Bravo. I used to own a 1995 LWB and the only thing about it I remotely liked was the extra leg room my passengers enjoyed in the back seat. Super high engine maintenance costs. I now sport a SWB and am much more pleased with it.
>>> Marin.Faure@PSS.Boeing.com 07/03/01 16:36 PM >>>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:12:30 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <ford_p@nettally.com>
Subject: LRO: RE: Re: 95 Rangie and on...
>Marin, I agree with most of what you said, but I'd have to disagree in the
last paragraph about avoiding a LWB.... for
about $1500 invested, you could get an AWESOME highway cruiser for about
$15k. That's a pretty good deal in my book....Certainly not for everyone as you have
to be willing to get your handsdirty and let people work on your vehicle for tricky
things, but certainlynot the money pit some people would have you believe.
I don't deny you can modify
the 4.2 LWB into a less trouble-prone vehicle, but why bother. With plenty of
earlier coil-spring Range Rovers around to pick from, even in the US, that would
make a lot more sense than to waste a lot of time turning an LWB into a different
vehicle. And while exchanging the air suspension for coil springs will certainly
eliminate the potential for high suspension maintenance or repair bills, I rather
doubt adding some crossbracing in the engine is going to eliminate the
engine's inherent flaws, which are the result of it's overall weakness for the
power output. If the solution to the block flexing was adding a few crossbraces,
I would have expected Rover to do that. But instead they virtually redesigned the
entire bottom end, with thicker walls, heavier webbing and bearing supports, etc.,
etc., etc.
If the LWB was the only Range Rover model available, and one deserately had to have
a Range Rover, then I could maybe see the justification in modifying it. But since
a buyer can go either way, to an older model with a less powerful but more reliable
engine, or a newer model with a far superior engine and an air suspension that
works, I don't really see the point of putting any effort into making a bad vehicle
work better. Scrap the thing and buy, up or down, a Range Rover model that
worked right from the outset.
We're not talking about trying to preserve a
valuable vehicle here, a justification one might make in trying to modify a
NADA 2.6 litre Land Rover Series IIa to keep it from burning up pistons. The 4.2 LWB
Range Rover is the bastard of the Range Rover line. The stretch makes it
a bit ugly (to me, anyway), it's got a crappy engine and an iffy suspension. It's not
rare, it's not unique, it's not historical, it's just a bad car. So unless one simply wants
the challenge of trying to right its wrongs (which some mechanically-minded people
like to do), why bother messing with it? 99.9999 percent of Range Rover buyers
aren't buying the vehicle to do major surgery on it. They simply want
to own a Range Rover for whatever reason. They're the ones who need to
be aware of the 4.2s shortcomings, as they're not going to take the thing apart
in an attempt to correct them. They simply need to not buy one in the first place,
and their Range Rover experience will probably be a lot happier.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
(original owner)
1973 Land Rover Series III-88
1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 04 2001 - 12:38:53 EDT