Wheel travel numbers

[hoser]

The Range Rover MkIII (2003+) has a breakover angle of 28 degrees and a wheelbase of 113" which is within an inch of the LC200. The earlier RR's had a better BO angle but also a 5" shorter wheelbase. The LC200 has a breakover angle of 21 degrees. However, Australian Market LC200's are advertised with a BO angle of 25 degrees. Perhaps set-up differently. LC80 was also 25 degrees.

Edit: Perhaps the US market LC200 breakover angle was measured with running boards and the AUS market LC200 without?

 

[Tom B]

The Rovers are only 5-seaters. The Cruisers are 8-seaters.

John,

I agree with what I believe the intent is of what you are trying to communicate. That is, for an apples to apples comparison on the clearance/angles of vehicle, one needs to look at vehicles of similar size. I do not see why the number of seats, airbags, or even say cup holders would be relevant. I am not trying to compare pros and cons of A vs B, just evaluate the design merits of the 200 with other vehicles as an example.

Taking a look at the numbers,

RR
Width = 77
Length = 195.8
Wheelbase = 113.4

200 Series
width = 77.6
Length = 194.9
Wheelbase = 112.2

I see that at an apples to apples comparison on angles looks valid to me. In fact, the 200 seems to have the upper hand by a slight margin. Perhaps you were trying to compare something different, or maybe you where unaware of the physical dimensions of the vehicles before you commented.

 

[Tom B]

The Range Rover MkIII (2003+) has a breakover angle of 28 degrees and a wheelbase of 113" which is within an inch of the LC200. The earlier RR's had a better BO angle but also a 5" shorter wheelbase. The LC200 has a breakover angle of 21 degrees. However, Australian Market LC200's are advertised with a BO angle of 25 degrees. Perhaps set-up differently. LC80 was also 25 degrees.

Edit: Perhaps the US market LC200 breakover angle was measured with running boards and the AUS market LC200 without?

Great observation. Given that the approach and departure angles are the same on the AUS and US spec 200, it's probably either a measurement error or a running board thing.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

John,

I agree with what I believe the intent is of what you are trying to communicate. That is, for an apples to apples comparison on the clearance/angles of vehicle, one needs to look at vehicles of similar size. I do not see why the number of seats, airbags, or even say cup holders would be relevant. I am not trying to compare pros and cons of A vs B, just evaluate the design merits of the 200 with other vehicles as an example.

Taking a look at the numbers,

RR
Width = 77
Length = 195.8
Wheelbase = 113.4

200 Series
width = 77.6
Length = 194.9
Wheelbase = 112.2

I see that at an apples to apples comparison on angles looks valid to me. In fact, the 200 seems to have the upper hand by a slight margin. Perhaps you were trying to compare something different, or maybe you where unaware of the physical dimensions of the vehicles before you commented.

I'm certain the ground clearance on the 200 was reduced by increasing the interior and lowering the step-in height.
This was the case with the 100 vs the 80. On those, if you compare the trucks at stock or at the same lift height the 80 rockers are still farther from the ground than the 100. That was one way they increased capacity on the 100. I think they've done it again with the 200.

Also, you had said "all stock Rover wagons".....the Disco and older RR were much smaller than the NRR and therefore to the 200.