| Author |
Message |
    
Dave M.
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 12:48 pm: | 
|
Any major differences between '94/'95 Discos and the '96+ Discos? (all Series I)
As much as I would love a Series Rover (my dream), it doesn't seem like it will be in the cards for a while. We curently drive a new Mazda Protege5 which gives us a fast, fun, practical, economical commuter car. But we would like to add a second vehicle, and we would like it to be a Rover.
I am aware that the '96+ Discos got OBD2. I know that the '94/'95 Discos are OBD1 with a built in code screen under the seat. I have read repeatedly that the '96+ trucks ride better on road. Given that I was considering a Series truck, I'm clearly not worried about the on-road ride/handling of a '94/'95 Disco. 
I think that I want a '94/'95 Disco. I would be using it for off-roading, camping trips, and hauling stuff. It would only occasionally be a commuter car. The added simplicity of the early trucks appeals to me. They are cheaper to buy, and have a slightly larger aftermarket.
I would be putting on heavy duty shocks and springs, plenty of underbody protection, and BFG Mud Terrains. But no big lifts or anything.
So are there any other major mechanical differences? Any differences in features, interior design/layout, etc? Any reason I *shouldn't* save some dough and get the earlier truck?
Thanks. |
Jess
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 02:40 pm: |
|
hey man, my parents have owned a '97 and a 2000 disco...and they just bought me a '95...SWEET! hookup...i love it! its my favorite, and both they and i seem to notice no difference in the '95 and the '97...hope it helps.. |
Jon Williams (Jonw)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Gee, where to start. �94s and �95s used the old and tired 3.9L Rover version of the ancient Buick 215 V8. They had an electronic ignition with the usual distributor, which was not the pinnacle of modern engine ignition systems, but it worked. At least it still didn�t use points, and you could advance the timing to burn regular grade gas and get somewhat better performance and fuel economy. The OBDI diagnostic system you speak of is showy, at best. It never worked for me, and when it did, it displayed the wrong code. They use a mildly retarded version of the old LucasBosch L-Jetronic fuel injection ECU, which is quite fragile and costly to replace. It is, however, more responsive to engine modifications (such as K&N filter, warmer cams, superchargers, etc.) than the succeeding SegamLucas GEMS management ECU.
1996 brought a new Rover-designed 4.0L V8, designed originally for the �96 Range Rover and never installed in Discoverys anywhere else except the US until the Series II Disco came-out for the rest of the world in �98. With the 4.0L came a new engine management system called GEMS, that was modest at best when compared to systems like EEC-V, but was more robust than the old Lucas ECU and provided for coil-on-plug ignition and knock sensing, plus delivered marginally better fuel economy and better throttle response and power than most 3.9s. The 4.0 is not the same block as the 3.9, and the engine ancillaries are about the only things interchangeable (and I�ve heard cams are, but the 4.0 block is 75mm shorter than the 3.9, so I don�t know...). Also with GEMS came OBDII, which is more dependable than TRW�s old OBDI ever was.
Body-wise, the Discovery is the same �94-early�99. In �96, Rover added an amber turn signal indicator in the rear taillights, and there have been various interior trim levels offered. �96 models brought power seats, but it was the same seat as found in �94/5s, but had a real head headrest. �94 and �95 models were typically "loaded" as far as feature content went, but �96 brought the SD model in which "SD" can be equated to "stripped-down." Depends on what you like and want.
Mechanically, Discoverys have used the same coil-sprung Range Rover chassis forever. The running gear of course consisted of Rover�s beam axles with full floating hubs, coil springs, radius arms, and cheap Woodhead shocks. I�ve heard people say the �96s rode better. Since they are mechanically no different than �94/5s, it�s probably more a personal judgement than a real fact. A 5-speed manual was standard on all �94-�96 models, with a smooth ZF automatic available that became standard from �97-on. The R380 manual was modest and not very robust, and most specimens on the used market show signs of much "use." They are few and far between, so it�s not likely you�ll get one that hasn�t been gotten. Ashcroft�s in England sells rebuilt R380s for an acceptable cost, but you�re much better just buying an automatic Disco to begin with. The automatic is the same 4HP22 ZF unit used in older BMW 3 and 5-series cars, except it has an improved valve body that doesn�t blow the first-gear clutch pack when you high-idle the engine. It�s a good unit; much better than HD transmissions from Ford and especially GM. Also, �96 brought a refined transfer case, the LT230Q. "Q" meaning "quiet," as it is significantly quieter-running than the previous models. They are all manually-shifted with a manually-locking center diff.
