The Range Rover is the most legendary luxury SUV out there, and it’s now been around for more than 50 years. The brand new model of which deliveries started early this year is however only the fifth generation in the line-up. The original Range Rover was built for all of 24 years, the third generation L322 for 11 years and the L405, the predecessor to the fifth generation of which I have one in the garage, for 10 years without major modifications. You will have noticed that the second generation, the P38, is missing from the above. This is a car that was never really loved, had the worst reputation of them all and had it been possible to stop, would probably never have been launched in the first place. Doesn’t really sound great, does it? This means that the P38 is very much at the bottom of the Range Rover pack in terms of secondary market values (or put differently, it’s dirt cheap), which is something that always intrigues me. This week, we’ll therefore look at the forgotten lord, the P38, to try to figure out if it’s best left to die, or actually something worth considering!
It was certainly not a very confident Rover company that presented the P38 in 1994. Rover had been taken over by BMW the same year in a merger that will not go down in history as the most thought-through, and when the Bavarians came up to the Rover factory in Solihull and saw the new Range project, they were apparently far from impressed. This was the car that was supposed to succeed the Classic that was was already then a legend, and BMW didn’t feel it was even ready to be released. They were however far too late to do anything about it and in the same year, the P38, somewhat half-heartedly, was presented to the world. Production of the original Range actually continued a couple of years in parallel to the new car, and the development of what was to become its successor in 2001, the L322, had already started. Talk about being an unloved child and with a build-time of only seven years, the P38 is (until today) the shortest-lived car in the Range line-up.
What is clear just by looking at it is that the design is nothing Rover needed to be ashamed about. What was to become the P38 was developed internally at Rover and the final project was preferred over four other, notably one from Bertone. Rover definitely made the right choice, as the P38 is a good-looking car and unmistakenly a Range Rover. The low waistline and big windows give it a friendly look and have the additional advantage of making it easy to place the car on the road, which to be fair is also helped by the fact that at 4.7 metres length and 1.9 metres width, it’s far smaller than later Ranges. The P38 was available with three engines, two versions of the Rover V8 at 4 and 4.6 litres, and a six-cylinder BMW diesel at 2.5 litres. Of these, the only one you should ever consider is the 4.6 l, as even that only puts out 224 hp and 380 Nm of torque and doesn’t make the Range a fast car. The 2.5 litre diesel delivers a paltry 136 hp, less torque than the V8 and needs a spectacular 17 seconds to make it to 100 km/h. It’s not even very economical doing so. All engines are coupled to a 4-speed automatic in a body-on-frame construction.
As in all later Ranges, the interior of the P38 is a very nice place to be, with a very distinct smell from the leather and other materials used. This was very much intentional as Rover had understood that with the introduction of the P38, these cars would start moving away from the pastures onto the roads, meaning buyers would expect a more luxurious interior. There is thus almost as much leather and wood in one of these as in a modern Range and although comfort is not the same at the same level, the air suspension helps you travel in high comfort. I’ve had the pleasure of doing so several times through the years, and the P38 provides exactly the same commading driving position in a plush chair as later – and more expensive – Ranges do. With an engine that doesn’t encourage anything but soft cruising that’s all you’ll ever do, and the P38 will be an excellent companion. All cars were well equipped by standards at the time, with the HSE being better than the SE, the Autobiography better than the HSE and with special series like the Holland & Holland bringing additional goodies.
So what about the quality and BMW’s feeling that the new car wasn’t ready to be released – has history proved them right? It certainly didn’t take long before the P38 started developing a reputation for bad reliability. This may not have been the case had buyers come from Rover’s traditional crowd, but BMW and other owners who were convinced to spend a lot of money on a new Range were far less understanding than traditional Rover buyers of regularly having to clean oil off their driveway. Having said that, all Ranges have a reputation for bad reliability, including mine which I’ve now had for 18 months and almost 20′ km without a single issue, so you could well imagine there’s a cultural angle here as well and that maybe, the car is better than its reputation. As so often, quality will stand in relation to previous ownership and service history, but it’s clear that the poor reputation has contributed to P38’s loosing value like a stone. There was a time you could have them for literally nothing, and people did, ruining them on the way, meaning the P38 has become rare these days and that prices have therefore started to climb somewhat. It will most probably never develop into a true classic like the RR Classic, but my guess is that values have hit the bottom.
