| Author | Message | ||
     Bill Croom (Jwcalc) New Member Username: Jwcalc Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2004 |
I'm considering trading / selling my daughter's 2000 Grand Cher. Jeep and getting a '98 Discovery w/ 79,000 miles. I'm sold on the safety aspects of the vehicle. I've been hearing horror stories about Land Rover and the reliability factor and how expensive they are to keep up -- and all the trouble they are. You guys are the experts - obviously - and I wanted to hear what you all have to say. FWIW - the vehicle would come from a Land Rover dealer. Thanks for any input. | ||
| Felix Gumbiner (Felixthecat) New Member Username: Felixthecat Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2004 |
Unfortunately the rumors are true -- Land Rovers are infamous for their expensive upkeep; however don't let this deter you from purchashing one. I assume your daughter will be driving the vehicle, most likely as a daily driver with off-road travel at a minimum. Many of the Disco owners here use their vehicles extensively off-road, naturally the subsequent wear results in a consistent need for upkeep. As a grocery-getter/around-town vehicle I don't feel the Discovery is significantly less reliable than other high-performance SUVs. I use my '96 Disco as a daily driver as well as an OHV, and never once has it failed me. The safety aspects are profoundly misleading, keep that in mind. I will emphatically state that SUVs are by definition dangerous vehicles; the false sense of security leads many drivers to feel they are invulnerable. The Discovery is a difficult vehicle to control at high speeds, and does not perform well under hard braking. If you want a safe vehicle, buy your daughter a sedan! Just look at the statistics. Anyway, I digress... I don't mean to spout rhetoric! Long story short, ff you looked around at Jeep, GMC, or Ford websites similar to this one, I'm sure you'd hear horror stories as well! This forum is specifically for owners to gripe about the quirks of their vehicles, however look closely and you will see few posts about Discos leaving users stranded on distant highways. Disco engines are sound and true--they just need a bit of love from their owners now and then. As far as the dealer goes, I suppose the only major plus of that would be an included warranty. Dealerships vehicles aren't by definiton better running, so if you find a nice one from a private seller, don't get scared away. Hope that helps! Felix | ||
| Joe B (Denverrover) Member Username: Denverrover Post Number: 174 Registered: 02-2003 |
Bill - if you could get a 98 from the dealer with some type of extended warranty you should schedule some downtime when you could have the vehicle at the dealer to have the issues fixed. And - you will have issues. Try everything before you buy it, windows, power seat switches, abs light - when you turn the key on make sure the check engine light illuminates. I've heard stories of dealers pulling the bulbs because the check engine lights were always illuminated. Have the dealer run the codes - you may find that you have a bad O2, MAF, ABS sensor. Look for pinion seal leaks & have those fixed. They can leave nasty spots on the driveway. You are looking at about the best year for a D1 in my opinion. joe | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1379 Registered: 09-2002 |
Felix, I don't know what was your experience, if any - I haven't had any problems with emergency braking in a Discovery. A Disco is just as susceptible to cross-wind as a Grand Cherokee, but feels more controllable. Horror stories on the web - one has to have a passion for the vehicle to participate in a BBS. This is the main reason to hear more horror stories about Land Rovers than about Grand Cherokees - because for many people a Land Rover is more than a status symbol, unlike the JGC. From my brother's experience with a '98 ZJ, he's got a handful of mechanical issues that are practically unheard of in Land Rover world (although electricals were more reliable than LR's). Safety? Two winters back, my RRC was rear-ended three times within two months, by sedans. All incurred significant damage, without a single scratch on the Range Rover. Every time I saw the incident imminent, and warned my passengers - not one of them reported a slightest hint of whiplash. I'd say a rover is pretty damn safe for a kid to drive, if _your_ kid's safety is more important to you than the other party's. | ||
| Curtis N (Curtis) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Curtis Post Number: 1210 Registered: 05-2002 |
I have owned SUV's & trucks from various makes. With the exception of Toyota, they all seem to be expensive and somewhat troublesome. I would expect the reliability to be on par with her current JGC. I recently tossed my DS2 into a ravine and landed on the roof. We walked away without a scratch. Others have similar experiences, but i don't know how it compares to other vehicles. Just get it. They are great vehicles as long as you know what you are getting into. /Curtis | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) New Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 36 Registered: 01-2004 |
Peter, I think I would have to side with Felix on the safety issue. Safety and durability are not the same thing. If you get hit hard enough and the truck does not absorb the impact then you are going to absorb it all. That is why the two sedans that hit you crumpled; that is what they were designed to do. I bet their passenger cabins did not crumple. Whatch F1 cars. If they so much as tap something the car blows apart, except for the cabin. Driving trucks like ours are like dirving battering rams. If you hit something or something hits you from the front or back, the strength of the frame takes the impact. Depending on the nature of the impact, this may be good or bad. If you get hit really hard its bad, if you get hit not so hard its good (cheap at least). Land Rovers in accidents that are not head-on or rear-on may not fair so well. I'm sure a hundred people will respond with their stories of survival. I am not suggesting that LR's are unsafe. However, if you want the safest car possible for the widest variety of conditions and accidents, then I don't think a LR is the car. LR's are Tall, relitively short wheelbased and narrow, they are top heavy compared to a sedan, and their basic safety engineering is 15 years old. They may be on par with the JGC but they are behind other vehicles on the road in terms of passenger safty. | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Senior Member Username: Markp Post Number: 271 Registered: 02-2002 |
Well the safety engineering of my 75 IH Scout is 30+ years old and I would take it over a sedan any day. My son, slowed to a near stop on the highway due to congestion, was rear ended by a Ford Explorer that was rear ended by a Honda Accord sedan doing somewhere in the range of 55 mph. The Honda was totaled, the Explorer was significantly damaged both front and rear, the Scout rear step bumper was slightly bent and a rear cap needed repair. My son was not hurt. Nothing like a little mass around you when you need it, whatever direction it comes from. Our 98' Disco has been very reliable. No major problems. I would put it ahead of Jeep as far as major component reliability. The truck also has reinforced doors for side impact and a very robust overall cabin structure that goes along with weight and the inherent structural strength demanded of vehicles that actually are taken off road. The same thing cannot be said for SUV's that are not really 4wd's. Sure it sits higher but that gives you better vision to avoid incidents. As for a specific vehicle, it all depends on the previous owner. If a vehicle is not been taken care of then any vehicle will have reliability problems. Do a VIN search and ask the dealer for the shop records. He should be able to give you a print out of all service performed by Land Rover. Good Luck! | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) New Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2004 |
Modern vehicles are designed to sustain damage in accidents. That is how they absorb the impact and protect the people inside. Both examples above state that the vehicles were destroyed/damaged. What about the people inside? I think when we talk about safety, it is the safety of the occupants not the survival of the vehicle we are interested in. I'm not knocking LR's, I have three of them and I'd have three more if I could afford it. The original post said the guy was sold on the safety factor of Land Rovers. If safety is the only reason you are buying one, I think you could do better. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1380 Registered: 09-2002 |
Matt, when you are talking about people inside, think about conservation of momentum. Just like Mark says, nothing like extra ton around you in an accident. Also, there's an excellent point about visibility - you see EVERY CORNER of a Disco or RRC from inside, which is by no means true for the safest sedan (according to Consumer Reports). Your visibility ahead - and behind - the other vehicles in traffic is a very significant safety factor as well. | ||
| Ken Rountree (Krountre) New Member Username: Krountre Post Number: 17 Registered: 01-2004 |
Bill, I have a '98 LE that I bought almost 4 years ago and I love it. I had driven Ford trucks on a farm for the 15 years prior to the Disco. I wouldn't say the disco is any harder on my pocketbook than the F150s were. One thing I have noticed is that I was always waiting on a part for the F150s when they needed work, but Land Rover Buckhead has always had the parts they needed in stock. My D1 had 62K when I bought it. It now has 125K. Mostly road miles with some mild off road stuff (no bogging or rock crawling; its a tool for my job, not just a toy.) In that 60K+, other than typical maintenance I have dropped a lifter which cost me around $1,500 at 85K (and they had me on the road the next day)and I replaced the sunroof tracks around 90K. Oh, and I've had one flat tire. As it sits, the bottom of the driver's seat goes down but not up (seat switch)and the air condition cooling fans (on the radiator) aren't working (but I'm working on that as we speak.) Other than that, the thing has been bulletproof. And with some knowledge and a couple of well written manuals, it is pretty easy to work on. | ||
| Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff) Senior Member Username: Geoff Post Number: 283 Registered: 11-2002 |
Not sure why you'd trade a 2000 GC for a '98 Disco. The Disco dates to 1989 or really back to 1970 since its based on the Range Rover frame and running gear. The GC is a modern uni-body design with the typical crumple zones and such. The GC should fare better in say, a frontal offset crash. Most people on this board appreciate the Disco's rugged off road capability and its character. However a lot of the parts are made to be taken apart and serviced regularly, whereas the GC has a philosophy of sealed and maintenance free. The 4.0 engine in the GC or the 4.7 are trouble free. The parts availability and local servicing is much broader with the GC. Since your daughter is likely using it as a commuter, I don't see the benefit to trading your newer car for an older more maintenance intensive one. | ||
| Felix Gumbiner (Felixthecat) New Member Username: Felixthecat Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2004 |
The physics talk is nonsense, and entirely irrelavent in traffic applications. This boils down to the case of "passive safety" versus "active safety". Large SUVs like my Rover are excellent at passive safety. It's big and round and soft and I can see everything. But when I'm driving down the highway at 55 mph, and suddenly I want to avoid an object, that 40 extra feet my Disco takes to stop compared to a Camry sure wasn't worth the fenderbenders my ARB saved me from. (Not that this is relevant in my case: I, like most of us here, use our SUVs in their appropriate applications, and if not--ahem--drive with an understanding of their vehicle's on-road shortcomings.) Toyota Avalon has a driver and passenger death rate of 60 per million. Chevrolet Taho has a driver and passenger death rate of 141 per million. Grand Cherokee: 106 per million. Volkswagen Jetta: 70 per million. (University of Michigan study 1999) I really find it surprising that people still somehow believe in the myth of SUV safety, especially when your children have twice the chance of dying in a crash than if they been driving a sedan. If you want to talk about conservation of momentum, imagine this scenario -- Drive your Rover into a brick wall at 40 mph. Then drive a sedan of your choice. The sedan will suffer less damage simply because its unit-body construction and crush zones allow it to displace most of the force. That "extra ton" that you see as some sort of demented safety blanket will come hurtling right back at you through your dashboard. Happy 16th birthday, honey. Here's your Accord. | ||
| Bill Croom (Jwcalc) New Member Username: Jwcalc Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2004 |
Gang Thanks very much for all the advice. You all gave me a lot to think about. For the record - yes my daughter does use her vehicle for school-- college. We'll discuss your thoughts and make a decision. One more question --- other than money -- would a 2000 be much different -- reliability - trouble freee -wise? Thanks again. Y'all have been very helpful. | ||
| Ken Rountree (Krountre) New Member Username: Krountre Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2004 |
The differnce is that the 98 is a D1, the 2000 is a D2. I've never owned a D2 (though that's probably my wife's next ride) but I understand they are a little better fit/finish and the road ride is better than the D1. Mechanically I don't think there all that different; same motor, transmission etc. For that matter, isn't the Disco, RRC and Defender pretty much the same mechanically? | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1382 Registered: 09-2002 |
Good for you, Felix, you're a candidate for Darwin award. | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Senior Member Username: Markp Post Number: 273 Registered: 02-2002 |
Mmmmm ... Felix - don't let facts get in the way of a politically correct position. Especially from acedemia. Looks like auto fatality rates over the last several years are from 7% to 19% higher.  http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5041 | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) New Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2004 |
Peter, you better get a bigger truck if you are relying on mass to protect you. LR's are nowhere near the biggest/heaviest thing on the road. Your conservation of momentum argument does not hold water if you hit something that does not move (i.e. the brick wall) or something heavier than what you are driving. If you run into something that does not move and your vehicle does not 'slowly' crumple to absorb the impact, then you keep moving and hit the first thing (hopefully your seatbelt) that much harder. Deceleration is what hurts or kills people in auto accidents. The more you can slow the deceleration, the better chance people have of surviving. | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) New Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2004 |
Hmmm? what else has happened to SUVs over the last few years? Oh Yeah, they are designed more and more like cars. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1383 Registered: 09-2002 |
Matt, the argument about the conservation of momentum holds water regardless of what we babble about here - it's a fundamental law of physics. Yes, if you hit a concrete wall or rock face or anything else that doesn't move, different factors come into play. Namely, how high your body's acceleration will be during the impact. And that's where crumple zones work - they stretch out the impact process in time, lessening the acceleration. But, as you started your fingerwork on the statistics, be honest and dig out the percentage of collisions with immovable objects, compared to a vehichle-vehicle incidents. Also... back to conservation of momentum - bigger mass will help you even if your vehicle collides with a larger vehicle - your overall change in speed will be less. It is interesting also where a Discovery is placed in the mass percentile ranks of the vehicles on the road. | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2004 |
Peter, I think you better write a letter to the automotive industry. They've got it all wrong. Maybe you can help bring them back to where they were in the 1950's and put an end to all of this crumple zone crap. I don't know about you, but my drive is filled with freeway overpasses, telephone poles, tractor-trailers and Ford Excursions. If I hit one in my Disco, conservation of momentum still applies, its just not in my favor. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1384 Registered: 09-2002 |
Matt, I've been curious myself, and came across a breakdown in accidents by model year of vehicles involved (for 2000 and 2001). There are some interesting numbers: 1986 and older: 995000 incidents, 4516 fatalities. model year 2000: 931000 incidents, 3460 fatailities. That makes the fatality per incident fraction equal to 0.45% for older-than-1986 vehicles, and 0.37% for model-year-2000 vehicles. Remember that in 1986 all big Three made full-size, body-on-frame sedans, SUVs included plastic-roof Bronco, and Blazer, there were no airbags, and crumple zones' term only applied to vehicles between Ford Fiesta and Ford Taurus in size. So much for progress in crumple zones, airbags, etc. If you also consider that the occupants of older vehicles are less likely to use their seat belts, and significant fraction of fatalities is due to occupants ejected from the vehicle, the progress at saving lives comes to a grinding halt. Here's a link to NHTSA site with the document I quoted. There are other documents that list fatalities in incidents involving medium and large trucks, as well as single-vehicle accidents - these account for about 11% of all fatalities. So, pick your poison. | ||
| Felix Gumbiner (Felixthecat) New Member Username: Felixthecat Post Number: 16 Registered: 02-2004 |
quote: The physics talk is nonsense, and entirely irrelavent in traffic applications. Good for you, Felix, you're a candidate for Darwin award. --- LOL, fair enough! I'm not sure what I meant by that one. Touche! | ||
| Melissa Nance (Roverchic) Member Username: Roverchic Post Number: 79 Registered: 02-2004 |
Hey Bill! I have mixed feelings here! If you are buying it for your daughter..THEN SHE NEEDS THE WARRANTY! I am a female and thus far I have been able to do most the work on my 1998 LE(63.8k), but as today shall proove I blew code # P1187= O2 Sensors. That is obviously something that I could not do myself, however I have found that the parts are easy to get despite rumor. I have replaced the clutch fan, drive belt, minor hood adjustment,and lastly the infamous valve job. I did all of the work myself except for the Valve job of course. I have to be honest though I had a 1999 Jeep Cherokee before the Rover with a 2" suspension lift ..That car never had any problems(I put 75K on that one ..all it ever needed were tires). But I love my rover ... | ||
| Ron Brown (Ron) Senior Member Username: Ron Post Number: 783 Registered: 04-2001 |
That is obviously something that I could not do myself Ah melissa, O2s are really easy to replace. Alyssa did the ones on her truck. It is a 19mm I think (could be 17mm) wrench and one easy connector and you are on the road in 5 minutes. The O2s are right in front of and behind the cats. Ron | ||
| Melissa Nance (Roverchic) Member Username: Roverchic Post Number: 82 Registered: 02-2004 |
Ron- Thanks! EASY STREET!! Now if only the BAR EXAM(more specifically Constitutional and Administrative Law) could be that simple.  Mel | ||
| neil harman (Neil30076) New Member Username: Neil30076 Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2004 |
I just turned in my third Grand Cherokee LTD in a row, first ( 95) blew engine, they are known for gumming up the oil ways, even if you service at 3k miles, second did the same, new engine would have been $5k, dealer felt so bad so he swapped out for a 2001 GC, not bad, got fed up with it. Now drive 98 series 1 disco LSE, wish i had bought one 5 years ago. Parts are expensive, but i have a Porsche as well, so i know about big markups. Good luck with whatever you choose. Neil/Atlanta, GA |
