I don't read anything into that. It's marketing. Manufacturers changing the names of vehicles is hardly unusual. As one example Ford renamed the Taurus as the 500 and then went back to the Taurus again. Manufacturers also give different names to the same model across different markets. What's remarkable about that?
Engine Replacement or Rebuild?
- Thread starter pdXDisco97
- Start date
I don't read anything into that. It's marketing. Manufacturers changing the names of vehicles is hardly unusual. As one example Ford renamed the Taurus as the 500 and then went back to the Taurus again. Manufacturers also give different names to the same model across different markets. What's remarkable about that?
I fully recognize the fact that my XD is a re-sprayed SD Disco, but I also recognize that it's a rare product from LRSVO built on spec from LRNA. One one hand, it's just a Disco, so I use it. On the other hand, it's a rare truck, so I take care of it. They're also getting more rare, and so I see it as a responsibility to keep it running as an example of Land Rover in their prime. But that's just me, I like the yellow and the stickers.
I don't plan to ever sell it (situations can always change), so I'm not concerned about the resale value. I am a bit of a purist, and like the idea more of keeping the original engine, but I also am willing to entertain the options for power/efficiency or just plain uniqueness. I love the debate and the viewpoints. Right now, I'm firmly of the opinion to keep the V8 and rebuild if necessary. Once I've got the exhaust replaced, I'll determine if the rebuild is needed...
I don't plan to ever sell it (situations can always change), so I'm not concerned about the resale value. I am a bit of a purist, and like the idea more of keeping the original engine, but I also am willing to entertain the options for power/efficiency or just plain uniqueness. I love the debate and the viewpoints. Right now, I'm firmly of the opinion to keep the V8 and rebuild if necessary. Once I've got the exhaust replaced, I'll determine if the rebuild is needed...
You guys are suffering from survivorship bias. It's is like talking to a bunch of flat-earthers. Look, it's nearly 2020. Everyone knows LR reliability was shit in the 90s. Warranty costs were killing the company. If you've been under a rock for the last 40 years, look it up. Other than the Freelander, the RV8 was the only engine offered in NA during that time.
I'm not disputing that. In fact, I think of my D1 as the "least worst" of the lineup at the time. Heck, I could have bought a D2 or even a P38 or - God forbid - a Freelander of a 1990s vintage. All of those models are more complex than the D1 and have different vulnerabilities/quirks. I made my choice understanding the reputation and risks and being comfortable with the decision. That's not being a flat-earther. That's knowing that I'm going to sail into rough water in the Straits of Magellan and pressing ahead anyway because it's worth it to get to Fiji.
I've been tempted to buy a 2007-2008 L322 Range Rover knowing that the build quality improved and the Jag 4.4 V8 is a solid motor, but other factors have held me back. With my D1, for all it's personality, I know that for most problems I can pick up the phone and get replacement parts from Will Tillery at a reasonable price and do the work myself. L322 parts are more expensive and I think I would have to rely more on professionals to do repairs I'd otherwise do myself on the D1. I don't have the kind of disposable income it would take to keep an L322 running when each shop visit is $1,000 minimum. I'm sure I could learn to work on it but it's a different beast.
Hey I love V8 LRs for their strengths, which I mentioned, but personally, they give me anxiety proportional to their distance from my shop.
You have to quantify "reliability".
In many ways, they were more reliable than most cars of the era, built to a much higher standard inside and out, and there certainly wasn't anything else on the planet that had the performance balance. Blowing head gaskets on occasion isn't exactly uncommon among contemporary cars, nor is failed air suspension or buggy ABS. Many vehicles had ticking time bombs under the hood, and nearly everyone aside from the Japanese had terrible computers.
The Rover V8 pushed on. Even with problems, it'll generally get you where you want to go; which is far and above many of the aluminum engines that came and went and came again over it's lifetime. Many of it's engine management options over time were solid, as well.
Land Rovers, however, offered more than everyone else in the overall performance envelope. They were the only ones manufacturing a Sport utility vehicle, and near as I can tell that's still the case. You can't buy a new car today that's as well rounded as a Land Rover from 1994. It's not possible.
They were still trying to get past the genuine junk problems from earlier years, just like Jaguar, which was making very reliable cars at the time despite their reputation; and they weren't doing any better of a job of pushing the vehicles than they are now. It doesn't take much to put a company like that against the ropes, and let's not suggest that they've ever been off those ropes.
Land Rover wasn't selling Hondas, though... And yet Honda was selling Land Rovers; specifically the Land Rover designed to compete with Japanese family SUVS. What a strange world we've lived in. That's not to suggest Honda didn't have their problems back then, either. Everyone did.
The industry was seeing as big of a change then as it is now, and nobody was paying enough money for it.
Cheers,
Kennith
Honda failed big time at promoting the Crossroad. The LR dealers over there were totally swamped, 10x more D1s were sold per year.
Last edited:
It's kind of a shame, because it might have pushed them to try something new.
Neglecting to manufacture solid four wheel drive road and off-pavement car wasn't yet a tradition at Honda, so it could have been a believable vehicle.
I'd honestly love to see what Honda could do with the idea themselves if they let their image gain back a little edge.
Cheers,
Kennith
Well this kind of changes things a little. It takes nothing away from the fact that it's a nice truck. If it was
That wasn't the last venture with Honda you know. The Freeloader and the CRV started on the same piece of paper. Look at the CRV's from that era from the c pillar back. It's the same truck. We got the shitty Jatco trans. Honda pissed Rover off by going to market with there version before Rover was ready to bring out the freeloader.
I don't know how you're seeing that. The shells are completely different.
Maybe they both sat down at a design meeting and decided to build a small, uni-body SUV with independent suspension, but after that they left.
There is almost no similarity beyond building a box that opens.
As for the Freelander itself, I'd rather like to have one with low miles in showroom condition.
Cheers,
Kennith
There isn't a single square inch I can see that's not different in one manner or another; the height of the shoulder, overall shape of the sides, the actual size of the body panels under the cladding, the rear door, the lights, every single piece of glass on there...
As well, it's hard to find good pictures, but the entire floor pan and support structure is different, the wheelbases are different, suspension arrangement is different... It's a different platform entirely. What's the same? The license plate mounting pattern?
I think you are the one here needing glasses. The vehicles were developed separately, in-house, by their respective manufacturers on their own platforms; and so far as I'm aware, with no engineering partnership beyond that initial request for a small, everyday SUV.
Cheers,
Kennith
Last edited:
Sounds like the same thing that happened with the Explorer. At some point you have to start blaming other manufacturers.
My thoughts every time I drive the RRC or D1. However also enjoy the ‘04 A4 Avant and ‘04 Saab 9-3 ‘vert as well.
I can’t see myself buying a new vehicle as really dislike the majority of “driver” assist features especially the hands free driving experience. Let alone all the stuff on a new Rover.
Funny when the Disco was introduced it was a larger vehicle. Now it along with the RRC seem small when I look at the other vehicles on the road. Same with the A4 and 9-3.
This is also my experience. I owned a Jetta Cheaterwagen TDI before selling it back to VW. My Disco is 4" shorter overall than the Jetta, and people don't think of that as a big car.
Every time I rent a car on my travels I find all the modern safety features to be a distraction from the driving experience. There are alarms for almost every action you take, flashing lights, some cars even rotate the steering wheel for you if they think you're drifting out of your lane, it's infuriating. The safety features are so intrusive as to be dangerous. It drives me nuts. Sure, you can probably turn most of that stuff off, but it for me it's a deterrent to buying a new car.
I kind of consider them a bit like Unimogs: They look a hell of a lot bigger than they actually are.
Even the DII has a wheelbase an inch shorter than the Freelander (which is NOT a Honda), and is only about ten inches longer overall. They're also lighter than people think, and quite a bit of the mass that's there is located below the floor pan. Obviously the D1 and RRC are even smaller; but a little less stable given the more narrow track.
Still, every one of them is light-years beyond anything else from the era in performance diversity, and beyond most vehicles, even today.
You can buy something that rides better, that handles better, that tows more, or is better off road... But not all in one vehicle. Land Rover invented the SUV, and they're the only company that's ever built one.
That isn't to say there aren't nice utility vehicles out there and fast crossovers, but they have to give something up to make that happen. Hell, unless I'm just incompatible with the funny infotainment controls, I really want one of those AMG wagons, and if I get one I will indeed take it off-pavement; but it's not exactly going to make it through Rubicon.
Jeep has a fast vehicle now, but it'll never corner like a Rover. Once they got the body stiff enough, the Mercedes M and it's descendants were about as close as anyone ever got. The G is more capable out of the box off-pavement and faster, but it's not as useful in utility (the way it's actually sold here) and doesn't handle as well.
The Explorer was always a halfway decent option, but somehow it just didn't get the reputation for that capability, and wasn't as well-rounded.
Cheers,
Kennith