16 Votes

Boost it!

Land Rover: the answer to Chrysler’s engine problems?

davert submitted on 9/18/2007 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 4:29:17 PM

28 user comments | Category: Rumors | Source: | SOURCE: www.allpar.com

As Ford gets closer to a sale of Jaguar and Land Rover, people have started to talk about how it would be a natural fit for Jeep.

This is true, but not for the obvious reasons.

Land Rover has two things Chrysler desperately needs: a good four-cylinder engine, and a small diesel.

The four cylinder gas (petrol) engine is really the big item. The World Engine has been a world-class failure; Land Rover, on the other hand, uses a good four-cylinder, and has a small diesel as well. Buying Land Rover could very well cost less than developing either of these two engines, would save time, and would give Chrysler a highly desirable brand that fits right into its core skills and technologies.


Read Article

About the Author

davert

— davert (View Profile)


User Comments

jt716

NOOOOO LAND ROVER WILL BE RUINED!!

— jt716 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 5:08:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

pushrod27

Be for real... Would Chrysler ownership devalue the brand any more than Ford? Of the Detroit 3, Ford is the most pitiful and objectionable. A completely classless organization. Just being associated with Ford brings Land Rover and Jaguar down a few notches.

— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 9:17:12 PM | | Votes: -1   

alfistiDK

"NOOOOO LAND ROVER WILL BE RUINED!!"

Im popping the champagne when that happens....

— alfistiDK (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 5:20:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Designer1

Well Land Rover already got ruined when Ford purchased it, now if Chrysler buys it, it will just be history from there after.

— Designer1 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 6:01:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

EnnNorak

Why not simply engineer a Chrysler/Ford merger and weed out the weak brands. Better to water down shares a little bit now than risk losing their value altogether eventually. Even if the respective existing shareholders simply agree to divide up the ownership of the new entity on the basis of average market share achieved by each existing company over the last 3 years, everyone would win in the long run.

If a simple formula based on proven market share is complicated by significant differences in net asset value or debt structure then those factors could be brought into the equation also on some fair weighted basis.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 10:00:17 AM | | Votes: 0   

r_driver04

Land Rover sucked way before Ford bought them dude. Do a little research.

— r_driver04 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:51:55 PM | | Votes: 2   

jt716

Actually Ford did pretty good in bringing reliability up since BMW's miserable try. By the way who wants to save JEEP? ALL the vehicles are basically plastic boxes anyway.

— jt716 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 6:46:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

pushrod27

Don't be an idiot. Ford bought the company AFTER BMW designed the current Range Rover (which is a knockout.) and Range Rover reliability is still pretty bad. The Range Rover sport debuted well after Ford bought the company, and it's been the most unreliable tank to wear the Range Rover name yet. Ford has BMW to thank for the gorgeous styling (inside and out) that the Range Rover wears. Do you think Ford could have designed an interior that classy????

Ford is the worst. Forget build quality and reliability, Ford's cars aren't even safe to ride in:

1. Cartwheeling Explorers
2. Crown Victorias that explode when hit from behind
3. Aerostar vans and Tempo sedans with spontaneous engine fires (I personally witnessed this on two seperate occassions!)

Ford should just give it up.

— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2007 9:21:56 PM | | Votes: 0   

S4cabriofoxone

Yes, give credit were credit was due- BMW gave Ford an amazing flagship to work with, and they of course made a half-assed attempt at building on it. The LR3 is a great family SUV, but the RR Sport is cramped and has cheap interior materials not worthy of the Range Rover badge. Okay, it looks gorgeous, but it's just a slightly smaller, less stately Range Rover, which BMW designed.

And Ford, upping reliability? Have you looked at the charts lately? In most cases, LR is still dead last.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 12:43:47 AM | | Votes: 1   

S4cabriofoxone

"...give credit WHERE credit IS due..."

I don't know where that came from...

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 12:44:12 AM | | Votes: 0   

r_driver04

I think Jeep and Rover have about the same reliability record.....crappy!! It's a match made by the automotive gods. lol

— r_driver04 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:53:37 PM | | Votes: -1   

S4cabriofoxone

Please don't let this happen.

If Chrysler bought Land Rover, the Range Rover would be down the toilet. I don't care about the others- but RR is an SUV that deserves to succeed. The current BMW-designed model is the best yet, and the next version should be even better.

I think BMW would once again be a good suitor, or Audi, as they should gain control over more than one brand (Lamborghini). They seem to be much better at management, profits and product development than VW, with the exception of the Bentley Continental family. Although the Range Rover and Q7 would clash, they could either cut down Audi's SUVs or push the RR more upmarket.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 12:46:55 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

S4cabriofoxone

Of course, I forgot a few things:

• BMW or Audi would most likely make the off-roading gear strictly optional, which would give the Range Rover better performance, mileage and lower weight

• Audi would push the interiors to a whole new level

• The injection of German engineering wouldn't hurt

• I can see them moving up the reliability charts already

There's a good list of reasons for why they should go to either. I just hope they don't go to a POS brand like Chrysler; aligning them with Aston Martin (SUV divison) at Prodrive wouldn't be bad.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 12:49:44 AM | | Votes: -3   

M35MT

S4 - That's not really an option. A LR must be a LR. It has to be an off road machine. They need to focus on the powertrain (hybrid or diesel are great options...) rather than cut out the 4WD. The RR should use more aluminum, which would make it pricery, but lighter, and, the idea is for it to move further upmarket anyhow.

Toyota could solve the quality control issues. Although, they have the only REAL LR competitors. STOP AND THINK about it. The LX570/Land Cruiser are the only SUV's that can hang with RR off road and is still a luxury SUV. The Q7, etc, cant match it.

— M35MT (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 8:01:12 AM | | Votes: 1   

EnnNorak

The only Land Rover I ever liked and came close to buying was the big old aluminum-bodied Defender. One big negative was it's old Buick pushrod engine.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 10:03:48 AM | | Votes: 1   

S4cabriofoxone

"STOP AND THINK about it. The LX570/Land Cruiser are the only SUV's that can hang with RR off road and is still a luxury SUV. The Q7, etc, cant match it."

I know this... you act like I don't. I didn't even mention Toyota/Lexus at all in my post. However, the Q7 and RR (or X5 and RR, depending on who bought it) are targeting similar buyers. Your avg LX570/RR/X5/Q7 buyer never takes the thing off road, which is where my optional equipment idea came from.

You are over-dramatizing my post. I did not say FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE should be optional. I said unnecessary off-roading gear should be. The stuff that soccer moms don't care about. And, STOP and THINK about this: it will still be AVAILABLE. For those who actually take their Land Rovers off-roading.

Toyota should not buy this company. The design would be ruined. The LX/LC is too close to the RR in spec, also.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 6:12:42 PM | | Votes: 1   

TTRaceRR

Who gives a crap about Range Rover? I hope some Chinese or India company buys it. Ford will be better off without it! It's no wonder they can't wait to unload it and Jaguar. They are both worthless money pits!

— TTRaceRR (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:06:51 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

TTRaceRR

Pardon me...I meant LAND Rover, which buy the way BMW couldn't wait to unload either!

— TTRaceRR (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:11:16 AM | | Votes: 0   

EnnNorak

Mahindra no longer wants these brands and has bowed out of the bidding.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 10:05:58 AM | | Votes: 1   

tecnopolis

What is this 4-cylinder I'm hearing about?

— tecnopolis (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 8:53:51 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

r_driver04

It's an engine that has 4 cylinders instead of 3,5,6 and so on and so forth. But that's not important right now.

— r_driver04 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:55:15 PM | | Votes: 1   

MeanVulcan

I was in the market for a Discovery a few years back. Opted out due to its old pushrod GM-made engine.

I do not think BMW is stupid enough to rebuy LR and VW does not need it since it has the Q7 on-road and the Touareg off-road, not to mention a possible Lamborghini SUV??? MB is in similar boat than Audi.

A Japanese owner would have strong reasons for and against. 1) British brand and Japanese owner makes for a mixed image - not the kind luxury buyers might look for, 2) LR lives in the basement of the Reliability charts - Japanese owners would have to damage their image for a few years until reliability is brough up to par, 3) Land Cruiser, Montego, Pathfinder speak strongly against a Japanese need for another SUV.

What remains is the independent investor who should probably buy LR and Jaguar together. These brands markets are totally exclusive of each other. The problem is they're both has beens with suffering image problems, IMO.

— MeanVulcan (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 1:12:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

davert

Chrysler could only bring Land Rover's quality UP since currently LR is in the bottom of just about every ranking while Jeep is roughly average - which is pretty good after ten years of Mercedes people coming in and cutting costs left and right.

The interior cost-cutting is being reversed. You can see it a little in the new minivans with their nicer armrest material and such; but you'll really be able to see it in three years when the last of the Mercedes cost-cutting binge is truly history. (It takes YEARS to get a car engineered and produced.)

