Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
sixcyl ◊ 2007-10-01 22:44	-- Last edit: 2007-10-01 22:45:06
chris40 ◊ 2007-10-02 09:18	Why [Classic]? Imho that designation was only used for run-out models of the five-door version of the original shape, probably as a marketing ploy to shift them. This is the original three-door of the 70s, rubber mats and all probably.
Alexander ◊ 2007-10-02 12:12	You are absolutely right, Chris. The term [Classic] was introduced by someone -- not me! -- as a chassis code to differentiate the Series I Range Rover from the Series II and III, which have official chassis codes, [P38a] and [L322] respectively. This chassis code [Classic] should not be used. Classic is part of the name for the September 1994 to February 1996 models after the production of the Series II had started. If I am rightly informed only the 108" Vogue LSE 4.2 model was produced parallel to the [P38a]. To sum it up, yes, the chassis code [Classic] should not be used. So far I had no time to correct this. There are still many old 'Jeep' waiting for a correct brand name, that I regarded this as a matter of lower priority.
antp ◊ 2007-10-02 23:29	It is easier to group all 1st series by calling them "Classic" like you call "Series I" or "mk1" some cars that did not had a particular suffix in their time. I do not remember who introduced that but as it is used as chassis-code and not really as model name, is it a problem?
chris40 ◊ 2007-10-03 09:00	antp wrote ...I do not remember who introduced that but as it is used as chassis-code and not really as model name, is it a problem? I ought to wait for Alexander to answer this, but he's a busy man ... if we want the site to be an authoritative reference, yes, it is a problem, because [Classic] as a chassis-code is simply wrong, for the reason I gave. It isn't like the Series 1 or Mark I thing; there really was a Range Rover Classic, and this ain't it. Je vous demande pardon, Antoine, mais ...
antp ◊ 2007-10-03 10:19	This is not listed as a "Range Rover Classic" but as a "Range Rover" of the "Classic" type. Maybe we could find another name to replace Classic, but what is used to designate 1st-gen models then?
Alexander ◊ 2007-10-03 12:26	Best thing would be to use 'Series I', and 'Series II' and 'Series III' respectively, in the Mark field. It is easy to use, sortable, and the proper way also used by serious sources. The same would apply for the Defender and Freelander range. The Range Rover Sport is still the first of it's kind, so an distinguishing field is not yet needed. For the traditional (i.e. real) Land-Rover we will keep 'Series' in the name field, as sorting is at the moment too difficult concerning the 'IIa'. @Chris: It is good that you push ahead in a quest for quality. I noticed that you have excellent knowledge on all sorts of vehicles and that you are looking for accuracy, like me. Makes life a bit harder for Antoine, but what would be life without challenges? @Jean-Marc: I noticed that one of the extra images doesn't load from ImageShack. Perhaps you could replace it. BTW, excellent images and lovely to see this beautiful vehicle!
antp ◊ 2007-10-03 12:44	For me that solution is ok, that "classic" name was introduced on the site by Wickey if I remember correctly. On my PC all the images above load correctly.
Alexander ◊ 2007-10-03 14:19	Could you do a batch job on renaming? Land-Rover Range Rover [Classic] -> Land-Rover Range Rover Series I (1970-1994) if built September 1994 to February 1996 -> Land-Rover Range Rover Classic Series I Land-Rover Range Rover [P38] -> Land-Rover Range Rover Series II [P38a] (1994-2002) Land-Rover Range Rover [L322] -> Land-Rover Range Rover Series III [L322] (2002-) also Land-Rover Discovery Series I (1989-1997) Land-Rover Discovery Series II [L50] (1998-2004) Land-Rover Discovery Series III [L319] (if in US or Canada the name is LR3) (2005-) Land-Rover Freelander Series I [L22] (1996-2006) Land-Rover Freelander Series II [L315] (if in US or Canada the name is LR2) (2007-) Land-Rover Range Rover Sport [L320] (2005-) (we could add Series I, but there is no real need for some years to come) Note that the chassis codes for the Freelander Series I and Range Rover Series II are wrongly set on some entries. Regarding the extra images: there should be 16, but only 15 are loading and my browser doesn't stop polling. No error message, though.
