Talk:Land Rover Freelander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Unit of measurement on dimensions[edit]

Just wondering if there is any convention as to what units are most appropriate. Currently we have a mish-mash of imperial and metric and even mm and cm being used inconsistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.68.194 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality[edit]

is there any feedback about the quality of that vehicle? While I'm happy with mine (Model 2000 Diesel 2.0l), I hear a lot of negative news from people who owned one before.

I have a 1999 TDI Freelander. I bought it in 2002. It was the most expensive car I have ever bought (£15k). It is the most unreliable. Every electric window has broken. Bolts left off after Land Rover service. I would not buy one again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.57.40 (talkcontribs)
We have two, a 1998 L-series and a 2002 TD4. The latter is clearly more refined and well worth the £20,000 we paid for it (list price £22,000). We have found both to be very reliable and haven't missed a beat. Land Rover dealer servicing is very expensive but the vehicle is reasonably easy to DIY service. Would we get another one? Only if our current ones wore out! Certainly there have been problems with the Rover K-series petrol - it is way beyond its original design and shoudn't really be used in a 4x4 or a sports car (also brings problems in the MGF and Lotus Elise) and early models sufferd with VCU/IRD transmission problems. However both of these problems are well documented and avoidable if vigilantly maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippie (talkcontribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4x4disaster (talkcontribs) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Is it just me... or does that Landrover FAQ external link contain no information on the Freelander at all? I can't see any... zorruno 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I checked the site's index, and there's nothing. Whilst there's a case for Land Rover generic info in terms of sourcing spares, etc., there are probably plenty of more appropriate sites, and since external links are supposed to be carefully chosen and used sparingly, I've nuked this one. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1.8 problem section removed.[edit]

Can anyone explain to me why the following section has been deleted from the Freelander entry:

"The 1.8k Series models, although having a generally good build quality, has suffered greatly from premature blowing of the head gasket, in many cases prior to 30,000 miles. Land Rover has insisted that this is not a design fault and did not attempt a recall. There is documentary evidence here at the protest site www.freelanderheadgasket.co.uk. [1]"

This fault, along with those of the VCU and IRD unit are well documented and as such verifiable.Knobblywobbly 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to report reliability problems and promote your site. PrinceGloria 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's NOT my site, and I have absolutely nothing to do with it in any way, shape or form. However, I fail to see what is wrong with including details of verifiable reliability issues associated with the Freelander. Knobblywobbly 11:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Promoting ANY site is not allowed by WP policies. Also discussing reliability issues is beyond what Wikipedia articles on cars should contain. PrinceGloria 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That car reliability point you make about Wikipedia is not always true. There are many articles on cars here that also mention the reliability / popularity / reputation of vehicles. Have a look around, and then please think again about what you wrote. Thanks!
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically. Given the little time people in this WikiProject have, we cannot bring all articles to perfection and maintain them in that state all at once. PrinceGloria 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but that's a little different to what you said. The point you seemed to make before was that this is not the place for X, and now you're saying that X would be OK, but everyone's too busy. Respectfully, your edict that discussing relability (ie. mentioning these issues) is "beyond what Wikipedia articles on cars should contain" seemed a little like creating the rules as you go along. In some articles, there is a place for mentioning reliability. That's simply a fact. Thanks!
No. Some articles contain such "stuff" because we have too little time to prune it. Regards, PrinceGloria 03:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pirnce Gloria: You seem to be arbiter. If you will not allow us to discuss reliability issues please say so and then we can go elsewhere.159.134.162.59 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, consider WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOT, and to some extent also some of WP:EL; then also consider WP:NOR and most importantly of all, WP:VERIFY. I believe that there is room for some mention of reliability issues, but only where cited evidence is a fair and balanced view of the evidence, and demonstrable from multiple, verifiable, reliable, secondary sources. – Kieran T (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
4x4disaster - Caution, this is on the verge of becoming a 3RR edit war. Other editors appear to disagree on your edits - consider continuing the discussion here rather than just reverting. You may be correct, but the question seems to be if it belongs in the article, NPOV. Wikipedia is not consumer reports. Also, please stop YELLING and sign your posts. Thanks!--Justfred (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please look up 3RR - the three revert rule. Basically it means if you keep trying to put something in, and people keep pulling it back out, stop editing and take it to the discussion page. It may be that people aren't replying because they find your tone and ALL CAPS and !!! and reverts to be confrontational. If in fact "THE INFORMATION IS ALL ON THE WEB" then it doesn't really need to be here after all. If you'd like to review the vehicle, and you've had problems with it, those should be posted to a review site, not to the Wikipedia. I suggest www.landroverforums.com for example. Compare to other information articles here - they don't go into detail on specific problems. I'm aware of the maintenance problems myself - a big part of why I didn't buy one - but I learned that from consumer reports and other reviews, and from talking to my local service tech. (And please sign your posts by ending them with dash dash tilde tilde tilde tilde.)--Justfred (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up needed[edit]

I'm tempted to add a clean up tag to this article, as well as the 'News article' tag already there. It really does need alot of work,. The 'First generation' paragraph needs a bit of a rewrite, and the 'Marketing' section appears to have nothing about the marketing of the car in it. It either needs rewriting or the heading changed to something more appropriate to it's contents. Anyone have any views on this?87.194.232.185 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

+++TEXT NEEDS CHANGING++++ In the text it states that only the early model freelanders were affected with reliability issues, this is incorrect. All Mark 1 FREELANDERS suffered from reliability issues, either Headgasket, gearbox, transfer box, electrical problems. You need to look at the car review sites on the web to see that all mark ones were affected, from the first car made till the last car made in 2006. Do not look at the motoring press reviews, but people who acutally owned the FREELANDER. Please look of these two sites to prove what I am saying here www.carreview.com and www.preloved.co.uk, these are just two site, but there are lots more with lots of negative comments regarding the LANDROVER FREELANDER reliablity issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4x4disaster (talkcontribs) 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Corporate stuff in lead.[edit]

