First Drive: 2003 Land Rover Range Rover

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/firstdrive/48654/article.html

The Mack Daddy of ALL SUV's IMHO

:::YAWN:::

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/firstdrive/48654/article.html

The Mack Daddy of ALL SUV's IMHO

:::YAWN:::

That's not an SUV, that's an urban assault vehicle

 

[TopGun]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: TopGun

The MacPherson strut front and double wishbone rear suspensions are aided by an electronic air suspension system that allows you (or the computer) to determine ride height, lowering during highway speeds to minimize drag as well as upon parking the vehicle for facilitation of ingress/egress. And like most air suspensions, it adjusts itself for carrying heavy loads, especially important when towing a trailer.

What a peice of sh1t.

Huh? How do you figure?:Q

Since most Range Rovers are sighted around the wild plains of the Ethan Allen parking lot rather than tracking the Arabian oryx, we think that the new focus toward good blacktop comportment is a good thing. But don't think that it's lost its core capabilities; the Range Rover still has few equals in the sticks. With a maximum ground clearance of 11.1 inches, total wheel travel of 10.6 inches in front and 13.0 inches in back (an increase of 2 inches over the previous version), a low-range transfer case with a Torsen center differential and full-time four-wheel drive, the Range Rover is still made for scampering over terrain unadulterated as of yet by a straight edge. Land Rover maintains that its consumers more frequently take their vehicles offroad than owners of other SUVs, so hopefully all this technology will be put to some use.

Sounds good to me.

4 wheel independant suspension is garbage for offroading.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: TopGun

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: TopGun

The MacPherson strut front and double wishbone rear suspensions are aided by an electronic air suspension system that allows you (or the computer) to determine ride height, lowering during highway speeds to minimize drag as well as upon parking the vehicle for facilitation of ingress/egress. And like most air suspensions, it adjusts itself for carrying heavy loads, especially important when towing a trailer.

What a peice of sh1t.

Huh? How do you figure?:Q

Since most Range Rovers are sighted around the wild plains of the Ethan Allen parking lot rather than tracking the Arabian oryx, we think that the new focus toward good blacktop comportment is a good thing. But don't think that it's lost its core capabilities; the Range Rover still has few equals in the sticks. With a maximum ground clearance of 11.1 inches, total wheel travel of 10.6 inches in front and 13.0 inches in back (an increase of 2 inches over the previous version), a low-range transfer case with a Torsen center differential and full-time four-wheel drive, the Range Rover is still made for scampering over terrain unadulterated as of yet by a straight edge. Land Rover maintains that its consumers more frequently take their vehicles offroad than owners of other SUVs, so hopefully all this technology will be put to some use.

Sounds good to me.

4 wheel independant suspension is garbage for offroading.

Bummer for the Hummer then The H1 uses independent all around and the H2 has an independent arrangement up front.

Whatever...in case you didn't figure it out, no more than 10% of people take their SUV's off-road (actually, probably less) hence the independent suspension design. It's smoother on the road and makes for better packaging for more interior space. Why build the RR with twin solid axles when you can build just as good a vehicle with a fuly independent suspension that is just as agile on the road as it is off-road?

The fact is, the RR is a capable machine and is more than capable of handling itself off road. I'd like you to list me a production SUV sold in the US that an out climb this puppy besides the usual names like Grand Cherokee or Geladewagon.

 

[TopGun]

Bummer for the Hummer then The H1 uses independent all around and the H2 has an independent arrangement up front.

Whatever...in case you didn't figure it out, no more than 10% of people take their SUV's off-road (actually, probably less) hence the independent suspension design. It's smoother on the road and makes for better packaging for more interior space. Why build the RR with twin solid axles when you can build just as good a vehicle with a fuly independent suspension that is just as agile on the road as it is off-road?

The fact is, the RR is a capable machine and is more than capable of handling itself off road. I'd like you to list me a production SUV sold in the US that an out climb this puppy besides the usual names like Grand Cherokee or Geladewagon.

Well when I say "offroading" I mean rock crawling. IFS/IRS can be OK for a pre-runner/mudding type vehicle. But sucks nuts when you hit the rocks. That includes the hummer.

And yes I realize that no more than 10% of people buying SUV's take them offroad (probably less than 10%), it's just dissapointing to see a once formidable offroading vehicle slowly watered down for the pavement pounders.

Good info on independant suspension vs solid axles: Here

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TopGun

Bummer for the Hummer then The H1 uses independent all around and the H2 has an independent arrangement up front.

Whatever...in case you didn't figure it out, no more than 10% of people take their SUV's off-road (actually, probably less) hence the independent suspension design. It's smoother on the road and makes for better packaging for more interior space. Why build the RR with twin solid axles when you can build just as good a vehicle with a fuly independent suspension that is just as agile on the road as it is off-road?

The fact is, the RR is a capable machine and is more than capable of handling itself off road. I'd like you to list me a production SUV sold in the US that an out climb this puppy besides the usual names like Grand Cherokee or Geladewagon.

Well when I say "offroading" I mean rock crawling. IFS/IRS can be OK for a pre-runner/mudding type vehicle. But sucks nuts when you hit the rocks. That includes the hummer.

And yes I realize that no more than 10% of people buying SUV's take them offroad (probably less than 10%), it's just dissapointing to see a once formidable offroading vehicle slowly watered down for the pavement pounders.

Good info on independant suspension vs solid axles: Here

Good link. And let's not forget strength of the solid axle vs. IFS which is why all heavy trucks (except GM) use solid Dana 60's or better. I have never seen a solid axle break, but have seen a-arms, half shafts and torsion bars bend and break on IFS setups..

As far as the H1 being a good offroad vehicle. it's just ok. a TJ with 5K in mods will out perform a H1 though. And the weight of the H1 sinks it in sand and mud. Now I have seen H1's do a 90 degree turn at 70 mph on the road, slidin sideways which a jeep can never do.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: TopGun

Bummer for the Hummer then The H1 uses independent all around and the H2 has an independent arrangement up front.

Whatever...in case you didn't figure it out, no more than 10% of people take their SUV's off-road (actually, probably less) hence the independent suspension design. It's smoother on the road and makes for better packaging for more interior space. Why build the RR with twin solid axles when you can build just as good a vehicle with a fuly independent suspension that is just as agile on the road as it is off-road?

The fact is, the RR is a capable machine and is more than capable of handling itself off road. I'd like you to list me a production SUV sold in the US that an out climb this puppy besides the usual names like Grand Cherokee or Geladewagon.

Well when I say "offroading" I mean rock crawling. IFS/IRS can be OK for a pre-runner/mudding type vehicle. But sucks nuts when you hit the rocks. That includes the hummer.

And yes I realize that no more than 10% of people buying SUV's take them offroad (probably less than 10%), it's just dissapointing to see a once formidable offroading vehicle slowly watered down for the pavement pounders.

Good info on independant suspension vs solid axles: Here

WTH?? Both of those pics looks like stock independent suspensions vs tweaked to hell solid axle vehicles. Yeah, that's fair.

And the comparison of the tonka truck Cherokee against the Liberty is the most crappy comparison I've seen in a while. That's like comparing a Corvette to a Henessey Viper GTS. A better comparison would be a stock cherokee vs a stock liberty.

Regardless, the RR is more than capable of tackling rocks, or ditches, or whatever you want to do off-road...and it also won't punish you on the pavement. That's all that matters in the end to 95% of the people who buy them.

 

[TopGun]

umm dude, the first two pics are of the exact same truck, on the exact same rock. And you can't tell me even a tricked out IFS setup on a liberty will let that wheel droop another, what, 2 ft like the solid axle can? Bullshit. Look at it, it's impossible, if they made the arms on that long enough to give it a comparable drop the wheels would be sticking out 3 ft from the truck. You know the first thing most people do to a liberty if they really want to wheel it? They rip out that shitty worthless IFS setup and put in a solid axle. It's not really even debatable which is better for hardcore offroading.

 

[crystal]

That thing costs 70K. :Q

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: TopGun
umm dude, the first two pics are of the exact same truck, on the exact same rock. And you can't tell me even a tricked out IFS setup on a liberty will let that wheel droop another, what, 2 ft like the solid axle can? Bullshit. Look at it, it's impossible, if they made the arms on that long enough to give it a comparable drop the wheels would be sticking out 3 ft from the truck. You know the first thing most people do to a liberty if they really want to wheel it? They rip out that shitty worthless IFS setup and put in a solid axle. It's not really even debatable which is better for hardcore offroading.

I can tell that they are the same two trucks up top. But that looks like the stock IFS on that 4-Runner compared to a tricked out solid setup. I'm not saying that the IRS would EVER beat a solid axle, but it is a fair compromise for everday useability.

Hardcore offroaders make up a small percentage of people that buy SUV's. Makes no sense to cater to their needs fully.

 

[TopGun]

I'm not saying that the IRS would EVER beat a solid axle, but it is a fair compromise for everday useability.

I disagree.

Hardcore offroaders make up a small percentage of people that buy SUV's. Makes no sense to cater to their needs fully

Obviously. But I am into the hardcore offroading thing, so I think it's a peice of sh1t. ok?

If I wanted to drive something strictly for the road it'd be a nice fast car, not a 70k brick on wheels.