Jump to content

Do you fancy a classic Range Rover?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 243deer said:

all of you that remember early Range Rovers were the lucky ones, Gramps bought an XJ6 or 12 (cannot remember) Jag in the 70's just because he always wanted one, the number stood stood for the number of months spent back at the dealers trying to get it to run. It had 2 fuel tanks, one for getting to the end of the road and one for getting home.

I have to say I had a Daimler Double Six series II - (XJ12 with a fancy trim) from 1979.  8 years (almost) trouble free motoring and almost half as far again on a gallon as my father's Range Rover.  Yes, there were two tanks, one in each rear wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I have to say I had a Daimler Double Six series II - (XJ12 with a fancy trim) from 1979.  8 years (almost) trouble free motoring and almost half as far again on a gallon as my father's Range Rover.  Yes, there were two tanks, one in each rear wing.

I heard that the Daimlers were better, I was on first name terms with the AA man, I guess gramps was unlucky except the ??? litre Granada that replaced it never broke down. I did manage to get its computer down to 3.2 mpg though going up a steepish hill after filling up with fuel (the speed cop on the bike used to wait on the top of the hill so I went past him as though butter would not melt, older and a little wiser now).

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, London Best said:

The VERY early Range Rovers, pre 1973, had no emission control fitted and were much better on fuel. My J reg would do between 19-21 mpg. After ‘73 anything in double figures was good!

Yes, I used to get around 20mpg from my first one (early 70s model)  then I was loaned an all singing all dancing model with full American emisions on it to drive from Wyoming down to Texas and that was doing around 8mpg bearing in mind the US gallon is slightly smaller than ours and fueld was less than a dollar a gallon over there.

To me the Classics, particularly the early Classics where some of the very best motors ever devised. Super comfortable, cruise effortlessly down the motorway but turn up a forest track and take you up  mountain without drawing breath AND even over some VERY bumpy terrain did not shake your bones loose.  Then of course the factory had to add all the superflous stuff to satisfy Mum running the kids to school.

 

6000 ft up the Rockies above Casper, Wyoming   .... the first Range Rover to appear in the USA

001.JPG

Edited by Walker570
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

 

To me the Classics, particularly the early Classics where some of the very best motors ever devised. Super comfortable, cruise effortlessly down the motorway but turn up a forest track and take you up  mountain without drawing breath AND even over some VERY bumpy terrain did not shake your bones loose.  Then of course the factory had to add all the superflous stuff to satisfy Mum running the kids to school.

 

6000 ft up the Rockies above Casper, Wyoming   .... the first Range Rover to appear in the USA

001.JPG

Neville, that is exactly what I was saying to my son in law only yesterday as we watched Clarkson with an old Range Rover in Bolivia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 26/12/2020 at 09:58, London Best said:

The VERY early Range Rovers, pre 1973, had no emission control fitted and were much better on fuel. My J reg would do between 19-21 mpg. After ‘73 anything in double figures was good!

I had a 1971 2 door and no matter what I had done to it I could never get more than 11 mpg. Just done an mot check on it. Looks like it's off the road.

Screenshot_20210124-191035_Samsung Internet.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry, if you had it today in road condition it would be worth a lot of money....just sayin'   I rue the day I sold my CSK seriously rare today.

For those who don't know CSK stands for Charles Spencer King who was THE man who brought the Range Rover into being. Only a limited number where built, two door all the same spec., they were all individually numbered and had paperwork signed by Charles himself in a beautiful presentation case.   I've done a few silly things in my life and that almost comes top of the list.

Edited by Walker570
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, London Best said:

May I ask when you had the 1971 vehicle? What age/mileage when you owned it?

I would think about 1980 ish, if I'm honest I would only guessing the mileage, I can't remember. One of the things it had done was a "Sun" tune???

10 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Harry, if you had it today in road condition it would be worth a lot of money....just sayin'   I rue the day I sold my CSK seriously rare today.

For those who don't know CSK stands for Charles Spencer King who was THE man who brought the Range Rover into being. Only a limited number where built, two door all the same spec., they were all individually numbered and had paperwork signed by Charles himself in a beautiful presentation case.   I've done a few silly things in my life and that almost comes top of the list.

