Should I buy a 1992 Range Rover for $750?

[BKCowGod]

"17mpg miles"
Hate you. Kidding of course- Do you really get 17mpg out of that Classic?


Original poster- Buy it. 750.00 doesn't buy much regret...

Actually, I'm averaging 16.6 right now. My tires are a little bigger than stock (215/85-16) which, after GPS calibration and adjustment of odometer readings, gives me an extra 1-2mpg per tank. I am careful never to go over 70mph and rarely even hit 65 unless I absolutely have to or I am coasting downhill.

 

[High Center]

Actually, I'm averaging 16.6 right now. My tires are a little bigger than stock (215/85-16) which, after GPS calibration and adjustment of odometer readings, gives me an extra 1-2mpg per tank. I am careful never to go over 70mph and rarely even hit 65 unless I absolutely have to or I am coasting downhill.

That's impressive. I drive my D1 similarly and get less (overall) MPG running 245 75 16's. Of course my trusty 4.0 is pushing 182,000 and I 'm certain her magic is on the waning side of existence in this world.

I have always assumed RRC's got atrocious economy-

 

[ini88]

Get it. I paid $750 for my 91 Great Divide Edition and it wasn't running. put $250 into it and now its smooth as butter. They are great trucks!

 

[David Harris]

Just for a comparison, mine cost quite a bit less than $750. Every warning light does what it should (and all turn off), as does every button inside. All the defrosters work and so does the air suspension. Viscous coupler is getting mighty tired, but I have put 5000 trouble free, 17mpg miles on it in three months. Lovin' it.

That's a nice Classic for the money! I too get about 17 mpg on my 1992 It is stock including the front spoiler, which in my opinion helps mpgs some. Also, it has stock size tires. My Discos on the other hand get considerably less mileage, probably due to higher profile, no spoiler and 245/75R16 tires. So my Rangie is definitely my "econo" daily driver . . . :ylsmoke: