i think there were some earlier postings that
the 4.6 engine was perhaps at the engineering
extreme and was problematic. any thoughts
on this. but i also think the 4.6 came out
later and if i am in the under $20k market, i
would have the 4.0 as my choice... ray
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, RON WARD wrote:
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:30:49 -0400
> From: RON WARD <ronward@synovustrust.com>
> Reply-To: lro@works.team.net
> To: lro@works.team.net
> Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...
>
> That's a good question. I think the coil conversion is available/possible on a new body Range Rover, but consider this... The new body style Range Rover is a 2nd or 3rd generation EAS system that is very sophisticated and, I'm told, trouble free. In fully extended height, the new Rangie has more body clearance than a D90. But the smaller, less aggressive tires will limit the under axle clearance.
>
> I recently went on a weekend off-road event and the truck behind me was a Callaway Range Rover 4.6 with 17" rims and Pirelli Scorpions. We were on level 3 and 4 trails all day, stuff that made lifted Discos and a stock IIa 88" suffer. The 4.6 never hesitated...a surprise to us all. Give it a try.
>
> Ron Ward
>
> >>> ccray@showme.missouri.edu 06/29/01 04:10PM >>>
>
> the 95 range rovers are selling under 20k now.
> i had a 87 classic and liked it. i have
> 2 series (so i am posting to the leaf list cause
> i want mechanical-type advise). anyway, could
> i be happy with the new body-style rangie...
>
> like (for example) does the spring replacement for
> the air-bag suspension work on this model, too.
>
> other things like that...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ray Harder
>
>
Sincerely,
Ray Harder
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 02 2001 - 10:50:32 EDT