[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Ah...the good old days!

My first ride in a true Euro-spec car was a gray-market 190E 2.3-16 at an importer in my home town. It was EPIC! We were taking it to MSY, saw a jet on final approach and tried to race it to the airport on the spillway bridge.
Good memories.

Thanks for the great information and the memories.
Cheers-mk

Better story: I lived in Europe in my early teens. My parents' plan to help pay for my college was to buy a top-of-the-line 400E with U.S. specs -- it would have cost about $18K (!!!) since the dollar was so strong in 1984 -- bring it back to the states, and resell it used for about twice the purchase price new (again: !!!).

Dad just sent back home early, though, so they never had a chance to order the car ...

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by Bbb34

I personally don't see anything wrong with RR as a brand wanting to protect their "regional" dealership. By looking after their dealerships, they can hope for loyalty in return, great service and after sales customer support. Otherwise they could just sell cars online with no middle man. This also helps them keep the prices steady (MSRP or close to it), as they don't seem to have lots of inventory sitting on the lots.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with OP expecting a discount. But like everything else in life, it's a matter of supply and demand. Salesperson you were dealing with clearly knows the rules about regional sales and is aware of the fact he's selling a product that's very much in demand.

Boils down to how much does your wife really want one

well those rules help protect the MSRP... maybe it's clever. I think she is leaning towards a land cruiser now, lol.

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Majority of LR dealers will only give $500 off the vehicle and the only time anymore is discounted is if you are purchasing your 3rd or 4th one. Even then most owners don't care, we are talking about people who drive Ranger Rovers, and to them they don't ask for discounts / deals. Especially if it comes to the new Ranger Rovers I have heard of people buy the car and then a couple months later resell it for over $10k profit, demand is crazy, and to even get an order in is hard. At most dealerships there are waiting lists. With that said I know of one dealer that can and will discount to move volume. Other than that you are out of luck. At my local dealer they turned down a buyer who wanted to purchase 10 Ranger Rovers brand new, because they knew well that the buyer would then export these vehicles to China where they go for over $150k. If a dealer has inventory that is bought and later ends up in a foreign market the penalty is severe hence why no dealership wants to take the chance.

and buying 10 at a time isn't suspicious at all hahaha! maybe LR should open dealerships in all these places where their cars are are being exported. I realize it's not that simple but I'd try to find a work around with that kind of demand.

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

That's the thing; it's not illegal to export fairly and legally purchased consumer goods if the exportation is for personal use--for instance, if you're moving to a different country. If the exportation is specifically for resale, then the line gets far more gray.

The rub here is that the manufacturer of the good should be released of all liability in the latter case if the good is intended to be re-sold by the original owner/party to a third party. You bought the good: it's now yours, not the manufacturer's. However, in special cases, manufacturers are compelled to do all they can to prevent third-party sales because of how it protects business in the target country.

Autos have been one of those "special cases" for decades. Those of you older than, say, 40 should remember the gray market of the 1970s and 80s that existed for exotic Euro-spec cars to the U.S. One of BMW's most legendary cars was one of the more sought-after in that gray market: the M1. It was never officially sold in the U.S., yet a number of them made it here and were licensed here. That market dried up as exportation and country-specific specifications loosened and narrowed, but other markets took its place -- namely, Latin America and Asia. Car theft of luxury marques in the U.S. in the 1990s was primarily driven by the gray market that flourished in Central America during that time.

But enough of that. Range Rover is doing this not just to protect its goods from gray exportation. It's also doing it to protect the exclusivity of its brand. Many European luxury apparel makers -- Chanel being the best known of them -- practice similar export policies and demand the same from its retail partners. It's simply doing what it can to keep availability low, prices high, and inventory controlled based on its sales goals globally.

it sounds like the way it's being done en masse is on the darker side of gray. people can probably talk (read: lie) their way out of some situations since you cannot prove intent typically ...

informative post. I have heard a little about the gray market stuff coming here but haven't looked too far into it. good stuff

[nick3753]

At the end of the day get the car she/you want. Who doesn't like to save a couple grand? (Well, maybe the earlier poster). When spending 75+k what's another 2-3 as long as you are paying what others are. After 1-2 years of ownership it won't even cross your mind. Now constant trips to the dealer for quality issues, that's another story.

