Why a RRC?

TN-LR3

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2005
551
0
Nashville,TN
GregH said:
The RRC is a truly "Classic" and timeless design. Think of an original series Land Rover, Willy's MB/Ford GPW, an original Porsche 911, and '65-'66 Ford Mustang. Classic. Timeless.

The drivetrain is very close to the D1 and Defender (that 88 has the LT230). However both Disco and Defender are derivative with regards to the original Range Rover coil suspension.

Bolt-on fenders, roof. Simple, easy to work on and maintain. It also has some wierd electrical and ventilation quirks. It is not as bulletproof as that Toyota. However, mine has never let me down-I try to be religious about maintenance and repair/replace before I really need to.

However, it also has a certain uniqueness that you can't get in any other truck. Like of a crapload of royal warrants. Like a history of crossing the Darien Gap and Camel Trophy events. Like hauling wrecked big rigs off British highways. It has been used as an SAS transport vehicle. It has been driven all over the world by royalty, celebs, gentleman farmers, as high-powered business executive transportation, as military/police transport, as an expedition vehicle as well as competing in some of the world's toughest off-road events.

No Toyota has the history and classic design of a Range Rover.
:applause: :applause: :applause: x3.

It's just a beautiful classic design you can't help but love everytime you see one
 

Landrovernick

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2004
67
0
42
Las Vegas
Hey p m, the actual design of the RRC began in 1960 and as you state was available in 1970. Had it not been for the people at Land Rover the luxury SUV market would not have been created for quite some time.
 
1

1speed

Guest
I think the people at jeep would beg to differ.(Wagoneer 1963-1991)
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,643
867
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Landrovernick said:
Hey p m, the actual design of the RRC began in 1960 and as you state was available in 1970. Had it not been for the people at Land Rover the luxury SUV market would not have been created for quite some time.
First, it didn't begin in 1960, and second, do you think a Wagoneer appeared overnight?
Fact is, the Wag was in the dealerships 8 years before the RRC. By the time Range Rover appeared (very basic, with a 215 Buick V8 and stick shift), Wagoneers had three engines, every one of them torquier and more powerful than a 215, with the top engine a 350 Buick V8, a three-speed automatic as an option, A/C, power windows/tailgate window/seats/whatnot.

Talk about trend-setting in luxury SUV market.

In 1979, a Wagoneer with a QT setup beat an RRC in every single category - on-road, off-road, you name it. Sadly for the Jeep, in 1989 when the same folks repeated the same tests, the only category a (then Grand) Wagoneer won was the skidpad.

1speed - The 1963 model year Wagoneers were made in 1962, and the last GW was made in 1992 (arguably more than one - http://www.ifsja.org/tech/figures/fsjprod.html).
 
Last edited:

Velocewest

Well-known member
May 13, 2007
377
0
PDX Orygun
This is kind of like the "who invented the sport sedan" argument. BMW claims it, but Alfa Romeo was years ahead of them and they built technically and mechanically better cars for years. In 1968, the BMW 2002 had a SOHC iron block engine with a 1bbl downdraft, drum rear brakes, a 4 speed and no anti-roll bars -- the Alfa Giulietta had a DOHC alu engine with dual sidedrafts, 4 wheel discs, anti-roll bars and a 5 speed. In 1977 the Alfa Alfetta had fuel injected aluminum 4 cam V6 with a 5 speed rear mounted transaxle (think Porsche 944), inboard rear disc brakes and 50/50 weight distribution. BMW? Well, the 320i had an SOHC iron block inline 4 with fuel injection, drum rear brakes, a 4 speed, and a reputation for being tail-happy when pushed.

LR was not first to the party, but they have arguably built the best luxury 4x4 when measured in off-road prowess, and have pushed the technology envelope as well. As the recent Hyundai commercials point out, LR has not been the best at on road performance, nor economy or reliability. Most Land Cruiser owners would concur.