antp ◊ 2007-10-03 14:46	Done for the Range Rover. For the Discovery, is the S2 code really L50? We have few L318 on the site Same question for the Freelander: we have many L314 instead of L22. About image, if you do not get an "image not found" picture but just an image that does not load, usually it just means that there is a temporary problem between your ISP and that imageshack server (as they have many, cf the imgNNN.imageshack.us domain names). I see the 16 pics. -- Last edit: 2007-10-03 14:55:45
Alexander ◊ 2007-10-03 15:33	All I found L50 and L22 are correct. The given L318 is just L319 minus one ... someone tried to be clever ...
Sunbar ◊ 2007-10-03 16:07	Land Rover Freelander Series I was code [CB40], as it was originally a Rover project and this was used well into Ford ownership. No doubt when Series I was face-lifted (new headlamps) later on it also took a Ford chassis code but I cannot confirm it at the moment. (I do not think I have it in my records but there maybe a reference to it somewhere.)
Alexander ◊ 2007-10-03 16:47	I do remember CB40, but wasn't this the development code? Like Tempest for the Discovery and Velar for the Range Rover. Finding these old codes is a bit difficult. I will also keep my eyes open.
Sunbar ◊ 2007-10-03 20:36	[CB40] was the code used for Freelander in the same way that [38A] was 'New' Range Rover (development name Pegasus). The first two-door Range Rover development name was Rover 100" (100 inch). 'Velar' was only the name used on disguised vehicles. Range Rover 4-door had no development name as far as I know because it was really an open-secret (as other conversions were already being carried out by separate coachbuilders). After release it was only ever referred to as Range Rover since there was no similar or earlier vehicle to differentiate it from. I worked on all of the above (and later L322, L319 and L320). I cannot really comment on Discovery series 1, working for a parts supplier, as Land Rover carried over most parts from Range Rover so new parts were unnecessary at the time. -- Last edit: 2007-10-03 20:37:28
truck man ◊ 2007-10-22 21:30	1972
G-MANN ◊ 2007-10-24 22:09	One thing I'd like to know is how many times the Range Rover was redesigned before a completely new model was launched in 1995. The early Range Rovers seemed fairly basic, but through the 80s and 90s it seemed to become more plush and luxurious. I guess originally the Range Rover was supposed to be the more comfortable alternative to the tough old Land Rover, but was it always the status symbol it's become in recent years (the whole SUV craze aside)? Take a look at the one in this film: /vehicle_28108-Land-Rover-Range-Rover.html it's got leather interior, fine wooden steering wheel, canvas roof, slats placed over the grille, much fancier than the older Range Rovers. The character in the film who drives it is a real yuppie, one was also driven by Tim Robbins' slimy Hollywood executive in "The Player". How many different trim levels where available on the "Classic" Range Rover over the years? Are there any good sites where I can see how the Range Rover evolved over the years? -- Last edit: 2007-10-24 22:20:58
chris40 ◊ 2007-10-24 23:11	I think that might be a tricky question to answer. If you define 'redesign' one way, it was only redesigned once: when the five-door, 108" version was introduced - in about 1982, if I remember rightly. The detail alterations to which you refer were probably customer-led; Land-Rover reacted to the alterations customers were having made by outside specialists by gradually (even stealthily) introducing them themselves - the five-door was the most significant example of this. If the site you envisage existed, it would be bigger than IMCDb. I would imagine that the originators of the Range Rover were quite surprised (and perhaps sorry) at the developments that took place; I don't think for a moment they expected or wanted it to become a luxury yuppiemobile. If anything they intended it for gentlemen farmers. I did once ride in a year-old J-reg. example of the original, and admired it as a very sensibly equipped car of its type, and thought of it as a trail-blazer - how right I was!
G-MANN ◊ 2007-10-25 00:01	But when did all the posh trim levels like "Vogue" start to be introduced?
truck man ◊ 2007-10-25 03:39	The 1970's Range Rovers had prety much everything that this one has.
ManuelB ◊ 2017-11-13 21:06	The Range Rover was already branded as a 'Land Rover' in 1974 ? On my brother's full stock 1978 italian model, the VIN plate just say 'Rover' (and 'Range Rover' on the bonnet of course). Nowhere we could see a 'Land Rover' plate.

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1974 Land-Rover Range Rover Series I

1974 Land-Rover Range Rover Series I in Un taxi mauve, Movie, 1977

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising