Would it be crazy to drive a RRC cross country?

Raps

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2005
187
3
Los Angeles, CA
Thanks for all the info everyone and Shiftonthefly that is one good looking RRC!

As previous DII owner I have a soft spot (pun intended) for the soft dash so thats what is drawing me to the '95. I will also be daily driving it and taking it on trips with people so having the dual airbags is important to me as well. Am I wrong to assume only '95 had dual air bags?
 

Tugela

Well-known member
May 21, 2007
4,754
561
Seattle
Yes, 1995 is the only model year RRC to have airbags. What kind of safety benefit 22-year old air bags will provide in a crash is anyone's guess. If occupant collision safety is a priority you'd do better with a recent Rover that comes with 6 or more air bags. Then again, you won't get into a crash in a 1995 Range Rover if it's not running because you can't find parts for it.
 

Shiftonthefly1

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2014
433
14
Las Vegas
I'd have to agree. Screw those airbags. The later ones are much better. Occupant safety via airbags is right up there with fuel efficiency in these trucks. From a saftey standpoit and 1960s designed body/frame is a joke. Airbags or not. Strapping a couple airbags to ancient truck doesn't add all that much safety.
 

az_max

1
Apr 22, 2005
7,463
2
I drove a $500 1990 Range Rover from PA to AZ without knowing it's history or roadworthyness. I made it in 4 days (only driving during the day). Still driving the truck 13 years later.
 

Blueboy

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
3,205
459
Back in the USA; Rockwood, PA
We drove our '94 LWB all over Switzerland, France, Italy, Austria, Liechtenstein including weeks off-roading in the Alps without any issues while living in Europe.

Now that we are back in the US, planning a cross Country trip myself.

As others have already commented, just make sure the basics are looked after before leaving especially the cooling system.
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,617
837
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Yes, 1995 is the only model year RRC to have airbags. What kind of safety benefit 22-year old air bags will provide in a crash is anyone's guess. If occupant collision safety is a priority you'd do better with a recent Rover that comes with 6 or more air bags. Then again, you won't get into a crash in a 1995 Range Rover if it's not running because you can't find parts for it.
Had no problem finding a clean and straight left front fender for a 95 Classic when my daughter's was side-swiped at the parking lot.

Occupant safety is very, very high in a Classic with working seat belts.
 

Tugela

Well-known member
May 21, 2007
4,754
561
Seattle
Had no problem finding a clean and straight left front fender for a 95 Classic when my daughter's was side-swiped at the parking lot.

Are the fenders for 1995 not interchangeable with 1990-1994 model years? If they are, then those will not be as hard to find as the 95-specific bits.

Occupant safety is very, very high in a Classic with working seat belts.

That's a rather blithe generalization. In many instances, being an occupant in a heavy, body-on-frame vehicle has its advantages. We've seen many examples of this posted on D-web, usually at lower speeds. It's hardly a rule of thumb, however. In a higher speed collision I'd rather be in a monocoque vehicle with heaps of airbags. Newer body designs are capable of absorbing much more energy through deformation than a Rover ladder frame. Such designs will become completely mangled but are better at protecting occupants relative to a ladder frame that is more effective at transferring energy than absorbing it.

This isn't a scientific study, but it's an interesting example of the point. I'm sure you've already seen it. This kind of demonstration makes for good TV but I don't consider it grounds for a definitive conclusion. Still, it illustrates a concept. The collision is just after 6:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLLanPwRgio
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,617
837
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Nick, I wonder how often you voice your own experience or at least can reference some sources instead of general theorizing.
DWeb's own history has plenty of accounts of people walking away without much more than a shiner from multiple, high-speed, rollovers in Classics and Disco 1 and 2.
You really have no clue about how strong or weak RRC or D1/D2 body is. I don't, either, but DWeb taught me not to make shit up.

Here's a Youtube video for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUM2r0Mmj8Q

Oh, and here's a frontal hit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T80uQjqzgFE
 
Last edited:

discostew

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2010
7,706
1,015
Northern Illinois
My kid rolled my 99 SD into a cornfield at about 50mph. Not sure how many times it rolled but not a straight panel on the thing. Him and his little 5 ft tall girlfriend walked away. Took my son to get his head checked out cause hes 6'2 and the roof came down and hit his head.

So if safety is your only concern then a Range Rover Classic will be just fine. These old trucks don't seem to have crumple zones, they just use the crumple zone of the car that his them.
 

Blueboy

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
3,205
459
Back in the USA; Rockwood, PA
Occupant safety is very, very high in a Classic with working seat belts.

Agreed.

This is what my '93 RRC LWB looked like after someone pulled out in front of me at a red light.

Was going about 45mph and drove over the other car's hood.

Driver's door opened without any problem and I literally had no injuries.

The wheel was pushed back almost to under the driver's seat.

The roof rack moved forward about 2" from the impact.

Frame was bent so Rangie was totalled.
 

Tugela

Well-known member
May 21, 2007
4,754
561
Seattle
DWeb's own history has plenty of accounts of people walking away without much more than a shiner from multiple, high-speed, rollovers in Classics and Disco 1 and 2.
You really have no clue about how strong or weak RRC or D1/D2 body is. I don't, either, but DWeb taught me not to make shit up.

Thanks for that insight. I'm not so facile as to draw a definitive inference that the D1/D2/RRC design is safe across a wide range of collisions based on a handful of examples from people who have emerged from crashes relatively unscathed. A small sample of self-selecting observations does not constitute conclusive evidence to support a sweeping generalization about a model's safety. There may be other data out there to bear out that statement, but the anecdotes of Discoweb are hardly scientific.

As an owner of two of these vehicles I'm encouraged to hear about the happy outcomes for these individuals - I should be so lucky in a crash. I like reading these stories and maybe I find them reassuring, but do they mean that these trucks are "safe" the way a new Volvo wagon is "safe"? You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you want but even in aggregate these examples don't pass any kind of objective scientific measure. They are merely one data source to take into consideration among a very complex set of factors that determine the outcome of a crash.

I didn't buy my Rovers because they are safe. I bought them because driving them makes me happy. If safety is your top priority in choosing a vehicle you could probably do better than a 20-year old Rover, but we all have our own reasons for owning them.
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
If you look past survivorship bias at actual data, you'll see they don't compare to the safety standards of current vehicles. Also, I'd rather hit an airbag of any kind than hard plastics, glass, or metal.
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,617
837
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Funny I was about to post the same IIHS links.

It isn't per million registered drivers, it is per million vehicle-years.
Yes, L319/320/322 are far safer vehicles than RRC/D1/D2/P38A. Still the older Rovers look more or less mid-pack across the board.
It is interesting to note while there are 6 deaths per million vehicle-years for 2008-2011 RRS (0 rollover), there are 37 for the Escalade (23 rollover), and 0/0 for MB GL (for comparable number of vehicles).