I still prefer my RRC. You pays your money and takes your chances, eh?
 

emmodg

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2006
4,273
1
The Alfa Engines, while maybe "ahead of the curve" with DOHC, alum., sidedrafts, etc., the engine architecture itself did not prove as "hardy" and "tunable" as BMW's M10. The Nue Class BMW was just the beginning of what would prove to be the model for sedan design They proved to be VERY reiable and tough! While I loooove the Alfa GT's, they aren't as "tough" as the the venerable E10! This could be splitting hairs but I dare say the Alfa was a true "sportscar" while the E10 was the first "sporting sedan" - easy to drive, reliable, holds 4 people, (and luggage), in relative comfort, and with the tall roof line/greenhouse, it wasn't nearly aas cramped.
 

stevo

Well-known member
May 4, 2004
186
0
well, this was my vote for the most beautiful car......
 

Attachments

  • xke2.jpg
    xke2.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 21
  • xke3.jpg
    xke3.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 28

Velocewest

Well-known member
May 13, 2007
377
0
PDX Orygun
emmodg said:
The Alfa Engines, while maybe "ahead of the curve" with DOHC, alum., sidedrafts, etc., the engine architecture itself did not prove as "hardy" and "tunable" as BMW's M10. The Nue Class BMW was just the beginning of what would prove to be the model for sedan design They proved to be VERY reiable and tough! While I loooove the Alfa GT's, they aren't as "tough" as the the venerable E10! This could be splitting hairs but I dare say the Alfa was a true "sportscar" while the E10 was the first "sporting sedan" - easy to drive, reliable, holds 4 people, (and luggage), in relative comfort, and with the tall roof line/greenhouse, it wasn't nearly aas cramped.

Well, since we've veered SO far off topic...

You 2002 guys are so easy to spool up... ;)

Having owned and rebuilt both M10's and Alfa 4's, I have to agree that the M10 is a more reliable engine (as are the 6 cyl M30's) -- because it's simpler and overbuilt -- aka heavy. Alfa engines need more PM, but you get a lot of joy for the effort... Of course, if we can get you in a 6 cyl BMW you'll swear off those buzzy M10's for life. Torque is addicting!

As to the Nue Klasse being such a breakthrough -- here's a 105 series Giula Berlina (sedan) and a NK. Yep, the 105 is an older design... with a 5 speed, 4 wheel discs, twin webers. :cool:
 

Attachments

  • giulia_super.1.jpg
    giulia_super.1.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 12
  • 1800.jpg
    1800.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 11
  • C825-25.JPG
    C825-25.JPG
    53.7 KB · Views: 17
  • E118_1800_przod.jpg
    E118_1800_przod.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:

GregH

Well-known member
Apr 24, 2004
1,630
0
I thought we were talking classic design rather than beauty. There's a crapload of beautiful Jags, Ferrari's, Aston Martins, Iso's, etc. out there.

IMHO-It was the Frua-designed Glas cars that brought beauty to BMW and thus the later 3.0 CSL referred to (er, not counting Albrecht von Goertz' 507).

Alfa's have (almost) always been beautiful cars. LOL-I never forget what the president of the Alfa Romeo club told me years ago (which kind of tells what philosophy Alfa owners should have)-"Paying someone to work on your car is like paying someone to make love to your wife!"
 

bovw

Well-known member
Apr 1, 2006
3,130
13
54
Orange, VA
GregH said:
"Paying someone to work on your car is like paying someone to make love to your wife!"
That is a brilliant statement, so true. I guess I need to start working on my own car.;)
 

kellymoe

Banned
Apr 23, 2004
1,282
1
Burbank
I haven't read the entire thread but IMO the RRC is the best looking and most capable truck that Land Rover ever produced. Especially with the LT230. With the air dam and a slight suspension lift and off road tires it has a very purposeful stance that I just love. If I ever get another Rover it will be a Classic. I regret selling my 1988 RRC:(
 
L

LandCruisers4Life

Guest
Not a RRC owner yet, but will soon be. I just bought a RR P38 and have a DII as well as a couple of Land Cruisers. I love all of them, but have always wanted a RRC because they are cool looking, and are at the same time just a great ride. A friend of mine used to own a 93 and it was just fun to ride around in and was very comfortable.
 

