Thread: Range Rover Classic Power to Weight.

Not much at all.... But its gotta be better than my 3.9. - Anything is...


Try 155 bhp (116kW) and the "two tons" everyone uses as an excuse for its thirst... Older Classics were lighter, due to less bull-dust in the advertising brochures !



James in Gosnells

'95 Classic Vogue SE. 3.9 Auto, with working EAS, and less than 166K on the clock.

Google its tare weight and the power of it, then hit buttons

Not much over Quite a bit. Or possibly Not Enough over Too Much.

Power to weight for 4WD's is a little meaningless , the gearing ,the tyre size and the intended end use may have more to do with it .Whats the power to weight for a Nissan GQ or a Toyota 60/80 petrol of that era (86-89) with their standard Petrol engines ?What you after , towing ability,4WD ability,fuel economy, ????

Originally Posted by 400HPONGAS

Power to weight for 4WD's is a little meaningless , the gearing ,the tyre size and the intended end use may have more to do with it .Whats the power to weight for a Nissan GQ or a Toyota 60/80 petrol of that era (86-89) with their standard Petrol engines ?What you after , towing ability,4WD ability,fuel economy, ????

Was just after the power to weight ratio of a rangie standard when they were new.

for p plates i assume?

My Haynes manual lists it at 165hp, 207 torque, and around 1900kg, if that helps.

A lot less than 180kw per tonne, which was the old ruling. If it's for P plates you're in for an uphill battle, as there are to be no V8s being driven by P platers in Victoria.

Reminds me of the time I got pulled over in a G60 that was 2.7 times over the power to weight ratio, lucky the cop didn't lift the bonnet.