I don’t like belaboring a point, but a week or so back, I did a Cohort post on a Series 1 Range Rover and expressed my opinion that its wheelbase was about 5″ too short, resulting in less than ideal proportions and too much rear overhang. What I should have done is this: Have my trusty Photoshopper Chris Cieslak add them, instead of just talk about it.
A number of commenters thought the RR’s original proportions were fine; perfect even. Maybe it’s just me, but it still looks like one of those 1964 factory altered funny cars with the rear wheels moved up a half foot for better traction at the drag strip, like this:
OK, that’s a bit extreme, but you get the point. Or maybe not.
My frame of comparison with the almost identical-sized (and styled, obviously) Isuzu Trooper II, which is 172.4″ long compared to the 175″ of the RR, but has a 104.3″ wheelbase compared to the RR’s 100 inches. The improvement in its proportions goes a long way, for just an extra 4.3″ of wheelbase, but then it appears that the RR has more in front of the cowl than the Trooper II.
So some of you still think the original was “perfect” in this key respect?
It’s not (just) the wheelbase, it’s the greenhouse that makes it look wacky.
I wonder if the wheelbase was kept as short as practicable to aid in tight turns, given that the RR was at one time considered a bit of a farm vehicle. Driving our 2-door Wrangler through the desert had me marveling at its tight turning radius and the ability to maneuver and avoid some of the bushes and trees that were harder to do so with in some of the longer vehicles. Yes, the rear overhang looks a bit goofy and the departure angle brings other negatives to the fore, I’m just guessing the turnability was deemed the more important factor, especially as that (shorter wheelbase) also negatively impacts higher speed handling, again not really one of the RR’s original priorities.
There’s also a shorter wheelbase 2door Trooper in both generations as opposed to the long wheelbase 2door shown here, it’d be interesting to throw those in the mix as well, in both of those cases though the tail isn’t as long as with the RR.
I think a big part of the problem too is the way the original photo was taken. The very wide angle lenses in cell phone cameras almost always distort; this one, shot from a little bit above and somewhat at an angle, makes the greenhouse appear unusually large and the whole vehicle look kind of wonky. Compare with this proper side photograph of the car, stolen from the internet.
While boulevard cruising benefits from a longer wheelbase, true off road capabilities in wooded or broken terrain favor a shorter wheel base for less chance of over centering, and allowing a tighter turn radius. The original Range Rover precis was off road chops equal to the Land Rover, but with a nod to the need for more amenities to satisfy a growing town and country clientle. Considering the limited finances I am sure Rover didn’t have development funds to revise a new design that sold quite well to it’s intended market. That they let someone else to extend the design/brand to a new market they couldn’t be sure was there is understandable. Who knew that government regulation would lead to consumer preference to SUV’s over car based station wagons.
In the 50’s and 60’s station wagons were the tow car of choice, based on large, heavy, full sized sedans with big engine options. By the 80’s car based station wagons no longer met the need. The option of four wheel drive at a more affordable price and compatible with the expectations of more general driving populations (think no more lockout hubs, three lever transfer cases, the availability of automatic transmissions.) made the choice even easier. I am not one to long for the primitive 4wd systems (I owned a 56 CJ and don’t miss it)
I think I read somewhere that long wheel base will limit the vehicle hill climbing and getting out of ditch. Actually I never drove on the real rough terrain. When I owned my 2003 ML350, which came with sporty tires (Dulope 5000) and later changed to regular highway touring tires, was quite capable on the farm or unpaved or heavy snow covered roads. I never need to use low range selection. I one time saw a same vintage ML getting in and out of a two-feet ditch with easy maneuver in a local farm. I believe the relatively short wheelbase of W163 helps in this case.
With the short wheelbase you get a longer overhang which ruins the departure angle.
They did add an extra 8″ later (very much later!) to the 4-door version. That always looked cramped up on the 100″ w.b.
Is it just me or was this an aesthetic some of the other British carmakers were pursuing around that time? I’m thinking of cars with lots of greenhouse hanging out over the rear axle— like the Jensen Interceptor, the Lotus Elite…there are others I have seen but can’t find examples of.
I appreciate your Photoshop job. The rear axle looks like it’s better situated with that longer wheelbase. That having been said, I’d give my two front teeth for that 2-door Rover just the way it is.
It’s not exclusively British, the 1961-63 Rambler American and the Trabant 601 come to mind. Those were both on-the-cheap stopgap reskins (well, the latter was *intended* to be a stopgap…) of older, rounder designs but both had the rear window well aft of the rear axle.
The 100 inch wheelbase didnt hurt high speed handling the UK police used those things as motorway patrol cars and they were very capable off road, its the original posted photo that makes the proportions wrong not the actual vehicle, and that is the long narrow version of the Isuzu which never looked right.
That model of the Trooper looks to me in retrospect like it was designed as a 4-door and the rear doors deleted later. rather than the other way around as it was.
Nice photoshop job!
For me the ideal rear axle position would be splitting the difference between the actual car and the photoshop. Keeps enough of the original turnability but adds some rear seat room.
The windows look so -huuuge- compared to modern…everything. I wonder if that will ever become the trend, big tall windows, when the itsy-bitsy-teenie-weenie window style runs it’s (very long) course. The tiny rear wipers on modern CUV/XYZs still make me laugh sometimes. They aren’t much bigger than a coffee stirrer!
CUV/XYZs indeed!
I dunno, the photoshopped version just looks normal – where’s the fun in that? Might as well buy an Isuzu.
Seriously, it obviously does look more balanced and proportional, but I still prefer the original. I grew up in the UK countryside with these everywhere and that greenhouse and wheelbase is deeply baked into my brain – anything else just doesn’t quite work for me.
As I recall the cost of drive shafts had exploded in the UK. And a tax was proposed on rationally designed vehicles. Yeah, That’s the ticket…Extended wheelbases are a constitutional right damnit.
Extended wheel base with original rear over hang for me.
That’s exactly what they did with the 4-door in MY1993 – added 8″ in the middle.
The 3-door Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen in short wheelbase looks somewhat balanced in the rear portion. The middle section in front of rear axle is stretched to accommodate the rear passenger doors or to offer the 3-door panel wagon in long wheelbase.
Mercedes-Benz has offered 2-, 3-, and 5-door Geländewagen from the start. This might have led Land Rover to add the rear passenger doors later.
Paul, I so agree; the too-short wheelbase of more than one early Rover always drove me batty. Bravo for the digital plastic surgery . . .!