Printable View
It's because it's fun! They're not intended to be daily drivers. Land Rovers persistence with a 2.5L + turbo in a shipping container on wheels was hamstrung from the start, and left behind with the associated negative connotations.
The USA is a wonderful place with a fantastic general 'can do' attitude.
Who'd of thought to stick a 289 then 427 in a little British car, or now a big horse Hemi into a Jeep. Love it!
Matt.
The big difference is in the price. With the jeep sr8t you get 95% of a supercharged RRS for less than half the price. $76,000 v $161,000.
Now with the G-wagen you get a well sealed much faster defender for 2-4 times the price . How many more defenders would sell if they followed the jeep formula?
simple end user economics...
in order to make 470 HP first you must burn that much fuel
Which is currently less than $1 per litre in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
If you buy a $160,000 dollar Range Rover and then complain about the fuel costs you won't get any sympathy from me. Is it "Oh, poor bugger me", or "all hat and no cattle"?
When I started the thread I was thinking only of real LandQuote:
Originally Posted by sheerluck
Rovers, not Discovery or Range Rover, neither of which hold much interest for me.
I can't fathom the thinking of a design or marketing group that put a 3.5 litre engine in a two ton car and turned a good idea into a slug. RR's were never quick. GM had that engine family out at 300 cubic inches and good performing alum. heads were in their inventory also. So why did Rover **** about with a toy engine? As for real Land Rovers, Rover should have had a four litre 200 hp engine in the IIA (or the III at the latest) and saved their market share.
So you're comparing a Jeep "Grand Cherokee" SRT8 with a Defender ????? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
Maybe you should take a drive in both and discover what the Grand Cherokee's competition really would be in the Land Rover range. I can assure you it isn't the Series / Defender.
Disagree Brian. In the 60s and 70s when the IIa and Series III were in use, was the time of Land Rover's greatest sales volumes. About 30% of their sales were the home market, and given that historically, fuel prices have been more expensive than the rest of their markets, putting a huge V8 in would probably have been commercial suicide on the home front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
Their biggest market at that point was country folk, farmers and the military, few of whom would have welcomed an engine like you describe.
Let's face it, if everyone wanted big V8s, then the GM and Ford subsidiaries would be exporting huge numbers to the UK and the rest of the world.
All of the rangies for sale recently are the v8's. The value of these are plummeting compared to the diesels of all years.
V8 petrols are seriously impractical in the real world.
And that much fuel is approximately 150 litres per hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
Assuming some things like 300g/kwh BSFC. Works out to about 12psi boost on a 4.2 litre V8 at 6000rpm and 90% VE.
IMHO, GM saw Rover coming a mile away...and totally stitched them up with an engine that was more profitable to sell off than develop further, to put it nicely...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
Should have confined it to the Rover car(s) and bought/developed a decent diesel for the Classic/Disco/Defenders.