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by nick3753

At the end of the day get the car she/you want. Who doesn't like to save a couple grand? (Well, maybe the earlier poster). When spending 75+k what's another 2-3 as long as you are paying what others are. After 1-2 years of ownership it won't even cross your mind. Now constant trips to the dealer for quality issues, that's another story.

agreed. I don't mind paying for what I want... I'm spoiled, like most of us here... feel very fortunate to have these "first world problems" and sure realize that any of them would be just fine for my family. the MSRP thing wasn't really meant to be the focus of this post, more the territory restrictions, but it all goes together I suppose.

I loved how the RR Sport diesel drove, for the record. it feels far sportier than I expected and the interior was very high quality. the vehicle overall is almost polar opposite of the Denali we drove earlier in the day (I know, I know.. government motors *facepalm*) but man, my kids could play tag back there and I had crazy legroom too. drove like a stiff pickup and the plastic interior was not what I'd call high quality. too many choices, none of which are perfect. land cruiser is very cool but another $10k and I think would need gas every 75-80 miles.. annoyingly bad fuel economy. slightly off topic on my own thread. oops.

[Rain49king]

I am a general sales manager of a car dealership, I can't speak for Range Rover because I have never been associated with them. However our manufacture recently started imposing harsh fines for sales that occur to customers living outside your zone. I have been in the business for 22 years and have never had to deal with this and it seems totally crazy to me. We have not been issued a formal explanation for the new policy but my guess is it's due to the high demand for the product and dealers complaining about losing business to dealers who deal in volume and discounts stealing there business.

[gtron]

Originally Posted by Rain49king

I am a general sales manager of a car dealership, I can't speak for Range Rover because I have never been associated with them. However our manufacture recently started imposing harsh fines for sales that occur to customers living outside your zone. I have been in the business for 22 years and have never had to deal with this and it seems totally crazy to me. We have not been issued a formal explanation for the new policy but my guess is it's due to the high demand for the product and dealers complaining about losing business to dealers who deal in volume and discounts stealing there business.

it's prolly the internets fault. sometimes i email and the best deal wins. if i get something that's far a nice drive home with a new car is a bonus.

[MPerformance211]

Originally Posted by See5

Have you looked at the prices for current gen used RR's lately? I'm in automotive sales and a few months ago had a customer trade in a 2014 RR probably a year after he bought it. We pretty much gave him what he paid for it. They are inferno hot right now. Very low supply in the market.

People must be caught up in the hype of the badge. Every RR Sport I ever set foot in (ranging from a 2009 to a 2013) rattled like hell and had a myriad of problems (electrical, etc.). Reliability is shit on these things.

The new ones look just like a Ford Explorer to me. No thanks.

[MPerformance211]

Originally Posted by evanescent03

well those rules help protect the MSRP... maybe it's clever. I think she is leaning towards a land cruiser now, lol.

Without question a much better vehicle.

[Viffermike]

You bet it's all about the badge. What car company in its right mind would have Posh Spice design for it?

(Victoria Beckham = Evoque)

Two points:
1). Luxury brands like Land Rover have absolutely no incentive to improve the reliability of its vehicles. Why? Because they sell, no matter what. That, everyone, is the golden goal of any luxury brand: people buy what you make no matter how poor aspects of it is, partially because of what it means intangibly to own something from your brand.

2). Among some of the wealthy, it is actually a coveted trait to own products that have a short shelf life -- whether it's a car that breaks all the time, 'the flavor of the month', shoes encrusted with crystals from Middle-Earth or sequins that self-destruct in 5 wearings, or whatever. Why? It's a way to flaunt your wealth.
This has been the case for decades in automobile-dom. For this paragraph, let's stick with British cars: Why would anyone own a Jaguar (or Triumph, or TVR, or MG, or Austin-Healey, or Caterham, or Lotus) back in the 1960s or '70s? Because of status, even though many of those cars set records for unreliability -- and expensive unreliability (i.e., electrics, gasket-blowing, etc.). The more affordable marques went out of business partially because the non-wealthy had a reliability expectation -- they didn't own several cars, so they couldn't just hop into a 911 Targa or 500SEL they also owned. They owned maybe one other car, at most. The others survived partially for the exact opposite reason -- owners did not have a reliability expectation. In fact, they expected unreliability, impracticality, and user-unfriendliness in exchange for cachet, exclusivity, style, and 'that brand'. The wealthy can do this -- and do do this, all the time, to this day.

[David70]

I disagree with the above about them not caring about quality. They keep improving their products because they feel they have to and don't increase the prices drastically because they don't think they can. If they really thought there was unlimited demand regardless of the price and quality they would be in a very unique position and making massive amounts of money. Basically why did they just make the Range Rover with aluminum body panels and why don't they increase the prices until demand gets closer to supply?

