| Author | Message | ||
     Bill Howell (Billh13) Member Username: Billh13 Post Number: 75 Registered: 03-2003 |
I'm a disco owner and my wife really likes my disco. We are about ready to trade the minivan in. I'm wanting something to 4 wheel in and can't bring myself to stripping the disco down. I'm thinking about going to RRC and giving the disco to the wife. Here's my delimmia, I know nothing about them. What is the pos. and neg. to SWB vs. LWB? How hard are they to work on? Do all of them have ECU? What year does SRS start. What is the going price for one? I have heard that they have air shocks that are a POS. Any help would be great. Thanks, Bill | ||
| Kevin C. Burnett (94rover) New Member Username: 94rover Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2003 |
RRC's are really going for cheap these days.....95 Classic is the year with the SRS (airbags in the dash and steering wheel). Model year 95 Classic also has the interior (dashboard set up) that is similar to the Disco I set up. LWB extra rear seat leg room for passangers, and overall body length is '108 vs. SWB 100- Not hard to work on as long as you have the tools and the motivation to do so. My problem of doing my own repairs is that I am still learning some things, and the residential association where I live frowns on and fines for Car repairs (Stupid townhouse development-No rule like that when the family moves into the new house at the end of this month) Yes the EAS is a downer but if you replace it with Coil Springs your problems will be cured. Others will support your question with postive and negative replies, but my 94SWB is a joy to own. I wouuld keep the minivan if I had the choice to, but its your call. Lots of resources to check around for a used RR Classic. I am waiting until the end of the month before I move on one (another Classic) that I hope will still be available.... | ||
| Alan Bates (Alanb) Member Username: Alanb Post Number: 201 Registered: 07-2002 |
Lots of info here: http://www.rangerovers.net RRC's are very similar to Disco I, easy to work on, just get a factory manual. SRS '95 model only, prices are all over the place, check ebay, lrx.com, here, bvlandrovers.com, etc. | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2002 |
I've had a '94 Disco and now have a '93 RRC LWB with coils. Can't say there really is much difference in terms of the mechanical bits and associated repairs/maintenance. I bought the RRC as I couldn't find a Disco to my likeing at the time, but I think now if I had to do it again I'd go Disco. The extra legroom is nice, but I still have the impression that the usable space is more in the Disco. Finally, I prefer the "styling" of the Disco over the RRC as being a bit more distinctive. My two cents. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 429 Registered: 02-2003 |
i'm opposite of bill. i had a disco and i find the range rover much more beatiful and usefull. the tail gate rather than a door allows the vehicle to carry sheets of dry wall and plywood, on the disco i had to use the roofrack and it was a chore. also it is nice to sit on the tailgate or sleep in the back with it down, try that in the disco. also i purchased a 1989 range rover which lacks ABS braks, which was my number one complaint in the disco. rob | ||
| Michael Slade (Serious_one) Member Username: Serious_one Post Number: 70 Registered: 04-2003 |
Regarding the RRC, Rob's attitude is absolutely amazing. Funny thing is, I share every one of his thoughts exactly. Get the RRC. | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2002 |
Rob's comments do make sense and I have found the horizontally split tailgate more useful than the door of the Disco. Hell, I'm just happy to have a Rover again and in the end of it all, I'd take any of them for the right combination of price/condition. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 433 Registered: 02-2003 |
LOL, i'd like one of each again. rob | ||
| Bill Howell (Billh13) Member Username: Billh13 Post Number: 77 Registered: 03-2003 |
You guys have helped alot but, you guys have raised a few more questions. Less is better. I love my disco but, the little things break all the time. What year did they start making RRCs and did they make a bare bones one...i.e. no ABS,SRS,ECU, or EAS. Boy that is alot of letters. I have decided on the LWB, now have to decide on year. Once again thanks, Bill | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2002 |
They started producing the RRC in 1970 and made them thru 1995. The early ones were pretty basic intended as a supplemental line to the Series models. That is, for the richer farmers to use on the farm. NAS versions were not officially imported until 1987 and by then the RRC had gone upscale. This increase in features (and cost) accelerated once there was acceptance of the model in North America and Rover figured out that an upscale SUV made more money than a fancy farm truck. Bottom line, the early NAS RRC were pretty similar in spec to the '94-'96 Discos. So given that choice, I guess I'd still choose a Disco. | ||
| Alan Bates (Alanb) Member Username: Alanb Post Number: 202 Registered: 07-2002 |
Bill Howell: It is not possible to get an LWB without all the electronic stuff, LWB's were made between 93 to 95, 95 will have SRS. If you really want a bare bones RR, then it will have to be a 87 or 88 SWB. | ||
| Jon Santana (Mustache) Member Username: Mustache Post Number: 54 Registered: 09-2002 |
Alan said it. 87 or 88. You get less crazy electronic stuff to break and the kick-assy LT230 t-case. Only drawback is the 3.5 | ||
