To: STONEWALLS
The Range Rover is also a pig to maintain. Parts and labor costs put them out of the running as used vehicle choices.
2 posted on
07/11/2010 7:41:42 AM PDT by
Big_Harry
( Starve the Beast!)
To: Big_Harry
Aren't they usually at the bottom for reliability?
3 posted on
07/11/2010 7:44:42 AM PDT by
Dem Guard
(Throw the trash out on November 2nd!)
To: Big_Harry
They can be had around here for peanuts. The reason is the maintenance cost. I also find them small, typically underpowered and really not that comfortable for my 6'2” 230 pounds. In addition cargo space sucks compared to a Tahoe.
12 posted on
07/11/2010 8:00:16 AM PDT by
mad_as_he$$
(Sometimes you have to go to dark places to get to the light....)
To: Big_Harry
“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.
14 posted on
07/11/2010 8:07:40 AM PDT by
mpreston
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson