You know its crosslinked don't you?Thorst said:But the main reason for why I don't think the later Range Rovers aren't as good off road as their predecessors is the suspension. Independent suspension makes better on road handling, takes less space etc., but IMHO not as good off road.
I know. Makes it better. Still don't think it's as good as the older ones off road. But of course 'a little less good than the older ones' does not mean it's bad.Tim (Scotland) said:You know its crosslinked don't you?
It behaves like a beam axle when off-road.
If you can really afford your RR then you can afford to use it on and off road. If you have too much money you can afford to misuse it on and off road.;-)mekadodo said:I think the big thing preventing people taking the newer RRs offroad isn't so much the lack of ability, but rather the cost of them. If you damage your Classic, or P38, its a lot cheaper to repair/replace than a 2010 RR. I know that if I had a shiny new 2010 RRS i'd think twice before squeezing it down a narrow bush track (eeek pinstriping), or thrashing it around in a mud hole.
sorry but that's a pretty illogical statement. Just because I can afford to own a $109k truck or 2 hardly means I want it all banged up & in the shop. Especially when I can get a defender, lr3-4-5 (or whatever) or even some other 4x4 wannabe & just mod it.If you can really afford your RR then you can afford to use it on and off road. If you have too much money you can afford to misuse it on and off road.;-)