posted by Corey Behrens
The original Range Rover was a brilliant piece of work, and its influence cannot be overstated. It was the first SUV designed to be truly comfortable and luxurious, targeted to buyers who were affluent. And that soon spilled over into an endless raft of SUVs from all over the globe that picked up the baton and created the largest vehicle category.
Don Andreina’s equally brilliant deep dive into the Range Rover’s origins, design and profound impact is one of the finest posts we’ve ever been privileged to publish here, and I encourage you to re-read it. But I have a minor nit to pick with the original 100″ wheelbase wagon: the wheelbase is about 4-5″ inches too short, giving the RR a decidedly rear-heavy look.
I was bowled over when I first saw pictures of the RR in 1969. It was simply unlike anything had ever done in terms of a highly off-road capable SUV: stylistically, packaging, the superb visibility, the remarkably comfortable long-travel coil suspension, and its superb off-road capabilities. The grille was the crowning touch: perfect.
A very good friend of ours bought a used early-US import four door, in red like this. She had just bought 160 acres of steep hills near Half Moon Bay, and was building a house up there. The RR was put to good use, and I drove it a couple of times, both on her land and on the road. What a revelation.
We owned a 1985 Cherokee at the time, which was of course considerably influenced by the RR, including its coils spring solid front end (Jeep cheaped out and put leafs on the back). The RR was significantly more comfortable, in terms of its ride, but those soft coils did make themselves felt on the winding paved back roads leading to her property: it did wallow a bit, but one got used to that. The Citroen of SUVs.
Of course she had issues with it. And that eventually led to it being replaced with a Toyota Tacoma 4×4 as the work truck. The two were like day and night, and not just in terms of reliability. The swb gen1 Tacoma 4×4 rode like an old Jeep, precisely the kind of vehicle the RR was intended to replace.
The ultimate RR article:
CC 1977 Range Rover: Success At Face Value D. Andreina
Cute cats!
Another interesting find! According to its registration, it’s powered by a 3.6 liter, 6-cylinder diesel engine. The only match I can think of is Toyota’s H-engine of yore.
Or some mad bastard thought the 2.5l, four cylinder VM from the TurboD wasn’t enough and jammed the 3.6l six cylinder version in there.
You’re right of course, but…
I like how “carrying stuff” as a purpose is emphasised by the design. It’s not about the driver, it’s about the dogs and the bale of straw in the back. And of course, it makes the greenhouse seem even bigger and more beautiful.
Awkward maybe, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
The factory did ten restorations of 1978 Range Rovers back in 2017. Two doors like this one, because that’s all they made then, but 1978 was I guess late enough to get the aluminum former Buick V8 because that’s what they had. Just $170,000 each plus extras.
Is this in Eugene? If so, what’s that awesome never sold in the US Citroen BX facing the RR doing there?
The Netherlands. Corey Behrens’ (temporary?) home base.
Interestingly a lot of UK Landrover enthusiasts consider 100″ the ideal wheelbase, more stable than a 90 and more maneuverable than a 110 which has led to many people building 100″ hybrids using stretched or shortened Defender bodies on Range Rover or early Discovery chassis. There’s still validity to your rear overhang critique, the “bobtail” Range Rover with the chassis cut just behind the wheel was also popular and 100″ hybrids have a short rear overhang.
I’d give credit to the Jeep Wagoneer. Power brakes, steering, A/C, automatic trans, independent front suspension all available as options. Most of those weren’t available till much later on the RR.
These short wheelbases of British cars is one of the many idiosyncrasies of cars from that country at that time.
Being based on the Range Rover, the original Discovery also used the 100″ WB, but its use of the same front doors for both 2- and 4-door models kept it from looking too stubby even though it was a good 7″ taller.
I never really noticed it before but I guess you have a point.
In the RR’s defence, I would say there was little if anything in the class to compare it with in 1970 and the departure angles were fine, and David Bache did a terrific job in making such a large car visually more compact, and with very thorough detailing, and define a style that is clearly carried through to the latest RRs.
But the prize for the big glasshouse perhaps goes to the Mk3 2001 car – the current car really nails it IMHO.
And I’ll re-read Don’s masterful piece – truly one of CC’s best single model studies.
Plus one to your last line.
I couldn’t agree less, Professor N.
I shall simply quote the last lines of Dottore Andreina’s master work:
“The Range Rover doesn’t appeal to me for its capabilities or for what it might represent. I love it because it is still better looking than pretty much every other car on the road.
Or off it.”
Exactly so! Not a line out place – or too far back.
They put an early 2-door in the Louvre, you know. (I believe she leaked on the flooring in a most declasse manner and was never invited back, but we’re not discussing the dire habits of these sublime sculptures here. Indeed, if we were, they are the inverse of sublimity, being no better than a really, really expensive-to-fix Yugo for reliability).
Americans, he sighed wearily. Always wanting to add inches to things…