not what they used to be? Of course not. They're better.
Yes, the S60 and XC60 are doing well. But what about the rest of their lineup? C30 and S80 sales are dead in the water, the current C70 is nowhere near as popular as the original, the XC90 is so old the owner's manual is hand written on parchment and the V40 isn't even sold here at all.
Two semi-successful models does not make for a viable dealer franchise.
Quote from: Lebowski on February 01, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
The LR4 has increasingly become my fav in their lineup. I like the RR though, and I really like the outgoing one. I think it's the most classy of the mega-expensive SUVs.
I think LR is making some major brand management mistakes with the Range Rover name, though. RR should be reserved to their top of the line. RR Sport, ok, a bit of a stretch but I'm ok with it. But why does the Evoque need to be the "Range Rover Evoque"? I think it's a big mistake, and a dangerous path to go down from a branding perspective. The hood of the Evoque even says "Range Rover", give me a break it should say "Land Rover" like the LR4.
I think the eventual plan is to take the LR brand a bit downmarket, thus Range Rover could absorb a pricey – yet not outrageously priced – vehicle like the Evoque.
Personally, I don't think it should've been called a Range Rover when it's less expensive than the LR4 and only a few grand more expensive than a well-equipped LR2, but I can see how it fits into some of their long term thinking.
Quote from: TurboDan on February 03, 2013, 10:01:34 AM
I think the eventual plan is to take the LR brand a bit downmarket, thus Range Rover could absorb a pricey – yet not outrageously priced – vehicle like the Evoque.
Personally, I don't think it should've been called a Range Rover when it's less expensive than the LR4 and only a few grand more expensive than a well-equipped LR2, but I can see how it fits into some of their long term thinking.
They're long term thinking sounds stupid and ultimately will erode the brand equity of both LR and RR.
Quote from: Lebowski on February 03, 2013, 11:44:30 AM
They're long term thinking sounds stupid and ultimately will erode the brand equity of both LR and RR.
Possibly, but being a niche manufacturer (albeit with a large fan base) is risky in and of itself, especially with rising worldwide fuel prices and the SUV craze on the downswing, at least in the short term.
If they launch the next Defender in several variants, including a no frills mainstream one priced a little more than a Wrangler, I don't see it hurting brand equity too much. Defender is almost a brand within itself, and it's not going to attract the wealthy executives, affluent suburban soccer moms or the general "keep up with the Joneses" crowd that the other models do. Do I think they should start making cheap crossovers like the Jeep Compass, or something like that? No. But one off-road model that isn't loaded with luxury features and competes with arguably the only other true off-road non-pickup in the market today is something I'd roll the dice on.
Quote from: Madman on February 02, 2013, 09:59:22 PM
the XC90 is so old the owner's manual is hand written on parchment
:lol:
Quote from: Lebowski on February 03, 2013, 11:44:30 AM
They're long term thinking sounds stupid and ultimately will erode the brand equity of both LR and RR.
If the new RR were an inferior product I might agree, but the new RR is nothing of the sort.
You know, I don't understand why Cadillac insists on keeping the Escalade total crap.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 04, 2013, 07:52:05 AM
You know, I don't understand why Cadillac insists on keeping the Escalade total crap.
The people who buy it don't care how good it actually is, as long as they rolling like they ballin.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 04, 2013, 08:39:03 AM
The people who buy it don't care how good it actually is, as long as they rolling like they ballin.
They're coming out with a new one for 2014 (as a '15 model), along with the rest of GM's large SUVs, I believe. 2012 was its worst sales year ever, and I'm sure 2013 will be worse.
That's a long time, but until the '13 came out, the Range Rover was 10 years old. Granted, there were significant refreshes, but still.
Quote from: Submariner on February 04, 2013, 07:06:11 AM
If the new RR were an inferior product I might agree, but the new RR is nothing of the sort.
:huh:
I'm talking about taking the RR brand downmarket ala branding the evoque a RR. That cheapens the brand no matter how good the true RR is.
Quote from: TurboDan on February 04, 2013, 08:52:23 PM
They're coming out with a new one for 2014 (as a '15 model), along with the rest of GM's large SUVs, I believe. 2012 was its worst sales year ever, and I'm sure 2013 will be worse.
That's a long time, but until the '13 came out, the Range Rover was 10 years old. Granted, there were significant refreshes, but still.