So, should you park a P38 in your driveway? I can imagine some good scenarios for doing so, but they’re all based on finding a mechanically sound car, so the regular checks of service history and general condition are very much mandatory. High mileage needs not be an issue if the car has been regularly maintained. During the last three years, the Lucas engine management system was replaced by one from Bosch, generally considered better. Among expensive things to fix, pay attention to the suspension, if it’s harsh or inexistent, that means a problem with the air suspension system which will be expensive to repair. Also check the auto box in Manual and Sport. Otherwise one of the attractions of the P38 over its successor, the L322, is firstly that it looks better, secondly that it weighs almost half a ton less and thirdly, that there’s less (and less complicated) stuff to fix. The P38 remains a very comfortable way to travel and of course, being a Range Rover, an outstanding offroad car, and the few remaining nice examples out there can be had today for less than EUR/USD 10′ with much room for negotiation, which is a true bargain. In the electrified world we’re apparently moving towards, there’s of course a risk is you’ll never get more from it than scrap value when you try to sell it, but what the heck – why not enjoy the ride until then in a car that will always look more expensive than it is!













































It was the search for a somewhat more successful car than the C-V8 that led to the Interceptor, Jensen’s by far most well-known car, presented in 1966. This time the design had been commissioned to the Italians at Carrozzeria Touring (another company that would go bust a few years later) and although certainly more convincing than the C-V8, it was definitely still quite original. The front looked like many sports car in the day, the rear which in the UK became known as the “fish bowl”, is rather reminiscent of the 70’s AMC Pacer (which was of course designed after the Interceptor). If the exterior isn’t to everyone’s taste the interior is much more so, with a selection and quality of materials that led to the Interceptor being compared to high-end brands such as Aston Martin, Bristol or even Rolls-Royce.
We’ll make a quick pit stop here for a small side story that I find a wonderful illustration of Jensen and British car industry of the time. Jensen in parallel to the Interceptor built another model referred to as the FF. That’s actually a historic car as it was the first non-SUV passenger car with four-wheel drive, and thus highly innovative for its time. Neither in the 60’s nor now however does it snow a lot in the UK so if you build a four-wheel drive car close to Birmingham, you have to assume it was also intended for exports. All good so far. It’s just that no one in the Jensen factory apparently thought about the fact that most of the world outside of the UK by now had the steering wheel on the left side. So the FF only came as right-hand drive. Let’s just say it wasn’t a tremendous recipe for export success…
Back to the Interceptor, which during the 10-year production came in three series with only subtle design differences between them but where the MK III was by far the most produced. The MK III also came with three different bodies: the most common “glass bowl” saloon, the much rarer and arguably better-looking convertible, and the ultra-rare coupé with a plexiglass rear. All three series had Chrysler big block V8’s and 3-speed automatic transmissions, but whereas the first two shared the same 6.3 litre, 325 hp V8 as the predecessor C-V8, the MK III had an even bigger, 7.2 litre engine, however at 285 hp with less power. This all had to do with the new US emission rules that limited the power of large engines quite heavily. Not only was the 7.2 litre engine less powerful, it was of course also heavier, and just a tad thirstier: apparently we’re talking 25-30 litres per 100 km (8-10 MPG) …
The convertible version of the Interceptor was presented in 1974 and is another example of Jensen’s risk-willingness or complete ignorance of the world beyond the UK, depending on how you see it. At this time most other brands were halting the development of new convertibles altogether, as it was widely expected that US safety authorities would enact a complete ban on open cars without roll-over bar. So Jensen was basically the only brand brave or foolish enough to launch a new convertible in this period. They were ultimately right given a ban was never enacted but they were kind of wrong anyway, since the whole company went bust only two years later, in 1976. By then they had produced about 500 convertibles, out of a total of some 6400 Interceptors.
Although the big block Chrysler engines were quite bullet proof, the fact that they all had carburettors and lots of them, didn’t make them any easier to run or service. The carburettors had to be adjusted frequently for optimal performance, apparently up to as often as every 1000-2000 km. Cooling was another issue Interceptors were known to struggle with and then there was of course the same issue as with all other cars in the 70’s – rust. You can certainly convert the engines to injection and upgrade the cooling system, an idea that some won’t like at all given the car is then no longer original. It will however be far more drivable, and thus possibly a solution for those preferring to spend time on the road rather than in the garage.
Cooling and carburettors aside, the Interceptor is known as quite a wonderful GT car, offering loads of 70’s luxury and charm typically for far less money than a comparable Aston or Rolls (who as we all know also tend to have an issue or two…). There aren’t many in the market which makes pricing uncertain, but good saloons tend to start somewhere around EUR 50′ with convertibles costing much more. If this wonderful example of British ingenuity combined with a dinosaur-engine of a type will certainly never see again, then please make sure that if you’re not mechanically talented, you know someone who is, and go for a car as perfect as possible, as finding replacement parts for an Interceptor risks being as hard as finding a UK prime minister who will stay longer than a few months!

























































