Disco vs. Range Rover

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   discoNdixie Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:19 am:    I have a 1997 Disco that my wife uses as a daily driver. I am selling my current hunting/play vehicle. I have been pleased with the Disco andthe ease of repairs etc.; however, I would like to buy another LR product and the question goes like this: With all things equal (price, mileage, condition, etc.) would you buy a 1995 Disco or LWB RR? Give me a little insight, please. Thanks, Lee   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:25 am:    A LWB should ride a smoother than the Disco. The Rangies that I've driven, though, I don't like the layout of switches, etc... whenever I get in or out I hit the wiper switch, everything seems too low, etc. I really prefer the Disco's layout... but, I'm used to it, too... So, personally, I would get a Disco. But, if the layout isn't an issue with you, and you want to keep it on the highway, the Rangie should be more comfy. FWIW... -L   discoNdixie Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:37 am:    Thanks for the response. I am specifically wondering about the "cost of living" with the RR. Is it as easy to repair as the disco. I have heard horror stories about the air suspension etc? Any truth, and are there any other inherent problems vs. the disco. Thanks, Lee   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:43 am:    For ~$300, the air suspension can be gutted and converted to coils. Mechanically, they're the same critter. Different body panels, etc., of course. I'd pick the better vehicle between the two, if one is better than the other. If they are in truly identical condition, then pick the one you like (color, ride, whatever).... -L   PerroneFord Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:50 am:    The earlier RR Classics have less electronics than the Disco. The air suspension should be considered for replacement at time of purchase. Other than that, they are quite similar, and many parts interchange. I happen to like the better greenhouse in the RR, the lower waistline, the lower center of gravity, the lower roofline, and the simpler styling. But I'd drive a Disco too. Both are good Land Rovers. -P   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:53 am:    True, but a LWB is going to be later, now isn't it? -L   PerroneFord Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:55 am:    Umm no. The LWB is defined as a RR from 1993-1995. -P   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:59 am:    But wouldn't earlier RR Classic imply '87 through '92?? That's how I've broken them down, either pre'87 (i.e, non-US), '87-'92, '93-'95, then '94-current for the new ones.... Right? -L   Jon Williams (Jonw) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:25 am:    Not quite. '96 and newer are the newer ones. Anyway, Lee, since you mentioned hunting vehicle, the Rangies do have a tailgate and not a sedan door. And an LWB is a few inches longer than a Disco, so with the seats folded it'll be that much easier to fit a deer in there (although even with a loadspace liner I wouldn't really recommend that - done it before). But like everybody else says, they're mechanically quite similar to Discos, and round here, all things being equal, they cost about as much, too.   Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:36 am:    Didn't they start the new ones early, and have a year of production overlap?? -L   Jay Hobbs (Jayxd) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:51 am:    Having just moved from a 93 LWB to a 97 Disco I have to say I like them both, but find the Disco more appealing. The back seat space from the LWB is mostly what I miss but I like the height inside the Disco, it is all a trade-off. I think there are many instances where the price of parts are cheaper for the Disco than the RR but may be less a DIY job than the RR. Biggest change I saw which I wasn't expecting was insurance. My rates actually went down when I switched - I'm guessing they were still figuring original costs into the mix.   discoNdixie Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:51 am:    Since you say they are so similar vehicles, does that mean that pre-1995 RR LWB do not have serpentine belts, or any of the other 1995> Disco features? Thanks, Lee   Jon Williams (Jonw) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 11:00 am:    '95 Rangies share the same dash as a Disco, and the '95 4.2 had a serpentine belt. As far as I know, the 4.2 up through '94 had multiple drive belts, when the '94 Disco 3.9 switched to a serpentine belt (based on the ones I've seen). Hope that kinda answers what you were asking...   94Rover Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:16 pm:    The Classic body style was produced up until 95, but I argue that the Classic was suspended in 94-the reason I argue this is because the interior changed for the 95Classic- It was changed to the soft dash and it somewhat mirrors the Disco Interior....Now, the second generation RR was introduced in 95 also- it was badged the 95 RR 4.0, and it was sold along side the 95RR Classic...If you are in the market and your tossed between a 95RR and a 95Disco, then you should really consider the habits of the previous owner....The RR classic 95 in my opinon was cool because LandRover really stuffed it with all and every option they could before production was suspended...now on the other hand, a 95 Disco was produced with different options and trim features....If you are looking to get the most bang for your dollar, then go with the 95RR Land Rover Classic, by this I mean the SWB, because the LWB, wasn't produced as a LAND ROVER CLASSIC....understand what is being written...the 95Range Rover Classic, aka, Land Rover Classic is the term badged for the Range Rover in its final production year....If you are lucky you will land a 95RR Classic 25th anniversary edition, only produced in silver.....now in my opion, you'll have a model that will stand out in the crowd because it isn't produced anymore(the body style) and you'll have some really nice creature comforts for the 95 model year on the Range Rover, for the Disco, you'll have simple features on some and options that are ok on other 95 Disco's.....It's really hard to offer advice for others as to what model year to decide on.....My best advice is to shop, shop, shop, and drive the two......or you could save your loot and buy both at a later date.......The mechanics on both trucks are easy to work on...and thats the only way to go for me....If I'm paying for something, then I'm the one that will learn to repair it.....got it-   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:27 pm:    Is this vehicle going to be used off road or on? If you plan on taking it off road I would go with the Disco just because you have a better departure angle and you get a CDL. The post '90(or 91?) Classic Rangies have a VC and not a CDL. Now if you could find a good 87-88 Rangie I might consider that.   p m Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 12:32 pm:    DisconDixie, If i were to buy another rover now, it would be a 93 to 95LWB RR Classic. Doesn't matter much to me which year, or whether it has serpentine belt or not. Now that the only living thing shorter than 5'5" in my family is a 75# dog, and we put about 27kmi a year on the disco, rear legroom becomes the issue #1. Also, somehow, I haven't figured why yet, the 89RR drives much smoother and nicer than the disco, both with the same set of OME 751/762 springs. Despite the rangie having no sway bars, it doesn't lean nearly as much as the disco with sway bars front and rear. Off road, the rangie needs much more work than the disco, but at least one item is taken care of in the 93 and later RR (10-spline rear axle replaced with 24-spline like Disco's). peter   discoNdixie Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:34 pm:    The large share of my off-roading is in mud ruts and wading water crossing logging roads, to get to otherwise inaccesible locations. No rocks, so departure angles become less important than the rock hoppers out west. On my disco I have replaced the front shocks, steering stabilizer and am staring at steering box straight in the eyes. Should I expect the same if the RR LWB has the same running gear? Thanks, Lee   p m Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:55 pm:    yes I'd replace the front shocks and steering stabilizer anyway (if they came stock), along with one or both tie rods. peter   PerroneFord Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:56 pm:    Yes.   Bryan Crosby (Bcroz) Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 05:01 pm:    I had a 93 County LWB and traded it for a disco. Both are/were great vehicles. I discarded the air suspension for coils and was never happier. Life with either will be similiar from a wallet standpoint, both maintainance and fuel are about the same. I will echo the comments on rear leg room, I miss the extra inches in the rear seat but the higher roof line in the disco allows for larger items in the cargo area. Also, the jump seats are a big plus hauling the kids and thier friends around. What sold me on the disco was the handling. All in all, my wife liked the disco so much better she now has one too. Either, properly maintained, are great trucks but I have yet to miss my LWB.