1999 Land Rover Range Rover HSE 4.6 V8 petrol from Australia and New Zealand


The Range Rover is very poor value for money


Not enough space to list the things that went wrong with the Range Rover, but here is a start.

1. AT NEW, head gasket not fitted correctly,

2. AT NEW leather steering wheel trim falling off

3. After some miles, roof rack mountings failed with about 50Kg load

4. At 40K Kms, jockey wheel failed, very cheap plastic version replaced by dealer with metal one.

5. At 60K Kms, airpump for suspension failed completely. Cost to fix was literally thousands.

6. Rear left traction servo failed at 65K Kms, cost $950 to replace

7. Battery collapsed twice - new RR has a SMALLER one!

8. At 35K Km's, oil leaks in three places, transfer box, rear diff etc. Not snibbed up properly to start.

9. at 65K Km's vacuum for brakes failed - gave up and did not replace it.

10. Very poor original tyres fitted, changed for BF Goodrich - great move.

11. Bonnet flaps, metal too light.

12. Not all alloy panels, as advertised, rear panels are steel.

13. When battery failed, could not get into the rear to get tools - rear access is via an electric switch.

14. Tried to get access to "the book" to do own diagnosis (PC Software program) - denied by Rover.

All in all, a particularly ordinary vehicle for the money - and other friends with the same, have said the same. Bought a Nissan GU Patrol TI- much better than the RR.

General Comments:

General comment is that Rover have cut all the corners on a luxury car. Nissan and Toyota make much better luxuery vehicles, particularly for reliability.

Other minor matters don't help - fuel tank is too small, no rear seats available etc.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 26th September, 2002

1999 Land Rover Range Rover HSE 4.6 from UK and Ireland


Superb 4x4


As the advertisment goes - 'the best 4x4 by far' and after 2 years of ownership I would have to agree. It performed superbly with a wonderful interior and excellent build quality. Only a few minor problems blighted its path: Recall for engine problems, a huge appetite for expensive tires and a colossal thirst. Otherwise conducted itself excellently.

General Comments:

Its handling is insecure on twisted roads, and acceleration is ponderous in 3rd gear. Unfortunately the vehicle was written off in November 2001 - a stolen car smashed into it broad side at about 40 mph after failing to make a turn (the Range Rover was parked) fortunately no one was hurt. And although the vehicle was written off, one could see the advantage of a 4x4 in collisions over a car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th April, 2002

28th Sep 2002, 12:15

I have A Range Rover 4 door 1984 model, but with 25 TD. The back tailgate every 2 years corrode the brake-pads after 6 months, but in the whole is a very strong car and have a very comfortable ride.

17th Oct 2002, 11:42

Previous comment is for a 'classic' RR.

Considered the handling for a car that weighs in at over 2000kgs, and is six feet tall it handles very well.

Not many fuel tanks are over 100 liters like the Range Rover, so the way to extend the range would be to fit a gas conversion.

The original review from NZ, sounds like they got a lemon, every maker has them.

There will be a pile of rust where the alternative was parked in thirty years, the range rover will still be going.

The car was never advertised as all "Aluminium" panels, it has some of them, the reviewer must have got confused with another land rover product (Defender, S III e.t.c.)