Reply to: Awesome

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Chances are mate, if you're married, it ain't spare...

Actually, we're not, but that's an accurate observation all the same.

[Churchill]

Hmmmm now where did I put that spare £30K

Chances are mate, if you're married, it ain't spare...

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Have a look on the Autotrader website.

You can buy a fully loaded 3.0 TD6 for around £30k with under 30k miles
(Almost half price...)

Hmmmm now where did I put that spare £30K

[Churchill]

Could be - I should maybe look again - Mrs PB loves the current shape RR.

Have a look on the Autotrader website.

You can buy a fully loaded 3.0 TD6 for around £30k with under 30k miles
(Almost half price...)

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I drive with the seat angle backwards with a knee either side of the steering wheel.

Perhaps it's just a difference in driving position.

Ah well.

Could be - I should maybe look again - Mrs PB loves the current shape RR.

[Churchill]

That is truly weird - although as I said, I haven't tried the current model. The pre '94 ("Classic") was fine for me but the 94-02 hopeless. Maybe they changed the seat design part way though or something! I tried several though - odd.

I drive with the seat angle backwards with a knee either side of the steering wheel.

Perhaps it's just a difference in driving position.

Ah well.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I've owned 3 RR and am about to buy another. I've never had a problem height wise.

YMMV

That is truly weird - although as I said, I haven't tried the current model. The pre '94 ("Classic") was fine for me but the 94-02 hopeless. Maybe they changed the seat design part way though or something! I tried several though - odd.

[Archangel]

Hasn't that got the same engine as the new Dodge Challenger (that has the highest CO2 emissions than any other production car apart from the Lambo LP400 thingy), good luck with the road tax, personally I'd rather wait for the Challenger to come out. unless you really need an estate car of course.

The road tax is 400 same as for the 3.0l Diesel.
The Labs don't like being shut in the boot and they are not sitting on the back seat!

[Churchill]

Haven't measured lately but can wear 33-34 inside leg trousers so that suggests the same torso "height" and my legs being stumpy. The Rangie really does have less headroom - google it. I know this because I wanted one but tried it and bought the Jeep instead as I could fit in it.

I've owned 3 RR and am about to buy another. I've never had a problem height wise.

YMMV

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Ok, my inside leg measurement is 36", what's yours?

Do you have a long body in comparison to your legs?

The 3" difference in our height may be in the torso or in the legs.

Haven't measured lately but can wear 33-34 inside leg trousers so that suggests the same torso "height" and my legs being stumpy. The Rangie really does have less headroom - google it. I know this because I wanted one but tried it and bought the Jeep instead as I could fit in it.

[Churchill]

Does not compute - we must be comparing different models - or are you talking about legroom as opposed to headroom?

Ok, my inside leg measurement is 36", what's yours?

Do you have a long body in comparison to your legs?

The 3" difference in our height may be in the torso or in the legs.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Now, you see that's where we differ. No probs in Range Rovers but the Grand Cherokee is just too low.

A quick google confirms from headroom in 94-02 Rangie = 38.4 and 2000 model grand Cherry = 39.7 which certainly concurs with what I found.

[malvolio]

Must admit I always found all the Cherokees to be Tardis-in-reverse - damn great car with absolutely no room inside. And I'm only 5'11"

[BrilloPad]

Nope, it just ain't black.

Reminds me of a joke about coalminer and going home for lunch.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Now, you see that's where we differ. No probs in Range Rovers but the Grand Cherokee is just too low.

Does not compute - we must be comparing different models - or are you talking about legroom as opposed to headroom?