| Overall Rating |
 |
| Description |
| Range Rover remains the benchmark for 4x4s. It has evolved into an iconic status symbol and a highly competent go-anywhere luxury conveyance since its launch nearly 35 years ago. |
| Handling |
|
| Comfort |
 |
| Quality & Reliability |
 |
| Performance |
|
| Roominess |
|
| Running Costs |
 |
| Value for Money |
|
| Stereo/Sat Nav |
|
| NCAP |
| Not tested |
| Best Models |
| 2.5 dHSE; 4.0 HSE |
| Worst Models |
| Basic 4.0 with air con; overpriced special editions |
| Replacement |
| by current generation Range Rover in early 2002 |
|
 |
| Road Test |
| Range Rover has it all: presence, prestige, a comfortable interior with generous equipment and trim, more driving pleasure than you would expect from a large 4x4, and excellent abilities when the going gets rough. Sadly, it's also saddled with a poor reliability record; even small faults cost a lot to put right if the three-year warranty has expired. When you pay this much, you don't need these irritations. If Mitsubishi, Toyota, Jeep and Mercedes could all get quality right on their (cheaper) top 4x4s, why couldn't Land Rover? Add in fuel costs and steep depreciation, and Range Rover ownership is expensive. The two V8 engines are smoothly powerful but thirsty; the BMW-sourced 2.5 TD is more sedate but almost as refined. Handling is safe, accurate and far less ponderous than some big 4x4s. Ride is excellent, with clever air suspension that cuts body roll and adapts to loads. |
| Positive Points |
- Heritage: the original luxury 4x4
- High standards of cosseting comfort
- Outstanding off-road ability
|
| Negative Points |
- Costs ? both buying and running
- Petrol cars are just too thirsty
- Less reliable than Japanese, German or US rivals
|
|