+1
Can someone explain why GMT900 trucks/SUVs are cracking/disintegrating their dash boards? It's mildly disturbing.
Quote from: CJ on February 07, 2013, 08:28:14 AM
Can someone explain why GMT900 trucks/SUVs are cracking/disintegrating their dash boards? It's mildly disturbing.
:confused: Got a link to something?
http://tahoe-cracked-dash.m.webs.com/site/mobile?dm_path=%2Findex.htm&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a1&fw_sig_tier=0&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_premium=0&fw_sig_permissions=none&fw_sig_session_key=90f3e79884de7400a0dc4891b024b95c89155b81b87de70b1f2a52dc67e91b58-96061472&fw_sig_time=1360257810196&fw_sig_url=http://tahoe-cracked-dash.webs.com/&fw_sig=82ca934c0588c733928759669d256797&fw_sig_access_token=ff871d03f2b1f9df21364a3738a5ec97b140a760&fw_sig_permission_level=0&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_site=96061472&fb_sig_network=fw#1201 (http://tahoe-cracked-dash.m.webs.com/site/mobile?dm_path=%2Findex.htm&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a1&fw_sig_tier=0&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_premium=0&fw_sig_permissions=none&fw_sig_session_key=90f3e79884de7400a0dc4891b024b95c89155b81b87de70b1f2a52dc67e91b58-96061472&fw_sig_time=1360257810196&fw_sig_url=http://tahoe-cracked-dash.webs.com/&fw_sig=82ca934c0588c733928759669d256797&fw_sig_access_token=ff871d03f2b1f9df21364a3738a5ec97b140a760&fw_sig_permission_level=0&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_site=96061472&fb_sig_network=fw#1201)
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/08/gmt-900-gmc-chevy-vehicles-subject-to-frequently-cracking-dashboards/ (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/08/gmt-900-gmc-chevy-vehicles-subject-to-frequently-cracking-dashboards/)
There are countless other links online and videos on YouTube.
Old Volvos were notorious for cracked dashboards. A custom made dash cover is much cheaper than a new dash!
Quote from: Madman on February 07, 2013, 07:04:39 PM
Old Volvos were notorious for cracked dashboards. A custom made dash cover is much cheaper than a new dash!
And they look like some half-assed attempt to cover a cracked dash.
Quote from: Madman on February 07, 2013, 07:04:39 PM
Old Volvos were notorious for cracked dashboards. A custom made dash cover is much cheaper than a new dash!
15 years later, not 2.
Quote from: CJ on February 07, 2013, 07:25:25 PM
15 years later, not 2.
That's true, but this is GM we're talking about, so a certain amount of shittiness is expected! :lol:
But from a $50k+ vehicle? No.
Quote from: CJ on February 07, 2013, 07:34:22 PM
But from a $50k+ vehicle? No.
Eh, My ex-gf's XLR originally sold for like $90K and it had the same creeks as every other GM dash. Nice car and cool to drive, but there's a certain level of disappointment when a piece of cheap plastic around the nav screen starts getting loose on a car that, in certain trims, sold for six figures.
When did you guys call it quits?
Quote from: CJ on February 07, 2013, 08:28:14 AM
Can someone explain why GMT900 trucks/SUVs are cracking/disintegrating their dash boards? It's mildly disturbing.
Because they're poorly made cars?
Quote from: Submariner on February 08, 2013, 08:07:09 AM
Because they're poorly made cars?
I wouldn't say poorly made; most of the hardware is pretty sturdy and I'd trust it over something british.
The interior, however, is absurdly cheap and poorly made. It does not feel expensive. It does not feel nice at all.
Quote from: CJ on February 07, 2013, 08:28:14 AM
Can someone explain why GMT900 trucks/SUVs are cracking/disintegrating their dash boards? It's mildly disturbing.
You can blame a firm called Plastech that molded them and is no longer in business.
Basically, the chemistry that GM paid for in the plastics was not what they were actually getting, and it lacks some component additive that supposed to stop UV radiation damage.
Quote from: Madman on February 02, 2013, 09:59:22 PM
the XC90 is so old the owner's manual is hand written on parchment
Quote from: Submariner on February 04, 2013, 07:05:17 AM
:lol:
(http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/bowtie.gif)
Thank you. Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm here all week.