Just picked up a copy of the Auto Express mag to read what they have to say about our illustrious Monster and noticed an article on a facelift to the Freelander.

Interesting thing though is there's to be a eco 2wd model but I noted that it's average mpg, bhp and CO2 are little different to my Yeti 4x4 and it's likely to cost more to purchase too.

Think they need to change that slogan of theirs; why buy a LandRover when you can get a Yeti

TP

Think they need to change that slogan of theirs; why buy a LandRover when you can get a Yeti

LR certainly aren't the Best4x4xfar anymore. The Freelander weighs a LOT more than the Yeti so can't ever hope to match its CO2 ratings or economy.

Erm ok, yes that's right.

Fuel economy is down to weight and not aerodynamics or anything else.

FWIW, the yeti i sat in and have a drive of felt cheap inside and it was a high spec model.

Each car has it's down sides and the yeti isn't perfect either.

Erm ok, yes that's right.

Fuel economy is down to weight and not aerodynamics or anything else.

FWIW, the yeti i sat in and have a drive of felt cheap inside and it was a high spec model.

Each car has it's down sides and the yeti isn't perfect either.

You don't expect people on a Yeti forum to say the the Freelander is superior to a car they have just forked out £14-£22k on do you? I lease mine so I don't have an attachment to the car and can be quite neutral on this. The Freelander is an excellent car but as you say each has their pluses and minuses. The people on this site clearly found the Yeti fitted their needs better than the Freelander, a LR forum would have the reverse situation.

I would however strongly dispute your comment about the Yeti feeling cheap inside. The quality of materials used is excellent and stands alongside any of the "quality" marks, I previously had a Volvo and test drove a BMW X1 so can compare quite happily. Criticise the Yeti for lack of boot space or possibly even 4WD ability against the Freelander but if you have a go regarding the quality of internal materials then expect some feisty replies.

Criticise the Yeti for lack of boot space or possibly even 4WD ability against the Freelander but if you have a go regarding the quality of internal materials then expect some feisty replies.

I agree. And this is not just owners' opinions. Most any magazine that have tested the Yeti compare the interior quality to be better than that of a VW if not even as good as that of an Audi.

Even from just looking at the pictures I don't like the Freelander interior. Way too many Fisher Price buttons scattered seemingly at random. No thanks.

FWIW, the yeti i sat in and have a drive of felt cheap inside and it was a high spec model.

Interesting observation :wonder: don't own a Rolls Royce or Bentley by chance do you

I say this as IMHO the interior materials and fit/finish are superior to my Previous Golf V and in many respects on par with the Superb II (dads) and the current BMW 3 series (brothers).

Also have nothing personal against L/R drove various models for years in the mob and only had one breakdown with an old lightweight when the gear stick 'fell of in my hand chief' Just think that a 140 Yeti is better value than a 2wd Freelander.

Regards,

TP

I've not driven a Freelander 2 so can't give an informed comment regards the quality of interior materials. What I can give is an opinion based on facts.

The flagship Yeti (Elegance CR170 4x4) retails at approx. £22,500

The flagship Freelander 2 HSE retails at approx. £35,000

That's a £12,500 difference - you could buy another good small car for that money and the Yeti has most of the bells and whistles the Freelander has.

The last but one car I owned was a VW Golf GTI Mk V and the interior of the Yeti is startlingly similar.

The only off-roading 90% of people who buy these cars do is when they drive on grass at a campsite, go to a car boot sale, etc. As wonderful as the LR's off-road capabilities are, it is wasted on the huge majority of owners.

In reality, what is required is good on-road performance coupled with a level of off-road capability that provides the driver with comfort, confidence and reassurance in bad weather and with the odd muddy campsite.

In terms of costs, bang for your buck and real world capability, the Yeti trounces the Freelander and that is said being a staunch Land Rover fan.

I've not driven a Freelander 2 so can't give an informed comment regards the quality of interior materials. What I can give is an opinion based on facts.

The flagship Yeti (Elegance CR170 4x4) retails at approx. £22,500

The flagship Freelander 2 HSE retails at approx. £35,000

That's a £12,500 difference - you could buy another good small car for that money and the Yeti has most of the bells and whistles the Freelander has.

The last but one car I owned was a VW Golf GTI Mk V and the interior of the Yeti is startlingly similar.

The only off-roading 90% of people who buy these cars do is when they drive on grass at a campsite, go to a car boot sale, etc. As wonderful as the LR's off-road capabilities are, it is wasted on the huge majority of owners.

In reality, what is required is good on-road performance coupled with a level of off-road capability that provides the driver with comfort, confidence and reassurance in bad weather and with the odd muddy campsite.

In terms of costs, bang for your buck and real world capability, the Yeti trounces the Freelander and that is said being a staunch Land Rover fan.

Like you said, but don't miss the contribution of the HALDEX on handling. It makes quite a difference in providing neutral steering response at speed in corners, particularly in marginal traction situations. I find the Yeti much more handy than my previous Octy II in curvy situations. The higher eye position and the agility ( fortunately/unfortunately) makes it more comfortable to drive faster in the Yeti than in the Octy. The impression of speed is related to your eye level in relation to the road. I was recently in Germany, being driven by a friend is a BMW 320 at OK velocity. It was OK, but seemed much faster than in my Yeti at the same speed.

Interesting.

Those of us who are long term Land Rover enthusiasts will probably raise an eyebrow at the thought of a 2wd Freelander. (and the Range Rover Evoque 2wd to follow...)

But even though current customers may be somewhat bewildered at this plan, LR is clearly filling a section of the market where it currently doesn't compete.

In my view it is silly and against what Land Rover stand for. Probably because I like and do off-roading. But it will sell to people who wouldn't of bought a 4x4, or do and just drive about town, which means more income and profit for the company.

In regards to Yeti interior quality, I drive a Range Rover Vogue that is nealy five years old. It has one of the best interiors of any car I've ever seen and I can't fault the Yeti for quality and the price it is.

We've bought one. :yes:

But even though current customers may be somewhat bewildered at this plan, LR is clearly filling a section of the market where it currently doesn't compete.

In my view it is silly and against what Land Rover stand for. Probably because I like and do off-roading. But it will sell to people who wouldn't of bought a 4x4, or do and just drive about town, which means more income and profit for the company.

I agree with this. LR have been missing out in the market of "soft roaders" for some time. For people who never go off road but like the styling and seating position of this type of car have been buying elsewhere and that is daft from their point of view. The LR name stands for something and they should use it to claw back sales from cars such as the BMW X1 which are really not that great. They are still made in the UK, I think, and I wish them well on that basis.

The pricing of the Freelander against the Yeti would, on the whole, means they are going for slightly different customers so they can sit side by side without too much squabbling.

As the ex owner of the Freelander 1, and having looked very closely at the FL2 as a replacement, some views from me, biased towards the 4x4 side..

Yeti v Freelander?

Depends what you need it to do? The FL2 has definately been designed to have considerable off-road capablity, with better ground clearance, attack angles and fording capacity, even over the FL1. However, as has been said, the majority of owners will never need it. The Yeti doesn't go that "extreme", BUT it is very competant in what it does, as we have proved. Certainly I feel that it will probably get to places most owners would frighten themselves with! I've been around Eastnor in an FL2 and think there would be places the Yeti wouldn't get through, but compared to a lot of the other competition I guess the Yeti would be far better. Certainly for the regular off-road stuff I do the Yeti will be more than adequate.

2wd Freelander? Yes it has caused arguements on some of the LR Forums, but then there are a lot of LR fanatics who still wont accept that the Freelander is a proper Land Rover, even if it does have the Green Oval on the front. I can see the point of the 2wd FL2, both in the fact that most owners wont be able to tell or need the difference, and secondly because it is an easy way for LR to reduce their "range" based carbon footprint. Don't forget that the Japanese and others have been doing exactly this same thing for a while, both in the SUV market and the pick-up market. Do I agree with it? Yes, probably! Companies who don't aim for sales don't progress, and we have to realise that there is a huge market out there who don't want or need the 4x4 element but do want to buy into the LR "concept". Hopefully they will then realise the error of their ways and buy a 4x4!!

Interior wise, I have been surprised how god the Yeti is. It wasn't something I really bothered about when I took my test drive, so only now am I realising how good it is. Everything is well put together and there are few rattles or squeaks, even down rough forest tracks. Compared to my FL1 it is wonderfully quiet!! It certainly puts my next door neighbour's Zafira to shame! Perhaps Cheesemonkhai would care to explain his odd view, that seems to go against all that owners on here and in the press have found?

I would however strongly dispute your comment about the Yeti feeling cheap inside. The quality of materials used is excellent and stands alongside any of the "quality" marks, I previously had a Volvo and test drove a BMW X1 so can compare quite happily. Criticise the Yeti for lack of boot space or possibly even 4WD ability against the Freelander but if you have a go regarding the quality of internal materials then expect some feisty replies.

Sorry but compared to the Octy II and Superb I saw immediately after, it does feel cheap, like a fabia MK I.

I think this is a case of different people different expectations.

Saying that it doesn't fall into the truely gash/awful that I have seen in other cheaper brands of car.

Edited 5 August, 201015 yr by cheezemonkhai

Sorry but compared to the Octy II and Superb I saw immediately after, it does feel cheap, like a fabia MK I.

I think this is a case of different people different expectations.

Saying that it doesn't fall into the truely gash/awful that I have seen in other cheaper brands of car.

Having spent a fair amount of time recently in a number of Skoda showrooms - the Superb has a lovely interior, but then it should - it's the Skoda flagship.

I can't say that I found the Octavia's interior any better than the Yeti's. The quality of the trim, plastics, fit and finish were all on a par with the Yeti.

Going back to the Freelander, it's a bigger car than the Yeti, but I can understand LR going 2WD - they have great heritage/image and should cash in on a growing market segment, with today's zeitgeist in many ways it makes more sense than say making a Freelander 'Sport'.

Sorry but compared to the Octy II and Superb I saw immediately after, it does feel cheap, like a fabia MK I.

Having both a F/L Octavia and a Yeti, I'd say the interior quality is pretty much identical.

Sorry but compared to the Octy II and Superb I saw immediately after, it does feel cheap, like a fabia 1...

Hmmm. 99,9% of owners say the opposite or that it is equal to the Octavia. I'd wager to say 90% of magazine tests say the same and the same for the Internet car blogs. So someone is a huge troll here or was blindfolded into a Proton and told it was a Yeti.

Sorry but compared to the Octy II and Superb I saw immediately after, it does feel cheap, like a fabia MK I.

I think this is a case of different people different expectations.

Saying that it doesn't fall into the truely gash/awful that I have seen in other cheaper brands of car.

I couldn't disagree more. In the last 8 years my wife has owned a mk1 Fabia and now Roomster Scout. I have owned a mk1 Octavia Elegance followed by a mk2 of the same and now the Yeti.

The quality of trim and build is definitely superior on the Yeti to all of the others although they have all been pretty good. I had the opportunity to compare the Yeti alongside my Octavia 2 for a day when my wifes car was last serviced, as the Yeti I ended up buying was the dealer loan demo for the day.

This is nothing to do with different vehicles - different expectations as I simply compared two cars side by side!

Hmmm. 99,9% of owners say the opposite or that it is equal to the Octavia. I'd wager to say 90% of magazine tests say the same and the same for the Internet car blogs. So someone is a huge troll here or was blindfolded into a Proton and told it was a Yeti.

Sorry, but if you can't take the fact that my opinion is different to yours, then that's not my problem.

I am not trolling, or blindflolded, I just think what I think.

You have your opinion, the majority of other owners have a different opinion.

Just accept you are different to anyone else!

.

Edited 7 August, 201015 yr by Harvey1512