2013 Land Rover Range Rover Hse on 2040-cars
Paramus, New Jersey, United States
Land Rover Range Rover for Sale
2012 land rover range rover hse lux 4x4 sunroof nav 25k texas direct auto(US $63,980.00)
2005 land rover range rover
2008 range rover hse 4.6 silver/tan leather w/ 72k. very clean range rover hse w(US $27,000.00)
Best range rover in town
2008 range rover supercharged **rear seat ent**nav/dvd** blk/blk**24'' wheels(US $34,900.00)
2006 range rover hse, awd, nav, dvd
Auto Services in New Jersey
Venango Auto Service ★★★★★
Twins Auto Repair Ii ★★★★★
Transmission Surgery & Auto Repair LLC ★★★★★
Tg Auto (Dba) Tj Auto ★★★★★
Szabo Signs ★★★★★
Stuttgart German Car Service ★★★★★
Auto blog
Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota
Wed, Feb 25 2015It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study
NHTSA, IIHS, and 20 automakers to make auto braking standard by 2022
Thu, Mar 17 2016The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and virtually every automaker in the US domestic market have announced a pact to make automatic emergency braking standard by 2022. Here's the full rundown of companies involved: BMW, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo (not to mention the brands that fall under each automaker's respective umbrella). Like we reported yesterday, AEB will be as ubiquitous in the future as traction and stability control are today. But the thing to note here is that this is not a governmental mandate. It's truly an agreement between automakers and the government, a fact that NHTSA claims will lead to widespread adoption three years sooner than a formal rule. That fact in itself should prevent up to 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries. The agreement will come into effect in two waves. For the majority of vehicles on the road – those with gross vehicle weights below 8,500 pounds – AEB will need to be standard equipment by September 1, 2022. Vehicles between 8,501 and 10,000 pounds will have an extra three years to offer AEB. "It's an exciting time for vehicle safety. By proactively making emergency braking systems standard equipment on their vehicles, these 20 automakers will help prevent thousands of crashes and save lives," said Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx said in an official statement. "It's a win for safety and a win for consumers." Read on for the official press release from NHTSA. Related Video: U.S. DOT and IIHS announce historic commitment of 20 automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard on new vehicles McLEAN, Va. – The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today a historic commitment by 20 automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market to make automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new cars no later than NHTSA's 2022 reporting year, which begins Sept 1, 2022. Automakers making the commitment are Audi, BMW, FCA US LLC, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla Motors Inc., Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo Car USA.
Range Rover versus Mercedes-Benz: Which makes a more appealing SUV?
Mon, Aug 14 2017From time to time — truth be told, all the time — the Autoblog staff enjoys a good debate on the merits and demerits of the cars and trucks we drive each week. This week, we spent some time in a brand-new Land Rover Range Rover Supercharged SUV, a model some of us think sits at the pinnacle of the luxury utility vehicle segment. Others disagree. The following is a real-life online debate that took place over the course of a few hours. Have a read, and feel free to take sides. There's a poll at the end so you can make your voice heard. Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: Strange as it may sound, Jeremy Clarkson and I have a few things in common, most obvious of which is that we share a given name. But we also both love cars so much that we decided to turn our automotive passion into a career — with varying degrees of success, of course — and we both have come to realize over time that there's no point in trying to topple the Land Rover Range Rover as the world's best luxury off-road utility vehicle. Thing is, this universal truth isn't quite as universally shared as I think it should be. In fact, my esteemed colleague Alex Kierstein believes that Mercedes-Benz makes the most desirable four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles. He's clearly wrong, but I feel obligated to let him explain his choice, though it won't go without a rebuttal. Senior Editor Alex Kierstein: That's correct, and so am I in this regard. I'm sorry, Jeremy, but it's an irrefutable fact that Mercedes-Benz is doing the best interiors in the business now. And the interior is where you're going to spend most of your time, at least when the thing's running. The Range Rover's interior simply isn't as special, and frankly it'll be in the shop enough that you won't enjoy it. Now, stepping into pretty much any contemporary Mercedes sedan interior is a "wow" moment. They seem special — posh, exclusive, luxurious. The SUVs, all older vehicles coming due for total redesigns at some point in the future, are lagging a bit, but it's still a premium and upscale experience. Especially since performance is almost academic at this point. Anything in this class is going to be powerful, almost absurdly so. So why not go for the one that makes you feel like royalty, rather than your mechanic? JK: I just want to point out that it was you who brought reliability into this discussion.
