| Author |
Message |
    
Mike Dougherty (Mikedougherty)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 03:36 pm: | 
|
Hey all,
I'm new here to discoweb (as if you couldn't tell by the subject), and off-roadn' in general. I figured it's about time I started looking into getting an off-road vehicle. A friend of mine is very much into Rovers and I have been to a couple of club events with him. As with the PCA stuff that I have done, Land Rover enthusiasts seem to have the same motto: "it's not just the cars, it's the people." I have enjoyed meeting friendly and helpful people. For that reason I am pretty sure a Land Rover is the way to go.
Anyway, the point of this post is to gain some insight into which Rover I should be considering. I like the styling of the Range Rover Classic and am leaning in that direction. But I haven't completely ruled out a Discovery I or Defender 90.
The two primary reasons for getting this vehicle will be to off-road and possibly tow my Boxster to races (however, the towing part probably wont be needed for a little while yet). I'm not going to mind spending money on the rig (maintenance and some small improvements), but it should be noted that my first love is my Boxster (at least right now, maybe that will change with time) and it will get a majority share of my attention and money.
Right now I am just fishing for information. It took me almost a year on the Boxster, from idea conception to check writing. I'm sure my friends were getting very tired of me talking about it and asking questions. But now I have a car that I love to drive and will require someone prying my cold dead hands off the steering wheel before we will part. I'm hoping to find an off-road vehicle that will inspire the same passion and enthusiasm.
Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?
Thanks,
/mike
P.S. I did a search for a similar conversation but the results were to numerous to go through. So if you know of a previous conversation on this topic please post a link. |
Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 03:41 pm: |
|
For towing I would consider a Rangie Classic or Disco. The D90 may not be a good tow vehicle. As for the Rangie the best ones for off road use IMO is the 1987-1988 with the CDL and not the VC. These cars have a 3.8l engine that could use some help when towing even a Boxster. I've driven a 1988 RRC with a 4.2L and that wasn't bad. So asside from installing a new engine in a RRC you may want to look into a post 1996 D1.
Just my 2 cents. |
Mark & Bev Preston (Markp)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:00 pm: |
|
Keep in mind the weight of the towed vehicle plus all the race "stuff". Both wheelbase and weight are important. Any idea what your towed weight will be for race day?
- Mark |
Andrew Clarke (Aclarke)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:09 pm: |
|
Now I've heard that you can get a lift kit and 4x4 conversion kit for the Boxster. Throw a Series body on top for the weekend and nobody will be the wiser!
Actually Mike it just occured to me that you ARE a prime candidate for a Land Rover product if you can go off-roading for the weekend, end up in a dead vehicle 2.5 miles into the trail and come back the next day and start looking for a Land Rover of your own!
Just more helpful tips from a friend who's "very much into Rovers" haha
Al, wouldn't it be better to get an '89+ RRC and install a locking centre differential (or spend the money on a rear one) vs. getting an -'88 and spending even more $$ on an engine? Plus, is that even ALLOWED in California (where Mike is)? |
Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:32 pm: |
|
That's why I also suggested a Disco. But I don't think CA would have an issue with installing a newer engine into an older car. But since I don't live there I don't know for sure. The D1 might be the best bet for both off road and towing. |
Rob Davison (Pokerob)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 05:06 pm: |
|
87-88 came with a 3.5l not 3.8
i think a nice 93-95 LWB 4.2l RR would be better for towing.
rd |
Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 05:18 pm: |
|
Doh, you're right about the engine Rob. As for the LWB, it would be nice for towing but wouldn't serve as well off road as a Disco might. |
Mike Dougherty (Mikedougherty)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 06:44 pm: |
|
* The way I figure it the car at ~2800lbs, maybe 500lbs of gear, plus the trailer, will be under 5000. At least that's what I have come up with so far. If I get real into racing (I just started that last Nov. so I'm a newbie there also) and need more stuff I will probably end up having to get something like an F150 or Silverado anyway so it wont matter. Of course if I go the other way and just completely suck at racing it wont matter either. So the way I figure it in 2 to 3 years I'll either need a dedicated tow vehicle or not at all.