So that�s about all I can come-up with off the top of my head. I�m sure there�s more, but this has been a lot to type and my fingers are tired LOL |
derek (Vortrex)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 03:48 pm: |
|
3.9 vs 4.0 liter motor, the power diff is noticable for sure. |
ChuckB
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 04:42 pm: |
|
Jon, nice summary...thanks
Chuck |
Dave M.
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 04:43 pm: |
|
Thanks Jon (and others). That is a great write up and should probably make it's way into an FAQ somewhere.
Looking at MSN Carpoint's "Reliability" ratings... the '94 & '95's scored 4/5 bars, but the '96 and ups get 5/5 bars. The difference is pretty signifigant when you go to the details.
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/overview/Land%20Rover/Discovery/used.asp?src=Home&pos=Find
I guess it will all come down to finding the right truck at the right price.... but I think Jon has swayed me towards the '96+'s now. |
JRoc
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Jon,
Hey kudos to you brother! Nice, informative post. I even learned some stuff about my "old and tired" 3.9. I have heard people say that after modifying there 3.9 they felt a huge difference in power, like you stated. Mostly just Chip, Piper Cams, etc. Might be cheaper for Dave to get a 94-95 and use the giant wad o' cash to make these simple upgrades. I love my '95 Disco but I wouldn't mind more power and better fuel consumption. Whatever ya get, you'll love it! Good Luck Dave! |
cartner
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 11:48 pm: |
|
How is it that you can run regular rather than premium in the '94, mine knocks like crazy on mid grade, of course it has also had the heads skimmed a bit when the valves were done....Clarification? the idea of regular intrigues both the mind and more specifically the wallet.... |
PerroneFord
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:28 am: |
|
Retard your timing enough and you can run damn near anything. Of course at the expense of power. This would also negate you slimming the heads. What compression are you running now?
-P |
Roger Fastring
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:39 am: |
|
How much to retard the engine to run 87 Octane? I should have thought of that before, I dont mind the expense of "power", really thats an oximoron in Rovers. Any experience out there of "x" degrees for timing for 87 vs "x" degrees for premium. That would be some great data! |
Ron
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 04:04 am: |
|
Jonw post has several mistakes, ok I am being nice, a LOT.
"1996 brought a new Rover-designed 4.0L V8, designed originally for the �96 Range Rover"
Came out in 94. Used on 95 new body style range rovers in the US and I THINK there were actually 94 new body style range rovers in the UK
"and never installed in Discoverys anywhere else except the US"
And canada (possibly Japan as well, I dunno)
"and the engine ancillaries are about the only things interchangeable"
valves, heads (mix and match with bolts and gaskets), NOT cam
Your comments on the interior are misleading, I won't bore everyone with details.
"Body-wise, the Discovery is the same �94-early�99."
94s did not have impact beams in the rear passenger doors. There are other differences that make panel swapping interesting as well.
"A 5-speed manual was standard on all �94-�96 models, with a smooth ZF automatic available that became standard from �97-on."
You could also get 97 5 speeds
"Also, �96 brought a refined transfer case, the LT230Q. "Q" meaning "quiet,""
LT230Q came out in 1998. 1996ish did improve the T-case with the addition of the crossdrilled input shaft (suffix F)
I am not trying to be mean I am just setting things strait. If you do not believe me look up the details.
Ron |
Ron
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 04:06 am: |
|
Ya and avoid 96 like the plague. 94 and 95 especially had a lot of QC problems from the factory but 96 is just asking for valve trouble.
