| Author |
Message |
    
Joe Still (Joedisco)
| | Posted on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 09:04 am: | 
|
OK Disco gurus, I've had a lot of fun with my 95 Disco for 18 mos but I'm being tempted to upgrade the style of my ride.
What do the experts say about the differences in cost, maintenance, fuel mileage, ease of owner repairs, etc? |
94Rover
| | Posted on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Keep your 95Disco, and purchase a 94-94 Range Rover. 94Range Rovers are sooooo easy to maintain, and 95's are almost just as easy- Just remove the E.A.S, and check your airbags in your steering wheel, and dash for any 95 over 100,000 miles. You wouldn't really be upgrading much, but you would notice a different set of creature comforts. The LWB would be a nice cruiser for those long trips with back seat passangers, something you could benefit from, and something you don't get in the Disco. The gas mileage is all the great, and probably not that much differnt than your Disco. Used 95's are selling around $6500-16,500 depending on mileage, and maintenance needs. E.A.S is the only bitch on Classic Range Rovers, and I am always wondering why owners continue to dump money into the system for repairs. But it's their money. Check out www.rangrovers.net, and www.lrx.com. If you are looking to compare purchase prices, www.autotrader.com and www.bvlr.com, etc.
The best deals are to be found when you find an owner that no longer enjoys dropping a Classic off with the dealer for repairs, or the owner thats just itching to get into P38A Range Rover, or a MKIII Range Rover. Get the Range Rover workshop manual, and your love will be extreme.
94Rover |
paul londrigan (Neversummer)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:19 am: |
|
I agree fully with the last post up there. I have had a 94 disco, an 88 rangie and now my 82. I'd say the thing i have noticed between the two is for some reason the Rangies always feel a little more beastly then discos. Maybe its just me, but I felt like the disco was more finesse and the rangie was brut force and muscle. The only other major difference not stated above was body role. There is a good deal more body role with a Rangie then a Disco, least i thought so. Go with the rangie!
regards paul |
han chung (Hanchung)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:32 am: |
|
get a rangie... you'll love it. most maintenance items are very similar between the 2. and in some cases, parts are interchangeable.
you'll love it. i used to drive a '00 disco... sold it and bought a rangie. what's nice? no payments... LOL |
jerry
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 08:50 am: |
|
My Wife drives a 95 discovery and I have a 93 RR LWB.. The leg room is the bigest thing we noticed I do think that the ride is a bit smother in the RR as well. MIne has had the EAS converted to springs, I have driven both and like the adjustability but not the maintance. As far as power is concerned I cant tell the any change even though mine had the 4.2 and hers is the 3.9. The range rover I think looks more manly than the discovery. |
Rob Davison (Pokerob)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 09:54 am: |
|
if you have a strong running rover and you are dumping it just for a change you might end up with one of those lemon rovers that everyone is complaining about. it's always tuff trading a good runner in hopes of getting another. now if your 95 disco has some reoccuring issues i'd upgrade to the 95 RR
range rovers are just so much nicer looking.
rd |
David
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:17 am: |
|
I'm really not adding much to what has already been mentioned but I have driven both (a 97 Disco & a 95 RR Classic LWB) and in terms of driveability and overall feel, they are so much alike but then again so different (exactly what many here are saying). I get this feeling that some of the differences is due to the longer wheel base when comparing a RR LWB to a Disco and often wondered if a SWB would be feel a bit more like a Disco. Anyhow what Paul wrote above with the RR feeling more beastly with more brute force and muscle is "right on" and that rear leg seat legroom really makes a difference. These two factors alone make for a substantial difference in feel. The brakes on the RR do feel much more firm and assertive and it has a smoother ride while the Disco drives with a bit more finesse and feels like a "tighter" put together vehicle. I'm certainly not the one who can speak of reliability between the two (others have far more experience), but my feeling is that the later Disco I's were put together a bit tighter with better quality control and generally come up with less niggling issues (big and small) with them on a mothly basis compared to a late RR Classic. I guess Rob said it best that basically when it comes down to reliability, it can vary from individual rover to rover so think twice before giving up a rover that has been "strong running" and reliable. |
Gil Stevens (Gil)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:55 am: |
|
if you are talking about a 95 classic range or a Disco, well thats up to you. I have a 97 disco and a 90 classic and they are quite different. The range does seem a bit more "raw" or unrefined than the Disco. If your talking about a 95 4.0 SE.. well, thats another story. Stay with the Disco. The p38 4.0 will eat your wallet. I had a 96 4.0 SE, great truck to drive, but I sold it the day after the warranty ended. |
Joe Still (Joedisco)
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:08 pm: |
|
Gil, What is a p38? I assume the 4.0 is the engine. And yes I liked the looks of the 95 4.0 SE.
Joe |
Gil Stevens (Gil)
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:36 pm: |
|
sorry Joe, thats the model code for a 95-02 range rover. Its just the new body style, well its not new anymore. In 95 LRNA sold the Classic SWB, the Classic LWB, and the 4.0 SE all side by side. Which is why when you said a "95 range rover" it could be one of three distinctly different vehicles. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page