Range Rover Reviews Improvement Request List

I spoke with several Range Rover executives about The List. All of them had read multiple versions of it.

Here is the FINAL version that was sent to:

To: Dr. Ralf Speth, CEO JLR
Mr. Ian Stuart Callum, Design Director JLR
Mr. Phil Hodgkinson, Dir. Product Development JLR
CC: Mr. Andy Goss, President JLR N. America
Mr. David Pryor, Brand VP, JLR N. America
Mr. Richard N. Beattie, EVP M&S JLR N. America
Mr. Campbell MacArthur, VP Service JLR N. America


  EvoqueRequestListV8.doc (Size: 413.5 KB / Downloads: 72)

Not all of the feedback was positive. Attempts were made to rationalize the quantity of design oversights as being a list of user opinions. We should perhaps have weeded out the more ridiculous improvement suggestions, but Range Rover would have remained defensive in any case.

Top management has ordered staff to avoid online discussion about The List, as this increases The List's legitimacy and potentially exposes Range Rover to competitors. One improvement suggestion mentions sudden deceleration after accidentally changing suspension mode. If Range Rover publicly acknowledges awareness of this danger, and their decision to remain silent about it, they could face class actions suites that force a global product recall to re-configure the suspension mode buttons.

Basically, The List is a double edged sword. It may be extremely useful to Range Rover, but they can not (publicly) say thank you and it could end up hurting them more than it helps. Meanwhile, don't hold your breath for any software updates, ever. (Instead you can dashboard mount a smartphone, and plug in a GPS-signal repeater to bypass the signal-blocking windscreen).

(27-09-2012 09:13pm)olde Wrote:  (Instead you can dashboard mount a smartphone, and plug in a GPS-signal repeater to bypass the signal-blocking windscreen).

works for me!

Thanks for the feedback Olde, If nothing else it might help direct LR towards what our wishes are in the future, just a shame on a new model we can't get some improvements that would go across the line for all Evoque owners.

I would buy another, but likely I won't be, i'll be keeping this one (unles someone offers me cost price for an immaculate vehicle), so those tiny annoyances in my Evoque will likely stay with me a long time... They could so easily be removed with a software update.

Maybe instead of JLR worrying about the cost of providing free updates they should consider offering a package of car's life-time updates for a modest fee for the more complex issues. I know very few car makers offer this sort of thing (IIRC only the really high end cars offer, for a big fee, upgrading to the latest version) LR might be on to something by offering something few makers offer. Things like making the tailgate remote closing as well as opening should be capable of a retro-fit - the tailgate is already motorised for the last part of the closing cycle as it is!

Trouble is the car makers don't seem to have yet realised that ALL software needs updating both to improve features AND to resolve bugs which are in ALL software! (Hope you're reading this LR). Just look at the number of updates we get on our computers, smartphones etc. The cars are no different its the manufacturers that need to change their attitude.

When internet connectivity is ubiquitous in all cars (only a matter of time ofcourse) the updates will be downloaded seamlessly but until we have that type of technology the car manufacturers and dealer service departments are stuck in the dark ages.

Think about the number of car makers that were still selling cars with tape decks when the CD had long become the standard...

My tracker in the car has had one remote update applied to it already. I would never have known as they are done while the car is rolling, but the car hadn't moved off my drive for 2 months and the suppliers wanted to know when I intended to move it, then they would apply the software update. Next time the car was taken for a drive the driver was asked to phone the control centre and the update was carried out smoothly and seemlessly without any input from him apart from driving the car!

OK...

Here is an Update on The List of Suggested Improvements

JLR's response to our list of suggested improvements was so disgusting that I stopped being a Range Rover fan. Since then, this is the first time I have been back in the BabyRR discussion forum.

One of Executives at JLR felt so badly about how we were treated, that he give me clues as to what happened internally.

He did not feel comfortable being specific, so here are my conclusions, based on admittedly questionable evidence:

1. Shit really hit the fan at JLR (exec, design and PR teams were especially upset with us)
2. Exec team was furious because our Suggestions Letter was addressed to them by name
3. Some suggestions hit on taboo topics, (e.g. immediate loss of control if suspension mode pressed at high-speed)
4. JLR avoids public dialogue about safety-related oversights (accident victims could litigate a global product recall)
5. Fixing design oversights, globally, is too expensive to even be considered
6. Most of our suggestions were written off as being matters of wild opinion, thus not improvements
7. JLR's PR policy is to ignore online fans (they write irresponsibly and can make JLR appear overly-defensive)
8. JLR believes it is self-defeating to engage user-groups on issues of build quality (because complaint volumes always increase with age of vehicles and with market penetration)

Attached is the Suggestions Letter (aka The List) as sent to the following JLR executives:

• Dr. Ralf Speth, CEO JLR
• Mr. Ian Stuart Callum, Design Director JLR
• Mr. Phil Hodgkinson, Dir. Product Development JLR
• Mr. Andy Goss, President JLR N. America
• Mr. David Pryor, Brand VP, JLR N. America
• Mr. Richard N. Beattie, EVP M&S JLR N. America
• Mr. Campbell MacArthur, VP Service JLR N. America
• Mr. Andrew Polsinelli, GM Land Rover N. America
• Mr. Stuart Schorr, VP Communications JLR