The lead stated "made by the Jaguar Land Rover business unit of India's Tata Motors". I changed this to "made by Land Rover", asserting that the financial structure of the manufacturer is not a concern in a car article. It is absolutely right to mention the Jaguar Land Rover (UK holding company) and Tata (parent company) in the corporate article, but for the purposes of the individual car article it is irrelevant. It isn't in the lead of the Range Rover, and Land Rover Defender articles. The Land Rover Discovery article has a more acceptable version that I would be happy to see in the lead of this article - "from the British car maker Land Rover; now a division of Tata Motors." Interestingly none of the current Jaguar cars (XF, XJ, XK) mention Tata or India in the lead. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The encyclopedia articles should have current information and provide full disclosure. Just because the corporate information is not in the articles does not mean current information should not be included. In other words, all the articles about currently produced Land Rover and Jaguar vehicles need to be updated. To identify the actual parent company does not focus the article on corporate finance. For example, please take a look at the Holden articles. The individual models include as the first sentence in their lead: "The Holden _____ is an automobile that was produced by GM Holden Ltd, an Australian subsidiary of General Motors ...." Moreover, many of the Holden articles have been reviewed and ranked "good" or "featured" (such as Holden VE Commodore) in Wikipedia's article review system. Other similar examples include:
"The Ford Escort is a small family car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company's European division between 1968 and 2003."
"The Dacia Sandero is a five door hatchback car produced jointly by the French manufacturer Renault and its subsidiary Dacia of Romania ...",
"The Kia Cee'd is a front wheel drive small family car released in the European market by the Korean manufacturer Kia Motors ...",
"The Infiniti I30 and I35 are mid-size luxury cars sold under Nissan's Infiniti marque in North American markets. The I was a rebadged Nissan Cefiro (日産 セフィーロ) and was mechanically related to the Nissan Maxima...."
and many, many more.
In all these cases, the articles disclose the origin of the cars and continue to discuss details about the vehicles. Providing the "corporate stuff" is by no measure an undue emphasis on "corporate finance" or any nations. In other words, information should be updated so that all articles about currently produced Rover and Jaguar automobiles state in their lead: "The _____ is an automobile produced by Jaguar Land Rover, a British business unit of Tata Motors." Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
For every example you provide I bet I could produce ten to counter it. As for your last suggestion, change it to "The _____ is an automobile produced by Land Rover, a subsidiary (or business unit if you prefer) of Tata Motors." Jaguar Land Rover is nothing more than a holding company - it is Jaguar Cars or Land Rover that produce vehicles. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is good to know that you tend to agree that a way of identifying the "real" company that owns the car brands is needed. There are hundreds of articles that are incomplete, but the existence of them is not a reason to eliminate valid information. Just because there is an article with this lead: "The Chevrolet Styleline was introduced late in the 1941 model year as a 4-door sedan" does not mean that the proper corporate identification should be eliminated from the following article: "The Chevrolet Chevy II/Nova is a compact automobile manufactured by the Chevrolet division of General Motors..." In other words, poorly written articles do not serve as good templates to follow! It is an arduous task to improve articles! One case is the Land Rover Defender article because it is full of unreferenced claims and BS (Boastful Superlatives). Nevertheless, the British registered Private Limited Company called Jaguar Land Rover is a business unit of Tata Motors. The parent company does not define it as a subsidiary. This registered business unit holds the Jaguar and Land Rover marques. Tata Motors paid $2.3 billion to Ford for the two brands in March 2008. It now owns them both outright and there are no shares of Jaguar or Land Rover floating around the financial markets. This is an important distinction, and not because I "prefer" the term "business unit" instead of "subsidiary". The relationship must be stated correctly in an encyclopedia. This would be similar to the situation with Cadillac vehicles, which do not make up a subsidiary of General Motors after it was acquired by GM in 1909! CZmarlin (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
One more correction: Tata's British registered corporate shells Jaguar Cars and Land Rover are makes, not auto "manufactures". Please see the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (here). The actual manufacturer that produces them is the Tata Group. CZmarlin (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect that it utter guff. Just look at http://www.jaguarlandrover.com - it is clear that Jaguar and Land Rover are manufacturers within the Jaguar Land Rover business unit. It doesn't call them marques within the Jaguar Land Rover manufacturer. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words, Biker Biker! Nevertheless, I would consider the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers as a more accurate authority as to a listing of the world's automakers. Please also examine the U.S. industry's respected news publication Automotive News. It also lists Tata as the manufacturer and Jaguar and Land Rover as brands (see the list on the left margin here). It is obvious that the description on the marketing page that you have provided a link is geared to play up the history of each of the brands, and not their real corporate ownership. In summary, I am not sure what your problem is concerning this basic definition. The current reality for both Jaguar and Land Rover is that they are brands owned by Tata Motors. We are not talking about each brand's history. What you seem to keep repeating is analogous to stating that Maybach is still an automaker, while the current reality is that it is only a brand owned by Daimler AG. Thanks for your attention!CZmarlin (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with CZMarlin, that is the corporate setup and it is appropriate to go into the lede for the LandRover main article, but am a bit of an agnostic when it comes to the model articles. Greglocock (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2WD question[edit]

Hi, Interested to read about the freelander being offered in two or four wheel drive versions. Can anyone point me to what supports this? I thought the freelander was a permanent four wheel drive, albeit with a 60/40 front/rear split on the early models. Regards Ianmanderson (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's on their own website - http://www.landrover.com/gl/en/lr/freelander-2/explore/s/ --Biker Biker (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)