Thanks for the input... that's why I'm posting.
I figure if I was about to do something really stupid without realizing it, someone would surely pounce on me. And that's a good thing!
The 96 is here:
http://salem.craigslist.org/cto/1221814947.html
And the 99 is here:
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=263264721
Is that a 3" body lift that you said it has? Fuck that crap.
That was the owners guess, it was done before he got it. I don't think it was 3"... maybe 1 or 2".
I expected to be disappointed by a crappy body lift job. Figured it wouldn't be hard to undo it if the truck was otherwise OK. I was pleasantly suprised to find I barely noticed it at all. Didn't look bad, wasn't too obvious, and couldn't really tell handling-wise either. I could still undo it, but I don't mind the result either.
why would you go after a 96 with 140K miles for $2K over a 99 with 120K miles for $2K? The part about "all sorts of work has already been done on the 96" is bullshit - the work has just been done to keep the piece of shit running.
I totally understand. From the pictures, descriptions, and everything else I would agree it's a no-brainer to go for the 1999. Especially with the reliability issues with the 96.
But having seen and driven both of them, it's a much harder call. (At least for me. Someone who can judge better/knows more might disagree.)
The 96 runs better. Drives better. Handled better. Transmission was better. Transfer case was better. In every mechanical category it appeared, sounded, and felt better. There is that tiny occasional shimmy that needs addressed... but on the other hand the dealership with the 99 wouldn't even let me take the damned thing out anywhere that I could drive that fast to begin with. (For all I know, it might do the same thing. Unlikely, but still.) They insisted I stick to their pre-determined route. The 96 owner let me go wherever I wanted, including some out-of-the way "off-road-ish" places in the area to see how it handled there.
The interior was in far better condition, except maybe the headliner (which wasn't bad). Everything (except AC) worked great.
There is some paint fade on the top surfaces of each. It is worse on the 96. I didn't find any dents on the 96 like I noticed on the 99.
The 96 is being sold by a private party that seemed to know their Rovers pretty well, but needs the cash for some nasty medical bills (which weren't disclosed, or volunteered by any sob story). He was more than happy to help get it checked out by a third party.
Whereas the 99 is coming from a mazda dealership where nobody seems to know a damned thing about the car or its history, and they whined and bitched and moaned about me wanting to get it checked out somewhere else... until I actually walked out on 'em. I had shit to do. Came back a few hours later and they were a little more agreeable, but still were trying to talk me into taking it on the spot.
I like the both the exterior and interior color of the 1996 better, too. Not a legit consideration when comparing, but still true.
The most obvious difference in the pictures (other than the 1996 sitting a bit higher) is the hood gap. (I can confirm the hinge was new, and the latch did need replacing.)
After reading your post, I'm back on the fence, at least. I could go either way. I know the 1999 should be the better truck, but it sure didn't seem that way in person.
You could be right... all the work was done just to make the piece of shit go. On the other hand that seems to be what everyone here does with all D1's. They all go down, and after you fix 'em they go some more. Some for longer than others of course.
My biggest worry about the 99 is that I'm suspicious that it is due soon for the same stuff I need to do to my other rover to get it back on the road again... in which case I'm screwed. It's right at the tail end of the range that I'm always hearing they need done, and I can't find any evidence that it already has been.
The 96 has 20k more miles, but is supposedly over that particular hump. If it was done properly (maybe, maybe not, but I'm thinking it likely was), it should be able to go for a few more years, shouldn't it?
By then I will have another new car, my other disco fixed, and space cleared out to work on that sort of thing myself again.
Tell me what you think, given this (also large) post and the pictures...
Does the bad reputation of the 96 and the current state of this example outweigh the lesser current condition and potential (real or imagined) looming HG repair of this 99?
And
thank you for taking the time to help me out here.
I've already been talked out of the jeep, both here and by some folks I know.
specops1526 said:
I'll sell you my '04 G4. It's way better than both.
I'm sure it is, and I'd love to have it. But if it's in the same price range, I'd be wondering exactly "why".