I am much happier with the cap/rotor on my RRC than GEMS which is the bane of my existance
Ron |
MTB
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 05:00 am: |
|
Avoid 96 like the plaque WTF My 96 runs good. I owned since 98. Yes you can run into carbon build up but run cleaner through every 3000 miles and you are good to go. So what valve trouble are you talking about |
Kingfish (Kingfish)
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 08:03 am: |
|
Whats so bad about a cap and rotor? I've never had to fiddle with any distributer in my life. I'd stay away from the 96-97's. Everywhere I read, 96-97 are the years to avoid. According to MSN Carpoint, the problems regarding the 95's are news to me. Never seen 'em. As far as better fuel economy, c'mon man! I get 15-16mpg in my 95 and I doubt any Rover gets much better (ok, maybe 18 if your lucky). |
Jon Williams (Jonw)
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 09:21 am: |
|
Roger,
I advanced the timing to 9° BTDC on my '95, and that worked very well. I could burn 87 octane with no knocking. 12° BTDC was too much, and it started knocking past 10-11° the closer I got to 12°. 6° BTDC is your factory setting, and I wouldn't recommend retarding below that unless you really want to lean the thing out. Turning high revs burning Premium at 9° BTDC was like hittin' an afterburner (the effect of which was somewhat watered-down after it ran through two axles and a transfer case filled with 90w LOL) |
Mike J. (Mudd)
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 09:34 am: |
|
Hey Jroc,
is there a chip available for 95's to increase performance? Thanks |
JRoc
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 11:52 pm: |
|
Mike,
Check out rpiv8.com |
F.J. (Rovercon)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 08:47 pm: |
|
Well, I am here to defend the '96 Disco. I bought it used with 50K miles and I've put over 20K with at least 1/3rd of these miles off roading. Aside from the small oil leaks that come out every now and then (and from I've read in here Rovers are notorious for leaking oil), I haven't had any problems. I have to admit that I did read MSN and other reviewers when I deciding which year to buy and that's what made me choose the '96. |
Jon Williams (Jonw)
| | Posted on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 12:20 pm: |
|
...but continued from my other post, I wouldn�t consider my truck a typical case, since based on everything I know, burning 87 octane with the spark that far advanced on a (relatively) high-compression engine should�ve given me mucho detonation. I can�t explain why it didn�t. I had originally advanced the timing several years ago so the engine would burn Premium better (which it did � noticeably more power, 3-4 mpg increase in average gas mileage) but my son accidentally put 87 octane in it once, and I wouldn�t have know had he not admitted. Aside from the engine not seeming as strong, it never knocked and gas mileage stayed relatively the same. So since Roger is curious about spark timing vs. gas grade, here�s the results of some foolin� around I did with another �95 Disco a long time ago (since mine usually gave atypical results ).
With 87 octane, I backed the timing down to 2° BTDC. No detonation, but poor gas mileage and lousy power output (relative to burning 93 octane at 6° BTDC). So I advanced it to 4°. Still no detonation, and power and gas mileage improved only slightly. At 6° BTDC (the factory setting) the engine detonated occasionally, but got somewhat better gas mileage, with no real increase in power. I backed it down to 5°, but it didn�t make much difference. So I advanced timing to 9°, just to see how another Disco would respond, and the engine was detonating so badly it hardly ran (which is what I expected).
With 93 octane, backing the timing off below 6° BTDC only decreased power output (and I expect increased gas consumption, which would be typical, but we didn�t leave the timing set there long enough to do any kind of mileage test). Advancing to 9° brought noticeably more power, as compared to factory timing, and gas mileage increased (over time) about 3 mpg average. I then advanced the timing to 12°, but the engine detonated, so I settled back down to 9°, after it detonated at 10° and 11°.
So take these findings with a grain of salt. I expect you should see results similar on most every other '94 and �95 Disco. (I�ve been told mine just had a hot engine, which I can believe). Unfortunately, if you have a �96 or newer Disco, there�s not much you can do to play with timing unless you have an adjustable timing pulley. One I�m familiar with offhand is made by Steeda for Ford engines, but I�ve never seen anything like it available for Rover engines. But I�m sure some intuition and creative machining could produce one. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page