Comment by not-kinsale-joe
11 hours ago
I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
>I think you are wrong, I live in the UK and people around me drive used BMW x5s and Range Rovers both objectively bad vehicles and not best bang for buck.
Because those used cars are cheap to buy for you in the UK, but there are no cheap used 2CVs yet on the market, so the only customers are those with money.
And those people are chasing status, not fashion. Different things.
There is no such thing as a cheap Range Rover / Land Rover. I know because I own the latter.
the people that buy vehicle like that for status will only learn that after getting one.
What was that saying, "there is no car more expensive to own than cheap luxury car?"
It is if you're in the UK. Used cars are (relatively) cheap there.
3 replies →
How they are “objectively bad”?
Range Rovers are extremely unreliable, and maybe more importantly, not suited for what they're being used for. Offroad vehicle with poor fuel economy being driven in the city. X5 is more reasonable but still definitely an expensive way to get around.
I was hoping for something more than myths and cliches.
X5 - despite its bad reputation - is actually very reliable nowadays. That B58 engine is one hell of a robust machine. And Range Rovers have 4 to 5 year manufacturer warranties.
Also, they're not off-road vehicles (Wranglers, Defenders and Broncos are); they're family cars that combine practicality with great driving dynamics, advanced tech, and a touch of luxury. Also, both have PHEVs, and now even BEVs variants.
I'm not a SUV guy myself, I know their bad sides - but calling these two models "objectively bad" is both ignorant, and patronising. Objectively (as in: let's take a bunch of cars and compare them to each other) they're two of the best ones out there.
1 reply →
They’re usually around the bottom of the reliability rankings.
> Car are a fashion statement no matter how much or little wealth you have.
Often it isn't a fashion statement, and often people just like that particular car. Some people like Fords, Volvos, Vauxhalls or whatever. They just happen to like them for whatever reason.
I happen to like old Land Rovers because I like driving one. I like the look of them as well, but it isn't a fashion statement. People do come up to me and ask me about my vehicle (because it is still mostly original), but a lot of the time it is curiosity.
I think you're mistaking status for fashion.
Status and fashion are intrinsically linked.
people have Luis vuiton branded stuff because it was a status brand. It was a status brand because it was exclusive. it was exclusive because it was expensive.
BMWs used to be exclusive, only executives would drive them. THey were expensive, so were only given to execs (if it was a company car) or bought because execs had more cash (generally)
If there ever was a time when a BMW 700 was presented to an executive as symbol of their status, then that was also the time for them to start looking for a new gig.
If I read you correctly, you are both arguing with me and in my favour.
The two are inexorably related
Not really. There's quite a few luxury brands for (actual) rich people out there that you can't tell because they're super discrete and can't notice unless you know what to look for and look super close, because they don't have large gaudy logos plastered everywhere to attract looks and envy from the peasants. Those are aren't chasing status looks because they have actual status. LV handbags are for poor people to signal they can fake status by being bad with money.
I think you're mistaken
potato potato