You have saved this page | See all saved pages
High End Luxury Cars
24723 messages, Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum.What is this discussion about? Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan
Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.
A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.
Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.
#2340 of 24723 1995 BMW Engine by bstotmeister
Jun 19, 2003 (9:32 am)
This may be a day late and all, but regarding the problems with a circa 1995 7 series BMW....I was recently looking into this, and from 1993 to 1995 (think that's correct) BMW used a nickel alloy engine, called Nikasil. This alloy, combined with the relatively high sulphur content of gas sold in some US regions, hastened pitting of the cylinder walls. BMW extended the warranty, but if you buy it used, you're probably not going to be covered.
BMW evidently had some success with this engine/alloy in their motorcycle line. It did not translate well to automobiles, however.
#2341 of 24723 TLC by nvbanker
Jun 19, 2003 (4:21 pm)
I have no personal experience with TLC because I don't like the looks of it, but I hear tell the Rover's engine is trouble prone. I'm betting TLC, though weak, is dependable. But if I'm wrong, I stand corrected. I know the Sequoia is weak from personal experience, so you may be right.#2342 of 24723 by merc1
Jun 19, 2003 (10:23 pm)
Well.......TLC/LX470 - 235hp
Navigator - 300hp
Escalade - 345hp
Range Rover - 282hp
I clearly see the inferior engine in the Toyota products. You'll have to do a little better than "hearsay" as far as the RR having engine problems. It's the same engine as the current BMW 540i, thats been around since 1997 so I hardly think it's bug ridden now.
M
#2343 of 24723 by nvbanker
Jun 20, 2003 (4:52 pm)
Sorry merc, having not owned one, all I have to offer is what my friends who own one have said.#2344 of 24723 merc1 by ljflx
Jun 20, 2003 (5:58 pm)
Inferior horsepower - not an inferior engine. I know two people who have had Range Rovers and they had terrible experiences. One's in a TLC now and the other is in a LX470. They would clearly not share your view as both had engine problems.#2346 of 24723 SUV Forum, please by tasillo
Jun 20, 2003 (7:29 pm)
Please take the comparison of SUV engines to the proper forum. The fact that the RR has a BMW V-8 doesn't make this the place to discuss.#2347 of 24723 ljflx by merc1
Jun 21, 2003 (8:56 am)
If hp isn't a trait of an inferior engine then you'll need to explain what you're talking about a little better than coming up with that "I know people this and I know people that" stuff. From a pure engine design standpoint 235hp is pitiful in a class of vehicles that all push 280hp or better. Two experiences CERTAINLY don't make an inferior engine either, not at all. Then I have to ask whether or not you're talking about the new RR, because it doesn't share anything with the previous model.M
#2348 of 24723 merc1 by ljflx
Jun 21, 2003 (1:29 pm)
I learned a long time ago that where there is smoke there is fire. Everything I've read over the years states that a Range Rover is a trouuble prone vehicle. Then the only two people I know who've had one (one was a 99 and the other was a 2000) have problem after problem. Proof enough for me. Technical prowess and beauty isn't worth much if you can't or don't have confidence in the automobile.If I'm going to spend $60k plus on a vehicle I expect perfection or something real close to it. I think in the future you'll see that cars that don't live up to that will lose market share - MB included. People may look past things once but most don't get burned twice.
#2349 of 24723 ljflx by merc1
Jun 22, 2003 (9:45 pm)
Thats too bad that you don't realize that new Range Rover is a new from the ground up vehicle and shares nothing with the previous generation. The 1999 and 2000 model is completely irrelevant to the current model. Yes the old model was trouble prone. I'm not sure where the new model stands in the all-important surveys. I suspect its not setting any reliablity records, so I have to ask why even bother looking at one?Sometimes (like in this case) I can't believe that you're seriously holding those two cases against such a fine and completely new vehicle. Since you already have what 3(?) Lexuses I think you should really check out something that isn't a Lexus. Live a little. Even I wouldn't have all Mercedes-Benzes if I were in your postion.
M
To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement