Favorite year of RR

[AlanB]

Hate to say it, but my 92 RRC that I have owned for 4 years with countless off-road miles and the only major thing replaced was a radiator, recored for $200 three years ago and still going strong.

Its been pretty much flawless. Now that I have said it, its going to blow up tommorrow when I turn the key.

 

[tomelroy]

AlanB best not take that chance (the possibility it will blow up) Sell it to me!!!

 

[AlanB]

Sorry, I just started it after days in deep freeze and covered in ice and snow, fired right up as usual

 

[Sharpel007]

95 LWB in Epsom Green or Beluga Black

to me the Classic SWB is to short and the LWB too much length, but I would rather have more room and the better on road ride

 

[ITY]

1993. Since I believe the only fault with the RRC was the lack of rear differential lock, my vote has to be for the oldest RRC with traction control. Oldest because the less electronics/electrics the better. Of course, if they had put a rear diff lock on my old 1977 RRC, I'd probably be voting that year! The two door was indeed a thing of beauty.

 

[Ian95rrc]

Why are there less electronics in the 93 vs 95? It has the same engine, aside from the serp belt. It has the same abs system and they both have 14 CUX. The 95 actually has an improved EAS, not that anyone would keep it.

The only real difference I see is that the 95 has airbags, which seem to be very trouble free on both the RRC and D1. There was a recall at some point in the later 90's for the SRS but the fix was easy and worked.

 

[ITY]

Thanks for the tip on the 14CUX, I didn't realise the 95 still retained that. I'll assume it has the code reader under the seat too. I guess I too would not consider the airbags an issue. I also hear that the A/C system is a major improvement (like that would be difficult) . But an electronically controlled air suspension system that seems to be automatically ripped out in favor of the previous system, kinda writes-off the 95 as a choice for "best year" (for me). That's why I picked the 1993. I have absolutely no doubt that the 95 is a great Range Rover. So called unreliability aside, what exactly was wrong with the EAS? I have no experience with it in Classics. It sounded pretty good to me (in principle). For example, does it have the same RTI as a coil-sprung classic? BTW, I own a 1991.

 

[azarmadillo]

89 for it's simplicity and lack of extra electronics & sway bars. 95 for interior.

 

[Paul Grant]

Ity,
Back in the '90's when I owned a new "94 LWB with EAS the common problem with my truck was the height sensors. I think we replaced over a half dozen in the course of three years. In the first six months the truck seemed to be on it's bump stops every few weeks.

I was told by a tech that I got to know at the dealership that a run of height sensor manufactured during the summer of '93 had an extraordinarily high failure rate. LRNA knew this but rather than replace all four when a truck was towed in for a bad sensor, they would replace only the malfunctioning unit. This made sense to me the first time a height sensor failed but after three or four times I had lost my patience. I complained all the time to LRNA to no avail. Had I not put so much mileage on the truck early on, I would had pursued the NYS Lemon Law.

Besides the height sensors, I didn't own the truck long enough to experience any other EAS failure. However, considering the effect of use and time on most Land Rover electrical components I shudder to think of how reliable some of the main control units would be after tens years on the road. Couple that with the additional expense of replacing an air spring compared to the cost of a traditional coil spring and you begin to understand why people buying these used Rovers rip the old EAS.

I am not an "anti EAS" guy as I was accused of being on another board a few weeks ago. Rather, I think I simply lean towards the more practical side of Land Rover ownership which means applying the KISS principle as often as possible. Thus for me, EAS is an unwanted feature. But, hey, what do I know? I own a Range Rover that's carburetted!

Oh, by the way, in '93 the LWB Range Rovers all had EAS. I think the SWB Sport also had EAS.
Paul

 

[Ian95rrc]

The biggest problem with EAS is the need to use a Autologic, Rovacom, Testbook, etc. to reset it when it fails. You can fix all the parts on a trail, but without the computer to reset it, it will remain on the bumpstops. There are ways around this problem, such as a system that ties to the valve block allowing you to presurize the system on your own.

The 95 RRC SWB had a better RTI# than the coil sprung trucks. I forget what it is off the top of my head. The EAS actually goes into a special mode trying to extend the springs further. The limiting factor is always the shocks and sway bars though. I always kinda enjoyed the EAS off-road, but I never had it fail on me.

 

[d2dave]

the first one. 1970, i think it was.

 

[DarthMole18]

1985, Oh heck yea.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

Old 2-door for me! I have a '79 2-door RRC with the small V-8 and a 4 speed....totally awesome!atriot:

 

[QCNR]

My 1989/90 MY...

 

[Jammer]

An 87 RRC, no ABS, winch on front. Aluminum ladder for sand ladder and mobile home anchors to use as winch points. Cut my teeth on a rr in Costa Rica down near Corcavado. That is some serious offroading. Hooked ever since.

John