Author |
Message |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Paul T Hook (Rovernut)
New Member Username: Rovernut
Post Number: 40 Registered: 03-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 08:06 am: |
|
Hello All, I've owned several Rovers over the years, but never a Rangie. Would be interested in a 93-95 LWB, but need advice. Any major probs to be on the look out for other than the rear area rot and EAS blown? Which year model of the LWB is best or are they all about the same? BTW, currently have a '68 Series IIA 88" frame up restoration almost complete that would need to go to get the Rangie if anyone is interested. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Jaime (Blueboy)
Senior Member Username: Blueboy
Post Number: 785 Registered: 02-2002
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 09:38 am: |
|
Paul, 24 spline axles were added mid-year 1993. 1994 is the last year for the classic dash. 1995 had an updated dash with curves. Some feel the radio, general controls are better. HVAC is much better. One drive belt. Also check out: http://www.lrfaq.org/RR/FAQ.RR.RangeRoverC_US.html Good luck. There are many RRs in poor condition out there so be cautious about what you buy. Jaime |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff)
Member Username: Geoff
Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2002
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 09:43 am: |
|
Most of the car is rebuildable. Rust is your only real enemy on the frame or in the steel body substructure. There are plenty of used Rangies here in Texas or elsewhere in the southwest with no rust at all, so no reason to compromise. If you are not fixed on the RR, Discoveries (series 1 through '98) have essentially the same components with 2 important differences: The '96 up have much improved short block with 4 bolt main bearing caps (and better oil pump, serpentine belt, some other improvements) and the transfer case is the gear driven LT230. The LT230 is the same used in Defenders with manual diff lock. The '89 up Rangies have Borg Warner viscous limited slip. Most Discos also have stronger 24 spline rear axles. There are also a lot more of them vs RR, so more used parts availability. The '93.5 LWB RR have the 24 spline rear axles. As with all Rover v-8s, regular oil changes are key to longevity since the engine easily clogs with residues. Just look into the valve cover through oil fill cap - if engine blackened with sludge skip it. Figure $3-5K in parts + labor (or higher sales price) on a 100K+ mi Rangie depending on how deferred the maintenance is on the vehicle. I'd love to have a Series II but only have resources for one project at a time. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Paul T Hook (Rovernut)
Member Username: Rovernut
Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Jamie and Geoff, Thanks for the info. Geoff, I have a '97 XD Disco, so am familiar with them. Great vehicles. Looking mostly for more room and highway comfort w/the Rangie. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff)
Member Username: Geoff
Post Number: 135 Registered: 11-2002
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 09:41 pm: |
|
Paul, you probably know with the LWB all of the extra wheelbase is for rear seat legroom. Personally I like the looks of the RR and the fold down tailgate. I am happy with mine. We had a '97 Disco also. The air suspension is interesting, but I am glad I converted to springs. The later RR's have all of the Disco engine improvements, much better interiors, better air suspension, and potentially not as maintenance intensive as the Classics. They are also relatively cheap these days. You might consider a newer model with an extended warranty if you don't want another project. www.rangerovers.net is an excellent site that discusses both models. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Jaime (Blueboy)
Senior Member Username: Blueboy
Post Number: 789 Registered: 02-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 08:27 am: |
|
not sure I agree on the not as maintenance intensive part. there are tons more electronics on the second gen RR. ETC on all four wheels, a computer that has sensors everywhere down to if a light bulb goes out, a very complicated HVAC system albeit very nice when it works. compared to a Classic RR they are still expensive i.e. mid 30s for a 2000 on up. as Geoff mentioned, the additional room is behind the front seats and there is alot of it. we can put a cooler there and still have enough room for one of the Labs to lay down. and it is less rocky on the highway due to the additional wheelbase. also remember the Defender is a 110" and the LWB is 108" so they really aren't that bad off-highway. in Moab it did remind me that hitch has hit in it and we used that feature a fair amount. Jaime |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09423/09423170aee20e432148f2bb6d8bf72d5cbbe804" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf5d6/bf5d67beecec107be0f05d95776ac4c3a1f954b5" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aecb/9aecbfb0e0a6d2695545d2ff4399c98864ab299f" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e411/6e41175deec6462198d2b17d27c6c292a1455d44" alt=""
Martin Tuip (Ajax)
New Member Username: Ajax
Post Number: 21 Registered: 06-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 06:56 pm: |
|
Electronics on the last Classic RRs is pretty extensive also. Got 6 fuseboxes from what I found so far on mine. |