* So I guess the math for an RRC is:
if cost of '87 or '88 RRC + 4.2L < cost of '89+ RRC + CDL; get '87 or '88 RRC, else '89 RRC.
Of course if Andrew is right and it is illegal to put a 4.2 in an '89+ RRC then the math is even easier. But I don't think that is the case. I know people that have put 3.6 and 3.8's in older 911's and Boxsters (yes, legally). So I think there's a way to do it.
Hmmm... wonder if I can squeeze the 3.5 taken out of the RRC into my Boxster. 'Course I'm not sure I would want to, the 3.2 that's in it would probably kill it....I digress, end of tangent.
* I've been trying to come up with some firm towing numbers on D1's. But the only place that I've seen any relative information was at Edmunds.com and I don't trust their data on older cars. Mostly because they had a '96 Disco rated at 1600lbs and a '97 Disco rated at 7700. From what I understand there were no major changes in drive-train or chassis between the two years so there is no logical reason for the difference in rating. Unless I am missing something?
* Yeah, I kind of figured the Defender was out of the running, but I had to mention it. It was a nice fantasy while it lasted.
* So what would be the determining factor between an RRC and a D1? Just money? Or is there something else? I know this is "discoweb.org" so you guys have a bias towards Disco's. But biases aside, is one really better than the other, or is it just a matter of personal preference? If one is better, why?
Thanks for the input so far,
/mike |
Axel Haakonsen (Axel)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 07:56 pm: |
|
It's really not that big of a difference between the RRC and the D1. They are basically the same drivetrain with different body styles. 89+ RRC has a different tcase with a viscous coupling, while all D1's have a locking center diff. It really comes down to personal preference. |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 08:33 pm: |
|
Mike,
the 93+ LWB rangie might be a better choice as a tow rig. You get 4.2l engine, and 8" longer wheelbase. You might have to swap out the air springs, but it's a matter of preference.
Speaking of swaps... you can legally swap any engine that's newer than the vehicle in CA; that means, you can get a pre-89 short wheelbase RR, and put 4.2 or 4.0 or 4.6 in it. Basically, it will likely double the initial cost of the RR (about $4-5k for 88-90 in a good condition).
peter |
Mark & Bev Preston (Markp)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 09:22 pm: |
|
Mike,
Here's my take. I have a 98' D1 with the 4.0L engine and a 95' RR Classic LWB with the 4.2L engine. I have also towed a camper trailer at probably 3500 lbs with a 75' International Scout. Amazing how close a Scout is with a Disco - ~4800 lbs, V8 at 177 hp vs 188 hp for the Disco and both with 100" wheelbase. The 95' RRC is 108" wheelbase and 200 hp at slighly more weight. Towing with the Scout, a 100" wheelbase and 3500 lbs in wind was lets say interesting. Lots of weight and a relatively short wheelbase are not a good combo. Between the Disco and RRC it also seems like the RRC has more than 12 hp. Must be torque and curves. I'd say the RRC with a 4.2L engine would win hands down. Plus a classic LWB is the same wheelbase as the 96+ year wheelbases. With a lift kit and larger tires a 95 LWB would make a fine 4wd.
- Mark |
Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
| | Posted on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 10:38 pm: |
|
To address the tow ratings of the D1 I think it was 5500lbs, the 1600lbs was for no trailer brakes and the 7500lbs was for towing in low range. D90's were about 3500lbs (tow rating) |
GregH
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:03 am: |
|
Congrats on the Boxster. You said 3.2 so I assume it's an "S". Very nice...
As far as a dual use vehicle, I agree with Rob D. The 4.2 and 108" WB will make a better towing rig. Depending on where you live and wheel, the compromise in breakover angle won't be that big. You definitely will need a trailer with brakes though.
BTW-if you happen to live in California (esp. Southern) and are wanting to race your Boxster, try looking in to the Porsche Owners Club. They are a great group of performance-minded Porsche enthusiasts. I found the PCA to be little too "Concours-minded" for me.
Go to www.porscheownersclub.com
Good Luck-
GregH |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page