Posted on 07/11/2010 7:35:09 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
In Hollywood they call them Derange Rovers, and with good reason. Not a month goes by but that it seems some celeb plows his or her Range Rover into something or someone. Last month, "Mad Men" actress January Jones went on a little evening carom, bouncing her Range Rover off three parked cars in Hollywood. And earlier this month, singer George Michael drove his Range Rover through a London storefront. Mr. Michael was at the wheel of another Range Rover last year when he struck the back of a tractor-trailer at an estimated 100 mph. Wham!
The list goes on. I actually was at the scene of a fatal accident on the 405 Freeway in 2006 touched off by a Range Rover driven by the teeny-pop star Brandy. It's funny until somebody gets hurt.
Logic dictates we not make too much of these incidents. The Range Roveran enormously comfortable, expensive, commanding vehicle with more leather and wood than a Renaissance festivalis a must-have status vehicle in the western precincts of Los Angeles. If dippy celebs are going to crash at all, the odds are excellent they'll be behind the wheel of a Range Rover. I think you could surmise that, because the vehicles are so gallingly, freakishly, blot-out-the-sun huge, they require more than usual care to drive in urban environments. Performers and artists are not known for their mastery of the mundane.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The Range Rover is also a pig to maintain. Parts and labor costs put them out of the running as used vehicle choices.
Watched a tv show about a group of off-roaders in Moab, testing a new Jeep prototype. There were about 3 Jeeps and a solitary Rover ... guess who kept getting stuck?
I would have thought that all these celebrities drove cars that didn’t use gas.
Oh, they just want us to drive vehicles that don’t use gas.
You have to have more money than brains to buy a Range Rover.
They look nice though.
Ran Rvrs are gas hogs. I knew someone who bought a Discovery and they said it got about 10 to 12 mpg! I think they got better under Ford’s ownership but not that much.
I know some Rover fans and I’ve ridden in them, but put me down in the “not impressed” category. They’re nothing short of terrifying at expressway speeds, IMO.
~a Subaru Outback owner, who has to street park in Chicago
Must admit, I do snicker, just a little in my heart, when I see some yuppie launching down the road with their nose in the air in a Road Ranger... LOL!
And lots of room for ellipses. Don’t forget that part.
What year is your CJ? I have an 83 that I would ride into hell with and it would get me back.
“The ‘fill-in-the-blank’ is also a pig to maintain. Parts and labor costs put them out of the running as used vehicle choices.”
That could be said about all new vehicles.
The older Land Rovers are basically agricultural vehicles. The hub services tools are the same as International Scouts. I’ll take a small body Range Rover/Land Rover any day over the huge American trucks that splash ‘4x4’ over the side but never hit the trail.
What do you see off-road? Rovers, Scouts, Toyota’s, Jeeps.
New Ad for RR: You can't Win A Darwin Award With a Range Rover!
They are the yuppie-SUV... maybe that is why they are popular.
My uncle had an old Land Rover (pre-80s). That was a good 4WD. He even had an auger that could be connected to the drive train. Perfect for digging post holes.
Of course, most SUV/4WDs were better back then — heavier frames and no cup holder for the soccer mom.
Exactly. That was back when a 4WD was a 4WD. My uncle had one. A tough 4WD.
However, modern Rovers...
Don’t Rovers cost more initially? They always seemed to be more expensive.
I always get tickled when some Yuppie tells me about their SUV/ROVER, etc. Always about how great they are for 0ff-road. I ALWAYS ask them “Besides running off the concret into the grass when you back out of your driveway, exactly when was the last time you were ‘off-road’?”
The current model Range Rovers do look nice, but the author is clearly unfamiliar with the marque. They’re certainly not small, but they’re not huge. The English parlor look went out a while back, much more modernist inside these days.
The Land Rover, on the other hand, lost a lot in translation to the current body style. Very bland. But, they’re smaller than the Range Rover despite having little improvement in gas mileage, so the author no doubt approves due to symbolism.
Neither of them hold resale value well, like that other British marque, Jaguar. Hideously expensive to maintain. Not particularly reliable. Horrible gas mileage. Even repair of body damage is more expensive than the norm due to aluminum bodywork.
Me, I’m not too worried about impressing people. Give me a 2.5 Sube Outback or a 2.7 Tacoma 4 x 4 with the Offroad package any day, over either of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.