Despite being a glass overflowing type of guy, after reading several threads on reliability and depression depreciation, I questioned if I was being delusionally optimistic.
To be candid, I started to notice and get mildly concerned about the slight smoke at startup after sitting for a month. On a car with only 40k miles.
So I went looking for some actual metrics to both durability and depreciation, as one is indicative of the other.

I was very pleasantly surprised to see numerous LR4 with over 150,000 miles and still fetching $14k at that mileage. I would not pay $14k for a $47k car with 150k miles and an 'unrebuilable' engine that cost $15k to replace.
Interestingly the LR4 still looks handsome and current, unlike the Tahoe from the same year. (talk about rewarding those who hang on)

I am back to believing this is as good of a design and as timeless as the 4.2. Direct Injection is ok.
Amazingly in the LR4, which is not owned by enthusiasts or perfectionist that would give it over the top maintenance, there has been no engine killing coolant loss, carbon buildup, sized bearings, engine destroying oil starvation.
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d...3839/overview/
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d...9809/overview/
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d...1279/overview/

 

 

You also should look into Range Rover, they reported serious engine issues with liners getting dislodged from blocks, requiring full tear-down and a new engine block to address.

Doug DeMuro documented saga with his extensively on auto trader. See: https://www.autotrader.com/car-shopp...ed-know-239295

 

" Unfortunately, Range Rovers are known for typical British engineering, which means leaks, breakdowns and various other mechanical issues and unusual malfunctions. "

Are you going to believe a guy who thinks an entire race/nation is inherently bad at engineering. We did make the Fabric biplane that sunk the Bismark- Britain's finest needlework. Or in this case, Rover's British engineering single-handedly invented the category of Luxury SUV. Now the most popular class of vehicle globally.

And for what reason; because his rich man's hand-me-down, used like a cab, from a then cash-strapped company, cost as much to maintain as it did the rich man, who got the best of it.

 

This is an interesting post that Q&C began. Because it begs to ask several questions which most people avoid talking about. First I think that depreciation is the cause of many factors, reliability being just one of them, and a small fraction at that. As a driver who has logged several 100K+ miles on several different brands of cars over the past 40 years I believe that depreciation is a combination of reputation, a reflection of reliability, the economy which works out in the initial sale and the resale, along with marketing by the brand, the performance of the various models and purported qualities or weaknesses as reported by the media. If a brand thinks their cars are just as good as the competitions, they ask the same price for them when new. Lastly the actual performance of said brand when placed against it's competition in head to head matches, over time can lead to one car being viewed as better. Porsche and BMW have built their reps on their performance, it shows in their marketing and for their efforts people talk about how they perform, not whether they last. When Toyota started Lexus 30 years ago and challenged the Euro luxury brands, people scoffed. Well after 6 years people were not making fun of them as wannabes, they were purchasing them as alternatives. They could not do that if they were breaking down and unreliable. So they had to be at least as reliable as their competition. Jags problem is that they have not lead their divisions in luxury or performance in many years. The company would love for you to believe they are the leaders. Their cars were always just a tick slower than the Porsche, MB, Audi or BMW. Or not quite as luxurious as the Maybach or S-Class or 7 Series. Add to this that a perception of being unreliable haunted them and that turns into a reputation and therefore gives them a greater % of depreciation. All cars depreciate, once you drive them off the lot. Jaguar has come along way from 1989 when they had some serious issues. Then again so did Hyundai, but they fixed their reliability rep and now are attempting to build luxury and sports cars. It is the response by the brand's overall company that will dictate if the depreciation factor changes. Just look at the companies that have good reliability reps, Toyota, Honda, When something is designed poorly or breaks often, they seem to fix the problem most times by the next MY. Just my two cents on why depreciation might be greater on our cars over other brands.

 

Yes, because he is absolutely right, backed by volumes of empirical data over very long time. For example, Lucas isn't known as Prince of Darkness for no reason.

It is figure of speech. The claim is much narrower - Brits make unreliable consumer cars. Land Rover is no exception. Now, British civil engineering is phenomenal - I visited India recently and colonial era bridges are still all there. Simply amazing.

However, we are not talking bridges here, so you have to be sensitive to context instead of going directly into outrage/victimization claims.

I am surprised you are oblivious how comparable such situation to an average XK.

 

I can speak in terms of F-type. My jag isn't in the same league as, for example, Corvette C7. There is no way I can keep up on the track with C7 Grand Sport, least top of the line ZR1 as I am getting out-accelerated, out-stopped, out-turned and C7 is also lighter by couple hundred pounds. In terms of interior quality, quietness and comfort my F-type isn't even in the same league as Mercedes SL. Exterior styling is about the only area where F-type is a clear leader, Iain McCallum is a modern day Michelangelo, and F-type is his The Last Judgement. In all of this, F-type vs. contemporary cars is unfavorable comparison in most segments, a clear backslide when looking at E-type vs. contemporary cars.

Now, specific combination of exclusivity, comfort, style and so on suits me, or I wouldn't have bought it. That, and JLR was deeply discounting when I was shopping, nearly $20,000 discount made F-type a better deal and its shortcomings more palatable. However, seeing how JLR no longer offers F-type with a manual gearbox, they lost me as a repeat customer even with discounts.

By virtue of having my F-type in the shop a lot, I am also familiar with all other JLR offerings that I extensively drove as loaners. XE S with supercharged V6 is a beast, but interior is very cheap and loud and no manual gearbox option offered - as such it isn't comparable to M3 or AMG C63. Regular XE with turbocharged I4 is just anemic and has no redeeming qualities, as it can't even walk away from XSE Camry.

XF is not even in the same league as BMW 5-series or Mercedes E63, feels more like Cadillac CTS in its overall cheapness and strange design decisions.

XJ is another example where exterior styling is just gorgeous, but anything else is sub par for its class. No way I would pick XJ over, say Lexus LS or Genesis G80. I am not even talking about Mercedes S-Class or BMW 7-series.

As such, Jaguar has no sedans or roadsters that are segment leaders. That, on itself, isn't fatal. However, when you add Jaguar's lack of reliability you have current situation - deep discounts to move new cars and death spiral of depreciation once out of warranty.

I think Jaguar is mostly trading on its former glory and Britishness. If you take what JLR offering and slap KIA badge on it, it wouldn't move AT ALL at any price. Thankfully for JLR, driving a Jaaaaag is still a thing.

 

Not everyone is looking for reliability...
No one buys a Maserati, Ferrari, McLaren, with any expectation of reliability.

We should look at how one gets to reliability- by making a car for the masses so that you can spread the costs. An even bigger component is bulking up and becoming a very large conglomerate; i.e. Audi VW group.
But even then, when they make specialty cars, such as the R8, Lamborghini, they are nowhere as reliable as Lexus. Or think RX7/8 vs all other bulletproof Mazdas.

Its unreasonable to compare any boutique brand to the like of Toyota. Not only do they have size, they can bury their unreliable ones (mr2, supra) with the inexpensive run-of-the-mill models.

 

I appreciate depreciation.

Wish I could find a SUV that started life as a $30K machine and after 10 years and 23,000 miles now cost only $9000, which is about the same ratio that my Jag lost. If anyone knows of one let me know. My wife got rear-ended by a hit and run last week in her 98 Mercedes E430, and of course since it was a 20 year old car, it is totalled, so now we are out of a car and need a new one. The $2,000 we got from insurance does not buy much of a car these days.

 

It is my observation that most issues I see are with the super charged V8; and that either low oil, or temporary oil starvation seem the primary fault.

Unrelated, automatic gearboxes creep me out. It'd be very difficult for me to buy a second Jaguar for this reason.

My observation from looking at car fax information on cars of 150,000 miles plus is that there is nothing likely to happen that would concern me with these cars.

However, the 5.0L supercharged XKR's and V8S XJ/XF at 150,000+ miles are not very common for me to truly judge.

I have not looked at used F-types since I would much rather own a Corvette than an F-type. The XF, XJ, and XKR are a different matter.

I did consider a new F-type in the fall of 2015; but decided I like the increased interior space of the out gone X150. At this point I'd sooner get a new C7 Corvette over a new F-Type. I'd sooner get a C5+ Corvette over a used F-Type.

 

I disagree that mass production is necessary to achieve reliability. Reliability is achieved via designing for reliability, putting stringent defect and tolerances requirements on suppliers, designing production line with the goal of eliminating defects, and robustly testing the car in preproduction stage. It is likely that JLR knows how to do all of the above but chooses to manage costs instead.

 

Fair enough. Name one car considered reliable that was not produced in higher numbers than a Range Rover. Or name one car that was produced in low volume and was as reliable as the mass produced.

Engineering too is a function of volume. How you going to spend $1.5BILLION on R&D on car that you will only sell 50,000 units. Porsche and Audi did it with the 959, and Veyron- but you see thats where the secret lies. The German public will happily take a $6million loss per Veyron ever sold. Whereas in each-man-for-himself Great Britain, they wont even give Jaguar a low interest loan. If jaguar made a super car where they lost $500k per car, Jaguar would have been sold to the Somalians.

BTW JLR cannot even afford effective advertising (to create perceptions the others enjoy)- due to low volume. If they took out a $500mil ad campaign in USA, half the price of the car would go towards advertising.

The high cost of building a Bugatti Veyron

 

The mass produced engine has an added hurtle to jump - that of not creating the best engine; but rather creating the best machinery to manufacture the engine.

I would give the nod that it would take less R&D to make a high dollar low production engine reliable than it would to make a low dollar high production engine reliable.

 

 

I don't understand why I need to Google this for you, but here it is:

Land Rover US truck sales figures

In 2017 Evoque - 56,834 sold
In 2017 Range Rover Sport - 26,052 sold

I picked this car from Consumer Reports most reliable picks:

Mazda MX-5 Miata US car sales figures
In 2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata - 11,294 sold

As you can see, your argument doesn't quite hold water. Especially if you consider that it is much easier to make a quality car with $67K MSRP (Range Rover Sport base) than with $25K MSRP (MX-5 base).

---

Last but not least, you can't be serious in comparing our jags to Veyron. They are not in the same category in any and all ways.

 

I think there is something the 5.0 V8 from observing what has gone on in this forum vs. 4.2 for years. Why Jaguar moving away from it then?

 

Oddly enough the only two F Types that I'd consider are the SVR or the 2.0 4 banger. Both offer the most for the money.

 

Honestly, that's not the case with my 4.0L and 4.2L Supercharged V8s. On the older cars, the supercharged R models were MUCH MORE reliable than the naturally aspirated cars. The transmission being Mercedes vs ZF and the aluminum thermostat housing being obvious differences. The superchargers need the oil changes and last a good while; and when they age, replacing bearings is not awful by any means.

 

You are right that the Veyron probably cost less to develop than the Camry. Initially.
But they recoup the investment and then some on a Camry, so cost is zero.

 

I was referring specifically to the 5.0L cars.

I have never seen anything with the normally aspirated 5.0L engine that would give me concern deep enough to not buy if I was otherwise interested.

Yes there are water pumps that may need replacing, and a coolant part here or there, but overall; most especially compared to my other older cars that I own the 5.0L XK/XKR seem to have a good track record.