looking at auto trader and edmunds there are a ton of them with 30-40k miles that are sitting at about 40-60% of new dealer price. Thats like a loss of 30-40 grand in 2-3 years.
jt
jt
yact: Why do Range Rovers Depreciate so badly?
- Thread starter jteef
- Start date
are they good cars? i always assumed they were because of their price, but i didn't know they depreciate badly
radioouman
Diamond Member
- Nov 4, 2002
- 8,632
- 0
- 0
They aren't good cars. They come from England! Have you ever seen a good car come from there? 
Just kidding. Actually they have a pretty poor reliability record.
Let's see... You said 30-40k miles, 2-3 years old, and they are 40-60% off of the new dealer price.
2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited ~$38,000
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (same options) with 27,000 miles ~$20,000
The Jeep depreciated 48% in three years.
2003 GMC Yukon ~ $45,000
2000 GMC Yukon (same options) with 30,000 miles ~ $25,000
The Yukon depreciated 45% in three years.
This is very typical for most cars. Most cars will depreciate 50% after 2.5 years with average mileage (10-15k per year).
For this reason, you'll take a much bigger loss if you spend a lot more for a new car. If you spend $60,000 for a car, 2.5 years later it may be worth $30,000. You've lost $30,000!! If you spend $8,000 for a new car, 2.5 years later it you've lost $4,000.
Also, new cars depreciate faster than used cars. If a car loses 50% of it's value by the time it reaches 30,000 miles, it may take another 100,000 miles until it depreciates another 50%. As stated above though, if the vehicle is only worth $8,000 when you buy it used with 30,000 miles, you will drive it for 70,000 miles before it depreciates another 50%, and you don't have as much money invested, so losing 50% on your investment isn't like losing 50% on a new car.
Just kidding. Actually they have a pretty poor reliability record. Let's see... You said 30-40k miles, 2-3 years old, and they are 40-60% off of the new dealer price.
2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited ~$38,000
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (same options) with 27,000 miles ~$20,000
The Jeep depreciated 48% in three years.
2003 GMC Yukon ~ $45,000
2000 GMC Yukon (same options) with 30,000 miles ~ $25,000
The Yukon depreciated 45% in three years.
This is very typical for most cars. Most cars will depreciate 50% after 2.5 years with average mileage (10-15k per year).
For this reason, you'll take a much bigger loss if you spend a lot more for a new car. If you spend $60,000 for a car, 2.5 years later it may be worth $30,000. You've lost $30,000!! If you spend $8,000 for a new car, 2.5 years later it you've lost $4,000.
Also, new cars depreciate faster than used cars. If a car loses 50% of it's value by the time it reaches 30,000 miles, it may take another 100,000 miles until it depreciates another 50%. As stated above though, if the vehicle is only worth $8,000 when you buy it used with 30,000 miles, you will drive it for 70,000 miles before it depreciates another 50%, and you don't have as much money invested, so losing 50% on your investment isn't like losing 50% on a new car.
Probably because like all British cars, you have to buy two at a time. The second one is for parts to fix the first one.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,832
- 2,618
- 136
Although radiooouman's explanation is basically correct, I'd like to point out that Range Rover parts are very expensive. The dealers are asking $600-800 for the alternator (part only) for my brother-in-law's. He hunted around on the internet and found a third party manufacturer at about $400, which still seems steep to me.
Land/Range Rovers are sweet, but they are indeed very expensive.... and IMHO not worth their price... which again, like others have said, is probably why they depreciate.
i own an '87 jaguar. DO NOT BUY AN ENGLISH CAR!!!!!! If i could have taken the car back, i would have.
-=bmacd=-
-=bmacd=-
I think Land Rover makes much better vehicles than average. But due to the high cost of repair when you do have to head to the mechanic, depreciation is on par with other vehicles. I've considered buying a Discovery II in the past but ruled it out once I thought of the average maintenance costs (belts, oil filters, etc.) compared to say, a Chevy Suburban.
My father-in-law owned 3 jags between 90 and 99. All three of them had more problems than any other car I've seen. It's the quality you expect from a $10,000 econobox, not a $50,000 sedan.
Now he has a Lincon (S.S. Continental sets sail every day). It's a boat, but it's better than the jags.
Part of the problem is supply and demand. After the warranty expires no one wants to take on the expense of owning one.
They have horrible horrible reliability. They spend more time in the shop than anywhere else! however they do perform well off-road. Don't know how the new vehicles are though.
I am sure it is, the Jaguar of old, to me, is I think the least dependable most expensive car to maintain..
aside from the cheap ghetto-ass cars like Lada of course.
A bit off topic, but which american suv would you buy in the $30-35k range? Ford Explorer Limited or Trailblazer or envoy or what?
It's obvious none of you have ever owned a Land Rover. My mom has owned a 1995 Range Rover and it was a hell of a vehicle. She now owns a 1997 Discovery that is still going strong and has never had anything major wrong with it. Here in TN they do a Land Rover weekend once or twice a year where they take you into the hills of Tennessee to some bed and breakfast and you get to do some real offroading. We stole her discovery last year and took it up there. OMG that thing can do some serious 4x4...it was fun as hell.
Admitted they are expensive, but shes owned two of them, and they've been great suv's.
Admitted they are expensive, but shes owned two of them, and they've been great suv's.
Land Rover is owned by Ford(not sure how much of Land Rover Ford owns though), so I dont think they buy GM engines.
Heck no. When I want to set sail, I'll call Carnival.
Take the Explorer. My parents have a 95 that has survived two boys through college and still runs well.
Millennium, is the trailblazer bigger (inside) than the explorer but smaller than the expedition. Please forgive me, I'm ignorant when it comes to cars but I have to get one by April.
Because they cost an arm and a leg for maintenance. The older the car is, the more maintenance required.
Chiz
Um explain to me how i'm Bias? My wife Drives a Nissan Maxima SE and I drive a Ford F150 5.4L V8 extended cab 4x4.
Yeah all my cars are Euro and I'm bias. Whatever dude. Get a clue.
As stated, in the two Land Rover that my family members have had experience with, NONE of them exhibited any problems or needed time in the shop. I'm sure how i'm being bias, but i'm just stating my first hand knowledge.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter