Thread: Looking for a RRC '92-'94

Run away as far as you can....

No ?

Air suspension is 'kool' but in my humble opinion, more trouble than its worth... says he after sinking thousands into his.

You can still get just about everything, albeit at a Price.

I'd suggest staying away from Arnotts replacement units, simply 'cos they're the entire assembly, and when they die, you ditch the lot. Stick with the original bladders, use "REAR" bags on the front as well as the rear. - Gives a tad more range of height. And you only need to carry one as a spare... Can be replaced 'in the field' if you know how...

All air lines are metric, despite the car being mainly Imperial. 6 mm OD, NOT 1/4".

Bank on buying a new pump, easier than restoring and modifying yours... - you can practice on your old one after the new is up and running.

Any valve body you obtain as a spare is useful, once again, you can buy the 'O' ring kits and with lots of patience, re-con them.

Ride ? - I reckon the '89 on coils was softer and smooooother than my '95 on air. But, mine rolls a bit less... also, supposed to handle better at Highway Height due to the Arnotts bags being designed for a firmer, more controlled ride at this setting. That '89 also had fabric seats, which are differant and softer than my '95s leather ones.
My own preference for a Classic is... soft, flowing, rolling ride. At sensible velocities... No hurry.

If you buy a later one, you'll most likely have the Borg Warner transfer case. Supposed to be better in sand than the LT230, which is better everywhere else... The viscous coupling inside the BW will have failed, or is about to, or has just done so and the previous owner has replaced it... They fail 'locked' which means you don't have an effective centre-diff, which means you're stressing the whole drive line, mainly front CV joints, which eventually will die. If your RR lives only on gravel roads, this is not an issue.

But, welcome to the irrational world of masochistic Classic owners.. we have plenty of pain to share around !

James in WA,
The Lady Sarah, 1995 Vogue SE with working EAS and Cruise Control... RWD only at the moment...

Hi James,


Many thanks for the fantastic advice and thoughts, much appreciated. Interesting to hear that the EAS can be firmer than springs. I thought it would have been the other way around for sure.


I would like to find an example of both suspension set ups to see if EAS is worth the apparent hassle.


you mentioned the viscous coupling in the transmission will be shagged or just replaced. It might be a silly question, but how do I know if it is OK or damaging the drivetrain?


Cheers

Find a small round-about... drive around it (windows down, -assuming they still work..) and listen for tyre 'chirping'. Try it again with more...enthusiasm. Still no noise or funny twitching? Do it again in wet weather and see if it takes the "Scenic Route".
Of course you've checked the front tyres for unusual wear patterns...

If so, then progress to more explicit tests...

Straight from the supplier of the required part(s) :-
Ashcroft Transmissions

Jacking up a wheel, putting wheel brace or handle on a socket-bar and trying to rotate it is the easy test. Make sure the Transfer case lever is in Neutral (middle position, between L and H....) If it moves, and tyres are'nt funny or odD, then stop looking, - You'll soon find something else to spend money on.

In my limited experience, the air suspension is softer in mid-travel, but the further it's compressed the firmer it becomes.. exponentially, not linear. Coily - thingies are more linear, or 'softer for longer travel'

The only real problem with converting to springs is... no self-levelling. The originally sprung Classic has a Boge (brand) 'Self-leveller' as part of the rear suspension architecture, and this self-pumps up the rear to where it should be.
A work-around is putting little air-balls inside the rear springs, and manually inflating them when loaded.

Did I mention that the window ECU has a couple of known issues? - like the rear windows going 'off-line'. - Easy fix. Solder / track break inside it. And the window switches are'nt the most long-lived... nor is the HVAC fan-speed control gizmo.
You will also want to put your headlamps through relays, so as to keep your beam-switch from overheating and failing. - makes them brighter too. We all do it eventually, and we're happy to walk you through it. Even point you to where to buy the kit if you feel hesitant.

That's enough frightening information for one night !

Edit:- Bear in mind that Arnotts re-worked the shape of the air-suspension mounts to give the 'firmer, sportier/safer' handling. They did it on purpose, which implies the original equipment is... softer.

Seats & springs

I have both 93 Vogue and 95 LSE and the seats in the 93 poverty pack are much softer and more comfortable on any trip. Grey cloth, but I'm not sure if they're same as more up market Vogue SE. My thoughts on the 93 Vogue suspension are a firm vote for comfort and articulation of original coils . Combine that with the Boge self leveller and you have a great towing package too. I'm not sure about air suspension having just purchased my 95 soft dash LSE. It's got the all of the components there except the important ones; no bags. For me , the choice is made considering my own confidence and competence at learning a new skill set. I doubt I'd consider airbags if I was paying for someone else to learn though. Like you , it's new territory for me and the members here have already saved me considerable time and money.

When buying a Classic RR I'd suggest buying an inland vehicle which generally means no rust. My LSE and a few other Classics I know have absolutely zero rust.


The Electronic Air Suspension. There is nothing unreliable about the system. What does happen though is that some components wear out due to use and age. Bearing in mind that the youngest of the Classics is now 20 years old it is not surprising that components have some wear. I have had to replace the Air Bags in my LSE ? with genuine - but the originals lasted over 200 thousand kms. Two EAS sensors have also been replaced. That is pretty good reliability for a 21 year old Classic RR. The EAS also allows the driver to manually select three different body ride heights which can be handy at times. EAS vs coils? EAS every time for me.

Talking about the LSE. If you can find one of these you won't look back. The room inside the cabin is enormous compared to the ?run of the mill? Classic Rangie plus you will have a financially appreciating asset. The ride and comfort of an LSE is great and is a stable ride - no fore and aft pitching due to the longer body and it is comfort personified, I see the odd LSE advertised every now and then and whilst some appear to be trouble - neglected and/or being modified - others have looked to be in great nick and importantly regularly serviced and unmolested by tinkerers. Bear in mind there are two LSE year models to choose from. The 1993 with the traditional interior and the 1994 so called "soft dash". With an updated interior the soft dash is the more desirable car.


AS for any 20 year old car there will be various components which will have worn. The tranny viscous coupling for instance - good for around 200 thousand kms. The one biggie for any Classic is the engine cooling system. The 3.9 engine does not tolerate over heating so I would recommend the first thing to do is implement some pre-emptive maintenance. Remove the radiator and have it rodded and also replace the viscous cooling fan hub, the water pump and themostat. Some new coolant hoses will not go astray either and there are a few to replace as well as replacing the black original coolant expansion tank with a new clear one. The original becomes brittle due to engine heat and age.. To avoid any potential engine overheating issues install an engine saver alarm system.


I'd also recommend a transmission service. This is one item which seems to be often overlooked by owners - neglect here can be financially ruinous for the auto box internals. In my experience a filter and fluid change seems to be advisable every 50,000 kms thereabouts.


I don't really buy into the unreliability argument but I will accept that as for any car time and distance do take their toll on mechanical items. The Classic can also be let down cosmetically due to the paint clear coat deteriorating and breaking down - the bonnet and roof are usually the victims here.


Choose carefully, do some pre-emptive maintenance and enjoy your generally reliable Rangie.

Can only agree with the ride comments... Driving Gavin's air-bagged LSE with its extra 8" (200mm) wheelbase is nicer than my shorter SE, also on air. - How much? - Enough to notice, and to feel a twinge of envy....

(Nothing to do with it running a torquey tD5, with half the thirst of mine.... )

In my travels searching for a RRC, it appears that many have made modifications to, or most likely replaced the original engine in their RRC.


It was my understanding that from '93-94 they came with a 3.9lt. it this correct?


however after talking to a few people it seems that a conversion to a later 4.0 lt or 4.6lt is very possible and possibly desirable?


my question to all that know more than me about this is why would I want/not want to do this.


obviously power increases might be achieved, but I'm more concerned about the reliability of the 3.9 v's 4.0 v's 4.6lt. I'm not after a rocket ship and would be more than happy with a rebuilt and reliable 3.9 if that is what most people would recommend.


Which engine has a tendency to 'slip a liner' is this the 3.9 or another one?


also as a side line, if appears that at least 50% of the RRC have found their way onto LPG.. I don't necessarily like LPG, as I've had a vehicle before on it and it became unreliable with the issues not being about to be identified by several LPG mechanics.


Do the engine run ok on LPG, and remain reliable? I would most likely remove the LPG and convert it back to straight petty if I found a suitable car and it was on gas. everyone's thoughts on this issue too would be appreciated.


Cheers
Dale

Originally Posted by Dsteve

In my travels searching for a RRC, it appears that many have made modifications to, or most likely replaced the original engine in their RRC.


It was my understanding that from '93-94 they came with a 3.9lt. it this correct?


however after talking to a few people it seems that a conversion to a later 4.0 lt or 4.6lt is very possible and possibly desirable?


my question to all that know more than me about this is why would I want/not want to do this.


obviously power increases might be achieved, but I'm more concerned about the reliability of the 3.9 v's 4.0 v's 4.6lt. I'm not after a rocket ship and would be more than happy with a rebuilt and reliable 3.9 if that is what most people would recommend.


Which engine has a tendency to 'slip a liner' is this the 3.9 or another one?


also as a side line, if appears that at least 50% of the RRC have found their way onto LPG.. I don't necessarily like LPG, as I've had a vehicle before on it and it became unreliable with the issues not being about to be identified by several LPG mechanics.


Do the engine run ok on LPG, and remain reliable? I would most likely remove the LPG and convert it back to straight petty if I found a suitable car and it was on gas. everyone's thoughts on this issue too would be appreciated.


Cheers
Dale

I could never be bothered with LPG either .... waste of boot space too. Having said that, I now have one of gas ... and it works well. It almost halves the running costs. Given you'll be looking at low 20's/100kms ambling around town, I couldn't afford to drive it much unless it was on gas. It feels a bit gruffer when running on LPG ... I doubt my wife could pick the difference. Fuel economy will always be horrific either way.

The injected 3.9 is WAAAyyyy more effortless than a carby 3.5 (that's in very good nic) with the slugomatic gearbox it never seems to want or need to do more than 2000rpm ... given the unstressed nature of it, It's a wonder it uses so much fuel

seeya
Shane L.