Advertising Last completed movie pages 1995 Land-Rover Range Rover Classic Series IClass: Cars, Off-road / SUV — Model origin: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2016-06-04 09:08 |
![[Image: lr1.12.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/4290/lr1.12.jpg) Merke og modell LEYLAND RANGE ROVER Registreringsnummer VD 70075 Understellsnummer 35809086D Registreringsår 1975 Sist EU-godkjent 03.07.2015 Neste kontroll 31.05.2017 |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 13:17 |
It's a later five door from what we can see so not sure what's going on with the plate. The badge (if original) means a 1995-96 Classic model produced after the second generation model came out. -- Last edit: 2016-06-04 13:22:21 |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 19:45 |
What the..? I knew it looked a bit new for 1975, but ... Wow - the plate itself is from 1975, but the vehicle itself is 20 years too new. Maybe we're looking at some kind of fraud? As cars that are listed in the records as older than 30 years are exempt from annual tax. Or maybe the owner had another older Range Rover that substituted the plate just for filming, which is strange - as it's just a background vehicle seen for a moment. -- Last edit: 2016-06-04 19:46:36 |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 20:23 |
It has to be Sept 81+ for 5 door and June 84+ for no front quarterlights. There was a rear wiper redesign in Oct 88, but I don't know what before/after looked like. The Classic was only available Sept 94 - Oct 95 as Vogue and Vogue LSE. |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 22:03 |
That looks like a very old Range Rover rear wiper to me, it would possibly be before 1988 on the Land-Rover Range Rover Series I. edit: Changes later found not to be visible externally see later comments. All from memory but I only remember the newer ones parking on the right side of the screen (both for LHD and RHD). I only have experience of the later version. edit: Later found that LHD and RHD were different, see later comments. It was changed in conjunction with Discovery, Defender and Rover R8 and before the Rover 'Tomcat' development so about 1988 is possible. Of course some older vehicles may be fitted with newer wipers when they were replaced but unlikely that newer vehiles had old wipers! -- Last edit: 2016-06-05 13:06:07 |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 22:25 |
Is that the chmsl by the handle in the top glass? Does that determine any introduction date? |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 22:41 |
Nothing I can spot in Glass's about CHMSL. |
|
◊ 2016-06-04 23:36 |
It's a shaded bit of glass above the handle. Not sure when they brought that in? Late 80s? No EU RR Classic should have a standard CHMSL as far as I know. As for the wiper here's a late US one: Link to "13252-presscdn-0-94.pagely.netdna-cdn.com" with the wiper on the same side as here. I agree it's possible that it's older and the badge is not original though. Really the badge is the only thing that could confirm a 1995 Classic with this view. The fuel filler location changed in late 1990 which is something that might prove if it's much earlier than 1995. Trying to figure out if Lateef's thumbnail is too blurry for the later higher one to be clear as if it's there it's not well visible. Maybe something's visible there (or lower down) as the car goes past? One thing's for sure, it's not a 1975. Without the Classic badge I'd probably have said at least from the late 80s but I'm not seeing anything that can affirmatively contradict it being a Classic for now. Last one wasn't built until February 1996 (there was a big event where Noel Edmonds - of all people - drove it off the line) so we shouldn't rule 1996 out for these, not sure how many were being built by that time though. Maybe late 1995 was when they stopped taking new orders? -- Last edit: 2016-06-04 23:39:05 |
|
◊ 2016-06-05 00:23 |
Here's the detailed plate report. Among the interesting things mentioned there, engine size is stated to be 3 947 cm3, meaning it must be at least a 1990 model - and looking at the mileage, it had only done 71 008 KMs by 1999 - that seems very short for a at the time 24-year-old vehicle (current mileage is 255 129 KMs). I imagine there must have been some sort of scam that went on - that the original Range Rover registered 05.02.1975 had been quietly written off as the plates were transferred onto a newer car in order to trick the vehicle registration agency. It may sound far-fetched but it will explain all the inconsistensies in the data. |
|
◊ 2016-06-05 00:35 |
The Noel Edmonds link made me smile. My sister was a big fan in the mid-70s and when the SD1 was launched in June 76, he toured round south Birmingham Rover dealerships doing the launch ceremonies so I was sent off to Archers garage in south Birmingham to get his autograph. Production stop dates from Glass's are Classic LSE Dec 94, others Oct 95. And there was a final Classic 25th Anniversary batch of 25 in Oxford blue in Oct 95 based on Vogue SE 3.9 with beige interior. |
|
◊ 2016-06-05 12:56 |
I was able to check some facts this morning rather than rely on my (failing) memory  Rear wiper changes that involved new Land Rover part numbers were not visible externally after all. Also, unusually for rear wipers, the LHD and RHD vehicles had different 'hands' of motor so parked on opposite sides. The only difference is a quality issue and some wiper arms tended to have more play, so would drop slightly away from the top of the rear glass. This one looks good but it only means its less likely to be an 'old' motor; however nothing visible here is conclusive regarding the rear wiper. |
|
◊ 2016-06-05 13:26 |
Have you considered the possibility of a body swap? |
|
◊ 2016-06-05 22:43 |
For the Range Rover, or Sunbar? |
|
◊ 2016-06-06 12:21 |
With a registration from the Leyland years (using the Leyland name and not Land Rover) there would be (bits of) a 1975 under there somewhere. With a later 'Classic' wreck available it should be straight forward changing the body to the newer one. Possibly also running gear; engine, suspension, axles, adding a servo assisted steering gear and more at the same time, judging by the current engine. Legal, well mostly, and afaik within reach. @lateef, you could try contacting the current owner for info? |
|
◊ 2016-06-06 12:26 |
@john, any comment about other users was unintended.  |
|
◊ 2016-06-06 12:53 |
I wish I could! But its not the body causing the problems at the moment, its the little grey cells. |
|
◊ 2016-06-06 13:06 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPj6cfX_U9o |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
