RE: SOTW: Range Rover LSE

[threespires]

Hopefully soon to be seen in a scrapyard. Horrid things

[DonkeyApple]

splitpin said:

I think the operative word is 'relative'?; the maximum speed of the original fell well short of three figures on the level and even from 1995, they would really struggle to do 110mph taking ages to get to that; OK, maybe relatively high speed 'in it's original day', but absolutely nowhere by today's standards. In standard road spec (dampers to suit soft springing and long wheel travel), they certainly didn't handle even remotely well by most (PHers) standards.

You can be pretty sure that any genuinely 'made quick' Classic Range Rover had appreciable work done and money spent on it's suspension to overcome/change it's inherent and purpose-designed suspension characteristics.

One common misunderstanding of the design of the RRC was the roll. People were spooked in corners by the level of roll but didn't understand that it was specifically designed to tilt around a central point. The cornering grip was impressive and I've certainly hustled a standard 3.9 down twisties sitting on the back of supposedly faster cars.

As a child, I recall my Old Man sitting on the tail of an Aston V8 down local twisties much to the annoyance of the owner.

[ITech]

rejn said:

I quite fancy this one:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251154912789?ssPageName=...

Am I mad? Currently highest bid of £1060 - auction finishes later today...

That looks a good buy to me.

[300bhp/ton]

splitpin said:

I think the operative word is 'relative'?; the maximum speed of the original fell well short of three figures on the level and even from 1995, they would really struggle to do 110mph taking ages to get to that; OK, maybe relatively high speed 'in it's original day', but absolutely nowhere by today's standards. In standard road spec (dampers to suit soft springing and long wheel travel), they certainly didn't handle even remotely well by most (PHers) standards.

You can be pretty sure that any genuinely 'made quick' Classic Range Rover had appreciable work done and money spent on it's suspension to overcome/change it's inherent and purpose-designed suspension characteristics.

110mph is still pretty quick for your average car today. How fast do you think a 1.6 Ibiza really is?

Personally I've seen an indicated 125mph from a 3.9 EFI, which based on how the Impreza T2000 and Golf GTI struggled to get past I would assume wasn't far off (not UK public roads).

[300bhp/ton]

DonkeyApple said:

splitpin said:

I think the operative word is 'relative'?; the maximum speed of the original fell well short of three figures on the level and even from 1995, they would really struggle to do 110mph taking ages to get to that; OK, maybe relatively high speed 'in it's original day', but absolutely nowhere by today's standards. In standard road spec (dampers to suit soft springing and long wheel travel), they certainly didn't handle even remotely well by most (PHers) standards.

You can be pretty sure that any genuinely 'made quick' Classic Range Rover had appreciable work done and money spent on it's suspension to overcome/change it's inherent and purpose-designed suspension characteristics.

One common misunderstanding of the design of the RRC was the roll. People were spooked in corners by the level of roll but didn't understand that it was specifically designed to tilt around a central point. The cornering grip was impressive and I've certainly hustled a standard 3.9 down twisties sitting on the back of supposedly faster cars.

As a child, I recall my Old Man sitting on the tail of an Aston V8 down local twisties much to the annoyance of the owner.

I'd +1 all of that and agree fully.

[CraigVmax]

me 2

[K50 DEL]

300bhp/ton said:

DonkeyApple said:

splitpin said:

I think the operative word is 'relative'?; the maximum speed of the original fell well short of three figures on the level and even from 1995, they would really struggle to do 110mph taking ages to get to that; OK, maybe relatively high speed 'in it's original day', but absolutely nowhere by today's standards. In standard road spec (dampers to suit soft springing and long wheel travel), they certainly didn't handle even remotely well by most (PHers) standards.

You can be pretty sure that any genuinely 'made quick' Classic Range Rover had appreciable work done and money spent on it's suspension to overcome/change it's inherent and purpose-designed suspension characteristics.

One common misunderstanding of the design of the RRC was the roll. People were spooked in corners by the level of roll but didn't understand that it was specifically designed to tilt around a central point. The cornering grip was impressive and I've certainly hustled a standard 3.9 down twisties sitting on the back of supposedly faster cars.

As a child, I recall my Old Man sitting on the tail of an Aston V8 down local twisties much to the annoyance of the owner.

I'd +1 all of that and agree fully.

I'll add another, I used to absolutely throw mine about and other than single figures MPG it lapped it up, seemingly defying the laws of gravity..... the P38 (coil converted) that I replaced it with was exactly the same, just used even more fuel lol

[Dusty964]

K50 DEL said:

300bhp/ton said:

DonkeyApple said:

splitpin said:

I think the operative word is 'relative'?; the maximum speed of the original fell well short of three figures on the level and even from 1995, they would really struggle to do 110mph taking ages to get to that; OK, maybe relatively high speed 'in it's original day', but absolutely nowhere by today's standards. In standard road spec (dampers to suit soft springing and long wheel travel), they certainly didn't handle even remotely well by most (PHers) standards.

You can be pretty sure that any genuinely 'made quick' Classic Range Rover had appreciable work done and money spent on it's suspension to overcome/change it's inherent and purpose-designed suspension characteristics.

One common misunderstanding of the design of the RRC was the roll. People were spooked in corners by the level of roll but didn't understand that it was specifically designed to tilt around a central point. The cornering grip was impressive and I've certainly hustled a standard 3.9 down twisties sitting on the back of supposedly faster cars.

As a child, I recall my Old Man sitting on the tail of an Aston V8 down local twisties much to the annoyance of the owner.

I'd +1 all of that and agree fully.

I'll add another, I used to absolutely throw mine about and other than single figures MPG it lapped it up, seemingly defying the laws of gravity..... the P38 (coil converted) that I replaced it with was exactly the same, just used even more fuel lol

And another- I used to hurl the thing around all over the place. Not so with my P38- I hated the damn thing.

[Vixpy1]

I put the foot down in mine, and the small mouse in a wheel under the bonnet has so little effect that i never get enough speed up to make it roll in the first place!

[splitpin]

Guys

Fair enough that you love 'em/have a soft spot for them (both are entirely valid personal preferences), but c'mon chaps, some newbie PHer might actually believe all this utter cobblers about the CRR being even remotely competent in the twisties; rest assured if you've ever given anything 'a hard time' down a windy road, especially something that you (really do) know to be faster and hugely more competent, then it's either because that other driver was utterly useless in the driving skills department or he/she simply simply couldn't be bothered to shake off that apparent looney apparently trying the impossible behind - had he or she been so bothered as to respond, he or she would have been there one minute, gone the next. Fact.

My first ever ride in the then new RR was as a 'let me show you what it can do' front seat passenger of an ex-24LM winner with his new toy; as you'd expect (with such a pair of hands in control), pace was impressive if decidedly unnerving because of the monumental roll. I commented to him that despite this strange characteristic, the rate of progress appeared to be surprisingly good, to which he replied, yes, but I don't feel at all comfortable pushing it anywhere near this hard, because if I have to do something rapidly responsive halfway through a bend, I can't work out whether it'll simply roll over or plough straight on through a hedge and I don't really fancy either option.

As for hurling it through corners ......... the only hurling is likely to be coming from the passengers, irrespective of whether they've got two or four legs.

Now Guys, where do I go to get me a pair of 'weapons-grade' rose-tinted spectacles?

[DonkeyApple]

splitpin said:

Guys

Fair enough that you love 'em/have a soft spot for them (both are entirely valid personal preferences), but c'mon chaps, some newbie PHer might actually believe all this utter cobblers about the CRR being even remotely competent in the twisties; rest assured if you've ever given anything 'a hard time' down a windy road, especially something that you (really do) know to be faster and hugely more competent, then it's either because that other driver was utterly useless in the driving skills department or he/she simply simply couldn't be bothered to shake off that apparent looney apparently trying the impossible behind - had he or she been so bothered as to respond, he or she would have been there one minute, gone the next. Fact.

My first ever ride in the then new RR was as a 'let me show you what it can do' front seat passenger of an ex-24LM winner with his new toy; as you'd expect (with such a pair of hands in control), pace was impressive if decidedly unnerving because of the monumental roll. I commented to him that despite this strange characteristic, the rate of progress appeared to be surprisingly good, to which he replied, yes, but I don't feel at all comfortable pushing it anywhere near this hard, because if I have to do something rapidly responsive halfway through a bend, I can't work out whether it'll simply roll over or plough straight on through a hedge and I don't really fancy either option.

As for hurling it through corners ......... the only hurling is likely to be coming from the passengers, irrespective of whether they've got two or four legs.

Now Guys, where do I go to get me a pair of 'weapons-grade' rose-tinted spectacles?

But no one is saying they are rocketships, I'm not sure why you are expecting an old tank with a low output engine to be fast?

What people are saying is that you can hustle them far better than the stats would suggest, but I don't think anyone is thinking they are an MP12.

[GranCab]

An "elk avoidance manoeuvre " in one of these will kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjnBpruer8g


Bob Payton then owner of Stapleford Country Park died on the M1 in such a manoeuvre.

I'm not a hater - I had one for 2 years in the early 90's - a Brown Vogue regn. G*** NEC

Edited by GranCab on Monday 1st October 14:24

Edited by GranCab on Monday 1st October 14:45

[Dusty964]

Of course it will.

[Harry Flashman]

steviegunn said:

tercelgold said:

Landrover have a nice picture for the new model.

http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/lr/

Here's my old one (yes I'd have another too) with a Freelander 2:



With a RRS:

Wow! Cars really have grown of LR's modern "baby" Freelander looks in that pic to be nearly as big as an RRC!

[300bhp/ton]

splitpin said:

Guys

Fair enough that you love 'em/have a soft spot for them (both are entirely valid personal preferences), but c'mon chaps, some newbie PHer might actually believe all this utter cobblers about the CRR being even remotely competent in the twisties; rest assured if you've ever given anything 'a hard time' down a windy road, especially something that you (really do) know to be faster and hugely more competent, then it's either because that other driver was utterly useless in the driving skills department or he/she simply simply couldn't be bothered to shake off that apparent looney apparently trying the impossible behind - had he or she been so bothered as to respond, he or she would have been there one minute, gone the next. Fact.

My first ever ride in the then new RR was as a 'let me show you what it can do' front seat passenger of an ex-24LM winner with his new toy; as you'd expect (with such a pair of hands in control), pace was impressive if decidedly unnerving because of the monumental roll. I commented to him that despite this strange characteristic, the rate of progress appeared to be surprisingly good, to which he replied, yes, but I don't feel at all comfortable pushing it anywhere near this hard, because if I have to do something rapidly responsive halfway through a bend, I can't work out whether it'll simply roll over or plough straight on through a hedge and I don't really fancy either option.

As for hurling it through corners ......... the only hurling is likely to be coming from the passengers, irrespective of whether they've got two or four legs.

Now Guys, where do I go to get me a pair of 'weapons-grade' rose-tinted spectacles?

For normal road use you make them go very well and not at all slow compared to other cars, even supposedly quick ones. Maybe on a race track against a stop clock it'd be different, but bombing around the B/C roads and even out on to the dual carriageways they are more than capable of keeping up or exceeding the majority of vehicles on the roads.

This I know as I've driven and owned a lot of LR's as well as driven, owned and been in a lot of different cars too.

Indeed I've even entered a Jeep Cherokee into a rally style event (gymkhana), not only were we running around mid table in terms of stage times, we were also running and beating some MX-5's also competing. So it can be done and in the twisties.

[splitpin]

DonkeyApple said:

But no one is saying they are rocketships, I'm not sure why you are expecting an old tank with a low output engine to be fast?

What people are saying is that you can hustle them far better than the stats would suggest, but I don't think anyone is thinking they are an MP12.

Sorry, I sort of thought you were, well sort of alluding to same, Pops and the AMV8 and all that.

I am under no such illusions - like you say an old tank with a low output engine, which I'd amplify to a very heavy old tank with a desperately feeble even when new engine.

Forget the likes of an MP12 (or most everything else) ........... I reckon something as mundane and unassuming as a competently driven 140bhp LWB RWD Transit could give a CRR a seriously hard time through the twisties, give not far off three times the mpg and tow better - mind you, the RR will be better if it's a grass rather than tarmac final destination

[300bhp/ton]

splitpin said:

I am under no such illusions - like you say an old tank with a low output engine, which I'd amplify to a very heavy old tank with a desperately feeble even when new engine.

feeble? So what else for the UK market in 1970 offered nearly 140hp and 190lb ft torque in anything remotely similar?

[GranCab]

"... but bombing around the B/C roads and even out on to the dual carriageways they are more than capable of keeping up or exceeding the majority of vehicles on the roads."

[splitpin]

300bhp/ton said:

For normal road use you make them go very well and not at all slow compared to other cars, even supposedly quick ones. Maybe on a race track against a stop clock it'd be different, but bombing around the B/C roads and even out on to the dual carriageways they are more than capable of keeping up or exceeding the majority of vehicles on the roads.

This I know as I've driven and owned a lot of LR's as well as driven, owned and been in a lot of different cars too.

Indeed I've even entered a Jeep Cherokee into a rally style event (gymkhana), not only were we running around mid table in terms of stage times, we were also running and beating some MX-5's also competing. So it can be done and in the twisties.

Mate, if I had a race car going spare, I'd be arranging the earliest possible test with a view to signing you up!

Was it the Annual Hairdresser Owners MX5 Championship Cup?

I think your love of old RRs is similar to my love of small cigars; we enjoy respectively, but it doesn't make sense as a general principle and it is bad for the wallet and/or health. But irrespective, we carry on; and however illogical, because it would be a boring old world if we all did the same, This Is Good.

[splitpin]

300bhp/ton said:

splitpin said:

I am under no such illusions - like you say an old tank with a low output engine, which I'd amplify to a very heavy old tank with a desperately feeble even when new engine.

feeble? So what else for the UK market in 1970 offered nearly 140hp and 190lb ft torque in anything remotely similar?

By 2012 standards, those figures are utterly feeble and that is pertinent because this is being 'offered' as a 'have you considered this SOTW?' in 2012, not back forty odd years ago when petrol was virtually given away free with Green Shield Stamps - and even then, most owners (and most of them weren't short of a bob or two) clenched their teeth as they took a sharp intake of breath and told you their average consumption in subdued tones.

Just remind me - what does a gallon of petrol cost nowadays?

Like I said, for the 'I want to look like old money' set, the 'I'm going serious off-roading' guys and the 'OMG Collectors Cars' lot, it can make sense; for virtually anyone else, it makes little or no sense at all - just like my small cigars

Edited by splitpin on Monday 1st October 15:24