>In July of 1969, after a three month wait, I paid $3749. That was
>the number on the check, so that includes tax, license, dealer prep,
>
> I think I'd of had a problem buying a vehicle in '69. Ok, first
>off, I wasn't born for another year, second, with all the muscle
>cars around I would have had to at least test drove a Hemi or 2.
>Who knows, I might have ended up with a LR anyway but, unlikely.
>More like a '69.5 Road Runner with the 440 6-pack, fiberglass lift
>off hood (bonnet), no wait, a Shelby Mustang, no a GTO, or a 302
>Camaro with dual clutch and disc's all around. See, hard decisions
>;)
Well I was a sports car prior to the that IIa and already had all the
speeding citations my license could handle and still remain valid.
The Land Rover probably saved me from a multi year suspension.
And US muscle cars were really not all that interesting compared to
the Alfa GTA and such like.
> It would be a real treat to have test drove a NEW '69 Rover off
>the lot just to see what it's really supposed to be like. I'd have
>to say the closest I've come to that was driving a '57 SI pickup
>that was an unrestored beauty. A guy that used to be in our club
>had it and we would inspect it for him at our garage. It's for sale
>by the way, not sure how much.
Nobody had one that they'd let ya test drive. They were all sold
prior to shipment.
> Did anybody else read the article in the OVLR newsletter a
>couple months ago that was reprinted from an old car mag? David
>O'Kane I think was the author, something like that. He worked for a
>LR dealer for awhile and told some good stories. Like his boss
>putting it in low box and pushing the Alfa out into traffic, or how
>he'd show people what the Rover could do on a test drive, good stuff.
Funny you should mention that. It was indeed by Dick O'Kane
(whatever happened to him anyway?) and it appeared in Road&Track in
July of '69....same month I took delivery. Great story... a few
months later the dealer had a stack of 'em as handouts. I still have
that issue among the detritus here.
On another note regarding comparative prices. I was surprised to see
that Marin paid $4200 for his in '73 and then the invoice from the
dealer in Norfolk listing even more for a '72. My 72 went for less
$4000 out the door. Don't know why it would have been cheaper. Also
I think that Marin may be suffering a bit of memory loss on the
prices of other vehicles of that era. I doubt very much that a new
Cadillac could have been had for $5000. A neighbor paid more than
$7000 for a 72 Chevy Caprice something or other. I also bought a
Mercedes 220D (diesel) 4-speed that year for $7565 (number on the
check) and the only Mercedes cheaper in the US was the 220 petrol. A
Ferrari Daytona was a hell of a lot more than $10000... A clean
clean used 5 year old 250 California was nearly that much. Scouts
began production in the early/mid 60s and were at least as crude as
the contemporary Land Rovers. As Marin pointed out Land Rovers were
the most expensive list price 4x4s at the time. But he neglected to
point out that there were almost no expensive add ons. In '69 I
priced all the competitors and all required expensive options to make
them a reasonable choice. Jeeps charged extra for the passenger
seat. The price for a top, an extra cog in the tranny (to make 4) a
transfer case and another drive shaft brought the total to more than
the Landy. The only 4x4 that would have been cheaper out the door,
properly outfitted, was the Scout. Land Bruisers were very close to
Land Rover prices, just a hundred or so more by the time everything
was taken into account.
G. Mugele
*** "Thanks to the Interstate highway system, it is possible to
travel coast to coast without seeing anything." -- Charles Kuralt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 14 2001 - 16:18:01 EDT