Yes don't tell me, the plate itself would be worth a few bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

I would think about 1980 ish, if I'm honest I would only guessing the mileage, I can't remember. One of the things it had done was a "Sun" tune?

Oh, right. Fair chance it was still on the original engine then? I was wondering if maybe you had it much later in it’s life and perhaps it had a later “emission” engine fitted? I bought mine, a 1970, in November 1978. The first ones were £1998 new. I paid £2800 for mine but by then a new one was, if I remember correctly, £12500. I ran mine as my only vehicle until April 1983, when I got £2150 for it in p/ex for a 2 year old Land Rover. Apart from a 300tdi Discovery the Range Rover is my only deviation from Land Rovers (Defender) since 1976.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, London Best said:

It’s no good buying a Range Rover and complaining about fuel consumption.  
Funnily enough, in 1978 20mpg didn’t seem to hurt too much.

The newer 405 3 litre diesel seems quiet frugal to be honest. If you can believe the figures that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

The newer 405 3 litre diesel seems quiet frugal to be honest. If you can believe the figures that is.

I haven’t run a petrol vehicle as an everyday car since 1992. Had a couple of series one 80 inch though, for fun. My wife has a Discovery Sport 2 litre diesel which does 44 mpg on a run, but it can drop as low as 34 knocking about. Tyres surprised me with how much difference they can make. My current 2.4 Puma engined 110 Station Wagon did 30 to 31.5 on standard road biased tyres but dropped to 28 on mud terrains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, London Best said:

Oh, right. Fair chance it was still on the original engine then? I was wondering if maybe you had it much later in it’s life and perhaps it had a later “emission” engine fitted? I bought mine, a 1970, in November 1978. The first ones were £1998 new. I paid £2800 for mine but by then a new one was, if I remember correctly, £12500. I ran mine as my only vehicle until April 1983, when I got £2150 for it in p/ex for a 2 year old Land Rover. Apart from a 300tdi Discovery the Range Rover is my only deviation from Land Rovers (Defender) since 1976.

I have to correct you there. I may be wrong but if my memory serves the first retail price was around £1770. Not being picky or anything but it seemed a lot of money at the time as the Edmund Davies police wage increase had not yet kicked in:unhappy:   I know the Escort 1300GT I purchased a year or two before was £700.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

They have the passenger side door alignment on that one nearly as good bad as the factory got it!  And if I remember rightly the interior was 'Ambla' - a kind of vinyl, not leather (though I may be wrong there).

The 45-year-old  4x4 has increased in value by 2,000 per cent - making it worth almost as much as a brand new 2016 model

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JTaylor91 said:

Our 405 gets 32mpg, that’s not on a run but just driving between villages. 

That's very good, it's just the reliability that makes me jittery about getting one. I've been spoilt with 3 Mercedes cars ( C class and ML and present GLE) for the last nearly 300,000 without any major dramas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harrycatcat1 said:

That's very good, it's just the reliability that makes me jittery about getting one. I've been spoilt with 3 Mercedes cars ( C class and ML and present GLE) for the last nearly 300,000 without any major dramas.

It made me jittery too so I got a 3rd party warranty. £900 for 18 months that covers everything including wear and tear items. It took ages to get a warranty that was worth it though, a lot of the fine print is they will only cover a certain percentage of parts costs if the car has x number of miles etc. It can all be negotiated with them though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JTaylor91 said:

It made me jittery too so I got a 3rd party warranty. £900 for 18 months that covers everything including wear and tear items. It took ages to get a warranty that was worth it though, a lot of the fine print is they will only cover a certain percentage of parts costs if the car has x number of miles etc. It can all be negotiated with them though.

........... and is Starship Enterprise still running smoothly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, JTaylor91 said:

It made me jittery too so I got a 3rd party warranty. £900 for 18 months that covers everything including wear and tear items. It took ages to get a warranty that was worth it though, a lot of the fine print is they will only cover a certain percentage of parts costs if the car has x number of miles etc. It can all be negotiated with them though.

£900 sounds a good investment 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...