GregH

Well-known member
Apr 24, 2004
1,630
0
I forgot the most desirable and beautiful (to me) BMW of all time-

the pre-war BMW 328
 

NorthofSeven

Active member
Feb 12, 2007
33
0
Eastern Ontario, Canada
Velocewest said:
This is kind of like the "who invented the sport sedan" argument. BMW claims it, but Alfa Romeo was years ahead of them and they built technically and mechanically better cars for years. In 1968, the BMW 2002 had a SOHC iron block engine with a 1bbl downdraft, drum rear brakes, a 4 speed and no anti-roll bars -- the Alfa Giulietta had a DOHC alu engine with dual sidedrafts, 4 wheel discs, anti-roll bars and a 5 speed. In 1977 the Alfa Alfetta had fuel injected aluminum 4 cam V6 with a 5 speed rear mounted transaxle (think Porsche 944), inboard rear disc brakes and 50/50 weight distribution. BMW? Well, the 320i had an SOHC iron block inline 4 with fuel injection, drum rear brakes, a 4 speed, and a reputation for being tail-happy when pushed.

LR was not first to the party, but they have arguably built the best luxury 4x4 when measured in off-road prowess, and have pushed the technology envelope as well. As the recent Hyundai commercials point out, LR has not been the best at on road performance, nor economy or reliability. Most Land Cruiser owners would concur.

I still prefer my RRC. You pays your money and takes your chances, eh?

Having owned (from new) both an early (1971) BMW 2002 and an Alfa Romeo Alfetta (1976) I can say they were both beautiful handling cars - and both made you feel rather special. The Alfetta was in fact a bit livlier, handled better, and was roomier as a family sedan - we had three small children by then.

Back to the topic, those who say that the Range Rover somehow influenced the North American car makers early to introduce upgraded SUV's must be smoking something. Remember that the Range Rover was virtually unknown on these shores prior to 1988 - and if North American producers really paid attention to what was going on in the rest of the world, they wouldn't be in the shape they are today!

Range Rover did set the luxury off-road standard in Europe and the Middle East, and set high standards for Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan.

When I first encountered Range Rovers it was in Lebanon in 1980, as they were always used by Yasser Arafat and the senior members of the PLO. The rest drove Toyota pick-ups.

______________________

2003 RR HSE
ex 2000 Disco II
 

JSQ

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2004
3,259
1
44
San Diego, CA
p m said:
In 1979, a Wagoneer with a QT setup beat an RRC in every single category - on-road, off-road, you name it. Sadly for the Jeep, in 1989 when the same folks repeated the same tests, the only category a (then Grand) Wagoneer won was the skidpad.


I'm not sure what a "QT setup" is, but there is no way in hell a 1979 Wagoneer Limited would beat out a 1979 RRC in all categories.

I won't for a minute question that the Wagoneer and the Bronco were the predecessors, but the RRC is a FAR superior vehicle from a design and real world stand point.

Here is why there is no comparison in 1970, 1979, 1989 or 2007:

-LONG TRAVEL SOLID BEAM COIL SPRUNG SUSPENSION!!!
(that alone crushes the Conestoga Wagoneer)
-Four wheel disc brakes
-Full time 4wd
-Aluminum body
-Aluminum motor
-limited slip rear (1st year)
-Every luxury feature the Wagoneer was offered with and then some

But above all the real litmus test is the past 35+ years.

The RRC is one of the most dominant widely used and continually capable vehicles on the planet while the Wagoneer is a fucking relic. The list of places that RRCs have been where no Wagoneer has ever seen the light of day is long and distinguished.

Nigga Please.