As you will all be aware now, I'm after a big mother of an off-roader. I intend to use it for work, motorways, bit of off roading & lugging crap around (not real crap...)
I have been looking at all three (forget the freelander) & all three have perceived benefits over each other. The classic RR is comfy but could be expensive to run. The Defender is a solid, but a little 'agricultural' for some (not my) tastes. The Discovery seems a bit of a Q car to me. Is it just a in-between the two car or is it a fine vehicle in it's own right?
I really hope to get into the mud this week.
Cheers & thanks for all your help so-far. This is without doubt the least 'tard infested group I have come across!!!
On or around Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:42:22 +0100, "Larry" enlightened us thusly:
I'd buy a new Range Rover, but I'd keep the 110 and rebuild it properly with decent recon or new engine and box, new or rebuilt axles, remake the rear prop which is out of balance, and a new chassis and bulkhead.
could do that, mind, if I'd only inherited about 10 grand.
Mind, if I was in the market for a new 110, I'd be very tempted by the Santana, the things they've done to the bodywork improve it a lot, and it's cheaper than a LR one.
Twas Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:03:50 +0100 when Austin Shackles put finger to keyboard producing:
I rather like the santana too, if I had the money to buy new, sorry Land Rover but I'd have a Santana. It's the engine and rear door that clinch it for me.
-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.
You're right that the Disco is effectively a lower budget car than the RR. But you miss the point that it's a much more flexible car. The RR seats 4/5 with some (not huge) boot space. The Disco carries 7. The Disco has odd things like the map pockets, rear passenger overhead nets, rear sunroofs, etc which mean it's a very practical family workhorse type car. There's bags of space to stick odds and ends, unlike the RR. It comes with the roof-bars (option) so you can easily stick a roof box on the top too.
I've had both, and I stick with my comment that the RaRo is a luxury estate car which happens to be a very competent 4x4, whereas the Disco is more like a MPV which happens to be a very competent 4x4.
I really don't think the Disco and RR are that similar, apart from using the same chassis and some of the same internals. Just as a 90 Pickup and a 110 CSW are mechanically similar, but functionally very different.
Not in my experience. Overall fuelling costs of the Diesel Discos I've had are lower than the V8 LPG RaRo - because the economy is lower on LPG than Unleaded.
I used to get 32mpg from a 200Tdi Disco. So your RaRo is about 20% less cost effective on fuel alone. Or to put it another way, I would have got about 30% further on the same value of fuel.
You're thinking of a Classic here. The OP was talking about a P38 if I read the post correctly. P38s are very good off-road, but there is a heck of a lot to break, and it's very expensive if you do, which is partly why most people don't. Turn up at a Pay n Play day and you will see a lot of Discos, but not many P38s.
Er, no... The body roll on my P38 was a LOT worse than either of my Discos. The Discos both handle much better. It's a long time since I've driven a RaRo Classic but they're well known for rolling like a tanker. The interior was nice on the P38 but then it's nice on a Disco ES as well - same heated electric seats, autodipping mirrors etc if that's what you want.
Sorry Andy, disagree again. The onroad performance of both my Discos was better than my P38 by a long way in handling terms, obviously not as powerful though - but if that's important you can get a 3.9 Disco. And off-road a 200Tdi Disco will match a Classic most of the time, but offroading a P38 is just a liability.
It's a bit of a myth that Discos and RaRos are not as good as Defenders offroad. A lot of the time there's not much in it, at least if you're looking at LWB Defenders. In Iceland my Disco only got stuck once, through me not reading the road properly. The Defenders (110s) got stuck more often. I never needed winching, they did. It often comes down more to driver experience and things like tyres than the base vehicle, and whether you're prepared to scratch it a bit.
To me that's quite a lot in similar - Standard 5 seats, big boot. I reckon the difference between a pickup and CSW is much greater than that between a luxury offroad estate and a bog standard off road estate with a couple of extra small seats in the back. I do the same things with both my SWB SIII and my RR - Cart lots of people, gear and general crap around on and off road. Two very different vehicles, but very similar in final use. The rangie certainly doesn't get used as a road going luxury estate, nor does the SIII get used as a farm vehicle only.
Taken that into account - still reckon that with a good closed loop setup would do better than or the same as your diesel - provided Gordon doesn't get too greedy with the tax next year!!
But with a decent closed loop system on an EFi you'd get equivalent of
32-34mpg - the same or better than the diesel and more power.
I think the first post referred to classics. IMO the P38s are awful, I wouldn't touch with a barge pole! I think you've experienced them a bit from your past posts!!
I reckon the classics handle better or the same - am thinking about classic and disco S1 with no anti roll bars. The body weight's about the same, but can't remember about spring rates. Certainly from driving them I'd reckon the classic is better. Might be that the disco had shot springs. There shouldn't be much in it from the body weight / mechanical point of view. I reckon the reputation for poor handling came from the fact that classics have a big engine and a high COM , and generally got pushed outside there capability more than say a diesel 4x4.
I think we can definitely conclude that P38 are crap then!! I'd have to say I'm still with the classic though over the disco!
I'd have to disagree a bit - The only downsides I've found offroad with my RR over series and 90s are the long overhangs and general lack of ground clearence from the 205s. I don't think that theres any disputing that they're not as good as Defenders for this type of stuff. Traction wise there's no difference, they just physically don't clear the same ruts and ground out much easier at the back end.
On my 4.6 with a supposedly state-of-the-art sequential system, I was getting about 15 to the gallon on LPG at best, realistically somewhat lower most of the time. I'd be interested to know how the 3.5 and 3.9s compare with this - I guess better?
The new TD5 is yielding about 29 to the gallon at the moment, so not as much as the 200Tdi, but I'm probably driving it less passively.
Yeah, I'd be interested to know from anyone here with converted stuff - I was chatting a bit to a guy who'd installed a few closed loop single point systems on 3.5efis - reckoned about 17 mpg. On petrol they were returning
19-20ish so sounds about right. I'd love to get that with mine!!
I had heard the TD5 was a bit less efficient. 29 sounds quite reasonable though.
DF> Are you sure it's not just the extra weight of all that stuff you keep DF> bolting on?
Might be .... but then it used to do 18mpg with the caravan on the back. I need to get a good motorway run in - see what I really return. Mixed town driving never gives a healthy return
On or around Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:57:42 +0100, "David French" enlightened us thusly:
the word is that the 3.9 tends to be marginally better, I guess the extra ccs mean that it's not working quite so hard.
Mind you, my 3.5 is currently doing about 9 mpg, it definitely needs tuning properly, but since it's supposed to get a different inlet manifold/mixer setup fairly soon, there's not that much point messing with it too much.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.