| Ho Chung (Thediscoho) Moderator Username: Thediscoho Post Number: 154 Registered: 02-2002 |
go with a 4.6 HSE.  ---------- Ho Chung | ||
| Steve Cooper (Scrover) Senior Member Username: Scrover Post Number: 335 Registered: 09-2002 |
I like my crazy electronic stuff, the 4.2 and hopefully the kick-assy LT230 t-case | ||
| Joe Wooten (Joe_w) New Member Username: Joe_w Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2003 |
Bill, I have a '93 Classic SWB. Short wheelbase has a little advantage offroad, but less legroom in the back seats. The SWB has coil springs, and a self leveling unit in the rear that the LWB doesn't have. It really helps fully loaded on the trails. '93 also included rear traction control, which comes in handy sometimes. No airbags also until '95. If you are looking for a trail truck, I think I would consider the SWB instead. Also, I have a Disco and RRC. If both are sitting in the driveway, I'll pick the RRC most every time. I just find it more fun to drive. Good Luck. Joe | ||
| Aaron Richardet (Draaronr) Member Username: Draaronr Post Number: 133 Registered: 09-2002 |
Gotta go with the popular vote. I have both and the classic is my favorite. If you plan to offroad definitely the RR, besides there are a lot fewer RR than discos | ||
| Jaime (Blueboy) Senior Member Username: Blueboy Post Number: 671 Registered: 02-2002 |
LWB does have the self leveling unit which if the EAS system is replaced by HD coils doesn't do much of anything. few folks just remove it. the LWB does drag its ass on sharp dropoffs yet that why the hitch has hit in it. no big deal on most stuff. just makes noise on rocks. as the RRC is not as tall as a Disco, with a roof rack full of stuff like Peli cases, jerry cans, whatnot, the CG is lower and not as tippy especially with HD springs. the area behind the front seats on a LWB is great for placing coolers, Pull Pal, etc. on the floor which adds to storage space. one area of concern for a RRC is rust. the aluminum panels are bolted onto steel structure which isn't that well protected from the factory. in areas that use salt, hidden rust could be a big problem. the rust worms did a number on my RRC which took some work to rectify. for an "expedition" type vehicle, the LWB fits the bill and still is no slouch on the rocks such as Moab. Jaime  | ||
| Bob (Yomtov) Member Username: Yomtov Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2003 |
I have a 93 RRC LWB but also looked at Discos. I like the fact that I think in the long run a well maintained RRC is a better long term value than an early Disco of similar price range. Try to find a SWB this model is probably the most sought after RRC. Good Luck with your search. | ||
| Perrone Ford (Perroneford) Member Username: Perroneford Post Number: 115 Registered: 02-2003 |
Why hasn't anyone helped this gentleman into a Hunter Edition. Bill, in 1990 or 1991, there was a Range Rover Classic edition called the Hunter. It had NONE of the garbage on it and was no-frills. Rubber mats, cloth seats, no ABS, etc. Great if you're looking for a simple trail truck. There was one for sale near me last year but you don't see them too often. I'd poke around for a couple of months and see if I could locate one if I were in your shoes. -P | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 440 Registered: 02-2003 |
lol... there was one for sale on this bbs a while ago too... i'm still pondering ho's 1996 4.6 HSE... i'd love one of thems. | ||
| Michael Slade (Serious_one) Member Username: Serious_one Post Number: 71 Registered: 04-2003 |
I'm prepping my '94 LWB for sale. It's the one I just pulled the LT-230 out of and put back in a BW. It's a local Las Vegas car, so no rust, it's straight, 111K, lots of stuff is new, and runs strong. Hate to be a pimp, but I'd like to see it go to someone who will appreciate it and not some soccer mom who won't. Oh yeah, it's white. You can e-mail if interested and want more info. | ||
| Perrone Ford (Perroneford) Member Username: Perroneford Post Number: 120 Registered: 02-2003 |
Hey Mike, can you drop me an email please? perroneford "at" yahoo.com Thanks, -P | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 801 Registered: 09-2002 |
Bill, here are my impressions: - a Disco with OME HD springs and Bilstein shocks rides like a truck, compared to SWB RRC with OME HD springs and Woodhead shocks(softer valved); - an SWB RRC with OME HD springs rides and Woodhead shocks rides like a truck compared to a stock LWB with air suspension and Bilstein shocks. - The LWB blows the doors off both Disco and SWB in handling and power. however, I still cannot bring myself to posting my 89 RRC for sale. okay, it is for sale. peter | ||
| A. Ali (Alia176) Member Username: Alia176 Post Number: 55 Registered: 03-2003 |
Say it isn't so Peter! | ||
| Donald Box (Roverheadtx) New Member Username: Roverheadtx Post Number: 8 Registered: 08-2003 |
bill, you have the right idea. give the disco to the wife and get yourself an RRC, preferably a LWB. i have a disco1 for the wife and two LWB, one a highway cruiser and the other i am building for mild off-road. when i mentioned returning hers to stock and removing the OME/Bilstein suspension set-up she said no and later i asked about removing her BFG MT-KO's for my LWB project and she said, "hell no". i guess the moral to the story is, if your wife is like mine and you get her started on rovers, there is no rest and never enough $$$ for the owner of a rover stable. i wish you luck on your decision, but i must give one more plug for the LWB, love that extra legroom, everybody does. |