Jeep has had excellent off-road technologies, as has Land Rover. But the two of them together could be even better. Land Rover / Range Rover will never make any money as long as they have to invest huge sums into engineering and production, but don't have real mass market vehicles. If they can share those costs, they amortize out and they can start to make money, especially if their quality goes up to teh point where warranty costs aren't eating them alive.

In some ways it's like the Hummer deal - AMG gave GM enough expertise to make some of their big ol' trucks off-road-ready, while GM provided the basic chassis, powertrains, etc. that AMG couldn't afford to create for such small runs. (Not that I think Hummers are any great shakes, but they HAVE been profitmakers!)

— davert (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 1:36:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

dumpsty

If Chrysler were to purchase Land Rover, its inherent prestige and price-points won’t overlap that of Jeep’s heritage and lower purchase points. The Chrysler product line needs a pretige brand to help pull the entry-luxury image along or at least solidify it. The Aspen is a cute 1st attempt by Chrysler for a large premium SUV, but it just doesn’t work considering that the only major changes were front facia and some brightwork on the exterior.

With Land Rover, the Chrysler line wouldn’t need an SUV. Trucks, SUVs, and crossovers would basically go to Dodge, Jeep, and LR. Dodge can keep what is already has and further develop the Ram, Durango, Magnum, and Nitro. Jeep can keep the GC, Wrangler, Liberty, and the Patriot. And Chrysler can have a small sedan/crossover, Sebring, mid/size crossover, and the 300. Land Rover keeps the Discovery, Range Rover (and Sport), and the LR3 (maybe repackaged from the Liberty/Nitro platform).

Hey, if Chrysler purchased LR and had to take Jaguar as part of the completed deal, they’d have ownership of the “Daimler” name. And that could be given back to Daimler AG. But that would leave the 300 at the premium/entry-luxury level that it should be and open up the doors for a new Jaguar branded division that would come with better quality and designs.

— dumpsty (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:43:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

S4cabriofoxone

I love your ideas, but do you know what I think would (eventually) happen if Chrysler purchased LR/Jaguar? The same thing that has happened every time a mass-market automaker buys luxury companies: they flush them down the toilet. In very lucky cases, such as VW/Audi and GM/Cadillac, these have been successful. But I think LR and Jaguar have too much to stand for. They should be bought out by investors. Their designers are still there in full force- but they need better engineers, and Land Rover needs better quality control.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 6:20:11 PM | | Votes: 1   

dumpsty

If Chrysler were to purchase Land Rover, its inherent prestige and price-points won’t overlap that of Jeep’s heritage and lower purchase points. The Chrysler product line needs a pretige brand to help pull the entry-luxury image along or at least solidify it. The Aspen is a cute 1st attempt by Chrysler for a large premium SUV, but it just doesn’t work considering that the only major changes were front facia and some brightwork on the exterior.

With Land Rover, the Chrysler line wouldn’t need an SUV. Trucks, SUVs, and crossovers would basically go to Dodge, Jeep, and LR. Dodge can keep what is already has and further develop the Ram, Durango, Magnum, and Nitro. Jeep can keep the GC, Wrangler, Liberty, and the Patriot. And Chrysler can have a small sedan/crossover, Sebring, mid/size crossover, and the 300. Land Rover keeps the Discovery, Range Rover (and Sport), and the LR3 (maybe repackaged from the Liberty/Nitro platform).

Hey, if Chrysler purchased LR and had to take Jaguar as part of the completed deal, they’d have ownership of the “Daimler” name. And that could be given back to Daimler AG. But that would leave the 300 at the premium/entry-luxury level that it should be and open up the doors for a new Jaguar branded division that would come with better quality and designs.

— dumpsty (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 2:43:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

TexLandRover

Land Rover is in great shape. Anybody look at their sales numbers, been RECORD sales for the past two years and 2007 is looking like the best year EVER. For those that can afford them, know the vehicle is second to none. Dealers are really awesome, the vehicles sell themselves. Land Rover will be just fine with or without Ford I promise you.

To even compare the Land Rover to Toyota is a joke. The '08 Land Cruiser stickering in the mid $60K will be a real sales flop. Who ever would pay that much sure is a sucker. Look at the Tundra, they have to take off $7K to move any of them. LC will be the mirror image.

— TexLandRover (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2007 10:50:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

davert

Tundra incentives were just reduced, and Land Cruiser sales have been acceptable in the luxury range. Remember this is a worldwide-sales car, and also that it's not expected to sell like a Corolla.

— davert (View Profile)

Posted on 9/21/2007 9:01:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]