I also think consumers are hung up on getting "deals" regardless of what the product is worth and basing it solely on MSRP. Example, one car has a $50k MSRP but you can buy it for $45k, another has an MSRP of $44k, but the lowest you can get it is for $45k. Somehow our minds say that the one with the big discount off of MSRP has to be the best deal.

For the person upset that he can't get the car for under MSRP, if they raised MSRP by $10k and sold if for the same amount it wouldn't be a better deal.

In the end, look at what you can get a vehicle for, look at what you can get other vehicles for and pick the one you think is the best value for what you are looking for.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by David70

I disagree with the above about them not caring about quality. They keep improving their products because they feel they have to and don't increase the prices drastically because they don't think they can. If they really thought there was unlimited demand regardless of the price and quality they would be in a very unique position and making massive amounts of money.

There's a vast difference between reliability and quality. One can be measured (reliability) and the other can't (quality). The latter is a subjective measure that companies have sought to be able to measure for many decades. One of my favorite books, Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", has a chapter devoted almost entirely to the philosophical issue regarding how to define and measure quality.

Yes, Land Rover keeps improving its products to help sales. But it doesn't do it for consumers directly; It does it to differentiate LR from competitors, yet still retain the traits that "make" the brand in the first place -- both critical elements that ensure sales to a luxury brand. One of those traits? Off-road capability, a hallmark of the brand that is quite a distance from other traits that "make" the brand. That is a strong market differentiator for Land Rover; therefore, it has to keep it current or it risks losing the differentiation. Reliability is not nearly as strong a differentiator; therefore, it is not a priority because sales remains strong.

I said this before in another thread: to a luxury brand, out-and-out volume sales is not an end goal. Consistent sales is, as well as strong market presence that falls short of saturation. Saturation means your brand is becoming watered down and is no longer "rare". LR's goals are not to dominate luxury SUV sales. It's to dominate luxury SUV covetability. Price and market controls that limit availability far beyond a premium price help do this for Land Rover. High reliability ratings don't because they don't need to.

[David70]

Above you said they had no incentive to improve reliability. I think this is a huge mistake on their part if true. Looking at the history of the automobile, not worrying about reliability has caused many of them to fail. Look at Jaguar and Land Rover's history. Jaguar almost went out of business in the late 80's because of poor reliability, Rover wasn't doing well and lost all but Land Rover.

Ford eventually bought the companies, tried for years to make them successful and ended up selling them for about half of what they had in them. A big part of this had to do with reliability and the inability to sell the vehicles for high enough prices or volumes to make acceptable profits.

Yes, Land Rover keeps improving its products to help sales. But it doesn't do it for consumers directly; It does it to differentiate LR from competitors, yet still retain the traits that "make" the brand in the first place

Call it what you want but the end game is for the customer to compare their products to others and buy theirs.

I said this before in another thread: to a luxury brand, out-and-out volume sales is not an end goal. Consistent sales is, as well as strong market presence that falls short of saturation. Saturation means your brand is becoming watered down and is no longer "rare".

Long term profit if the real goal, whether by high margin, low volumes or the reverse. MB, Audi, and BMW definitely talk a lot about trying to be the largest "luxury" brand and Jaguar and LR talk a lot about their goals of trying to compete in the same space and growing volumes.

Here's their global expansion plans - http://newsroom.jaguarlandrover.com/..._plans_110815/

[Pig Farmer]

This is an interesting thread and there's much written about RR trying to protect itself from customers attempting to export vehicles for a profit. If that was the OP's intent, wouldn't he just buy from his local dealer? If he tried to make a business out of this practice, I'm sure RR would have a record of his recent purchases, and they could begin to question his intent.

I'm more interested in the legality of an out of town dealership refusing to sell a vehicle to an interested buyer. It would seem to me that the dealerships (whether directed by RR or not) are establishing localized monopolies and suppressing market competition? Can an attorney weigh in on how this practice is acceptable under the FTC and/or the Sherman Antitrust Act?

[N55Nick]

[BloomRunsDubs]

I have to disagree with the badge hype thing. Sure its a status symbol for some people but I absolutely love the look of the sports, the full size not so much.

My RRS lux is the nicest most comfortable and luxurious thing Ive ever drivin in short of a Bentley Continental I test drove. The interiors are stunning on the Lux and supercharged models

The 12+ and 14+ Sports are hands down the best looking Suvs on the market besides those Merc AMG G-wagons

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by David70

I disagree with the above about them not caring about quality. They keep improving their products because they feel they have to and don't increase the prices drastically because they don't think they can. If they really thought there was unlimited demand regardless of the price and quality they would be in a very unique position and making massive amounts of money. Basically why did they just make the Range Rover with aluminum body panels and why don't they increase the prices until demand gets closer to supply?

