View Single Post
  #30  
Old June 21st 05, 06:52 PM
R. Mark Clayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> R. Mark Clayton > wrote:
>> * the original joke was about UK police Range Rovers that had loads of
>> trim removed and an uprated (higher compression than the standard low
>> compression 'tractor fuel' 3500 V8). These went quite fast, but were
>> very thirsty and had all the aerodynamics of a brick ****house.

>
> Range Rovers in the UK have always been in general high compression. Even
> the early ones perhaps aimed at the working farmer etc by the rubber mats
> rather than carpets.;-) Although I'm sure you could specify a low
> compression version as these would have been sold overseas.


The Range Rover was released in June 1970 with the "Same engine as used in
the 31/2 litre and 3500 models, but with lowered compression". [of 8.5:1].
A key market for Range Rovers was overseas, but low compression was the
standard spec'.

This was changed to 9.35:1 in 1981, although plods, working farmers (an
original sales point was that you could get sheep in the back and then hose
it down to go to ut for the evening...) etc. could order a down spec'
"Fleetline" version.


> Dave Plowman London SW
>


As it happens an X5 is a vastly superior drive to a Land Rover (only been
driven a Range Rover), but whilst the oomph is much the same as a 7 series,
I would guess that pushed round corners with similar haste one would soon
come a cropper. (a Range Rover of course would go through the hedge and
carry on on the other side as if nothing had happened).


Ads