I also think consumers are hung up on getting "deals" regardless of what the product is worth and basing it solely on MSRP. Example, one car has a $50k MSRP but you can buy it for $45k, another has an MSRP of $44k, but the lowest you can get it is for $45k. Somehow our minds say that the one with the big discount off of MSRP has to be the best deal.

For the person upset that he can't get the car for under MSRP, if they raised MSRP by $10k and sold if for the same amount it wouldn't be a better deal.

In the end, look at what you can get a vehicle for, look at what you can get other vehicles for and pick the one you think is the best value for what you are looking for.

hey man! I totally agree with you. my main point wasn't about MSRP but I bet most people here agree with what you said. if the car I drove was listed MSRP $87k (about 10k more than IRL) and they offered to come down $10k I think I would still feel *about* the same. granted if most people are getting the car at only $5k under MSRP, but I get it for $10k under I'd feel like I was getting a good deal. something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, afterall...

I had a friend who was determined to get a Ford King Ranch for $46-47k but they wouldn't come below $49k. my friend argued for a while and the salesman told him "you can't have champagne at beer prices" ... my friend then went to GMC and bought a Denali for what he thought was a good deal (had a relative discount) .. which was like $57k. he was definitely more worried about the perception of a deal than the dollar amount. I won't say I'm immune to that feeling, I'm sure it effects me some, but I think it makes more sense to look at the market and all the factors before accepting what the car salesman says as fact.

but just for further clarification on my view... I was taken aback at the "we stay at MSRP" at first but quickly realized that's the norm. if I really wanted the RR Sport, I would be paying very close to MSRP I suspect but I won't find out anytime soon. it's not because of the "deal" that I feel isn't there, the price appears to be market... but I just don't see the value in it. I don't feel like i get enough of what I want at that price.

[katchup]

Some dealers just confuse me. When I was looking to buy a new Audi s4. A dealer in NorCal(San Jose Audi) refused to sell it to me because it's against their policy to sell out of state. Needless to say I bought one from another Audi Cali dealer anyways. And the dealer in NorCal sat on theirs for almost a year after refusing to sell to me. ��

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by N55Nick

I'd love to get free 2 day shipping on any car I want!

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by katchup

Some dealers just confuse me. When I was looking to buy a new Audi s4. A dealer in NorCal(San Jose Audi) refused to sell it to me because it's against their policy to sell out of state. Needless to say I bought one from another Audi Cali dealer anyways. And the dealer in NorCal sat on theirs for almost a year after refusing to sell to me. ��

I think they consider their S line to be of M caliber. I still have a little part of me that believes it, too, but even M cars are pretty attainable ( even in my small city ). I have a friend buying an S6 and they are very vocal about how premium of a car it is... and I guess it is, as long as they convince him of it!!

[David70]

Originally Posted by Pig Farmer

This is an interesting thread and there's much written about RR trying to protect itself from customers attempting to export vehicles for a profit. If that was the OP's intent, wouldn't he just buy from his local dealer? If he tried to make a business out of this practice, I'm sure RR would have a record of his recent purchases, and they could begin to question his intent.

I'm more interested in the legality of an out of town dealership refusing to sell a vehicle to an interested buyer. It would seem to me that the dealerships (whether directed by RR or not) are establishing localized monopolies and suppressing market competition? Can an attorney weigh in on how this practice is acceptable under the FTC and/or the Sherman Antitrust Act?

I work for a manufacturer of heavy equipment that has multiple brands. One of the brands has a dealer network and they try to keep the dealer from selling outside of their territory. Reality is I don't believe the manufacturer can prevent the business from selling outside their "territory". It can be discouraged through incentives and pressure but they can't stop the sale. In our company it is a never ending battle with the distributors. Also, like getting rid of an employee, if you really want them gone, they, like the distributor, understand it can be done, completely legitimate or just picking apart what they do.

On flip side, I believe the seller is welcome to say they are only going to sell to people in a certain area as long as he isn't making this decision based on one of the protected groups (race, religion, etc.). Essentially, as a business owner I can say I am only going to sell to companies/people that are based in my city or county. Unless the company as a whole has a monopoly which is illegal then my individual business is also not one and limiting distribution also isn't an issue. I don't have to open my business up to the state, region, all of the U.S., or the world if I don't want to.

RR is far from a monopoly regardless of their distribution, there are competing products sold by many other companies.