| Author | Message | ||
     Jonathan Good (4n24wd) New Member Username: 4n24wd Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2004 |
Do all the Disco II's have the badge out back near the door ? And I'm debating between a 94+ LandCruiser and a Series II Disco but I'm kinda in between the two. I think I'll get more life from a Toyota, but really like the Disco's. I'd be shooting for a Series II since I read that there more powerful w/ the BMW V8 and they've been refined a bit from the Series I's. Mods look like they'd be much cheaper then a toyota but not by much. Can I get some convincing thoughts from the dedicated owners out there or are there none ? Solihull's, is that what yall are supposed to be called ? Anyway all input is taken into consideration. thanks folks ! Keep you posted on the path taken !!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Chris Browne (Chris_browne) Senior Member Username: Chris_browne Post Number: 714 Registered: 02-2003 |
1: Its a Rover V8 not BMW 2: Series 2 Discos started in 1999, and are quieter, ride better and probably better built than D1s, but only a few D2s have a locakable center diff, which is a desireable feature off road. Don't know squat about toys,except they ditched the solid front axle at some point in the last few years | ||
| Jonathan Good (4n24wd) New Member Username: 4n24wd Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2004 |
Yeah I know about that one ! So I've been told now that DII's started in 97', 99' and 00', SO WHICH IS IT ? I thought that BMW started making the DICSO's more reliable and powerful strating in 97', is this incorrect? I tell you, it's hard enough to get answers to ?'s, let alone figuring out which vehicle is which, aside from all the other stuff to weed through. What about a 99' Disco ? Lockable C-Diff ? Bosch electronics instead of Lucas ? Can someone laydown the law on these quirky 4wheelers ! PLEASE ! | ||
| Curtis N (Curtis) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Curtis Post Number: 1298 Registered: 05-2002 |
The D2 began production in 99.5 The 4.0 began in the '97 D1. Starting about '96 - '97 BMW began a campaign to improve LR's QC. The conversation went like this: BMW: "We think that there may be some QC issues here at LR." LR: "What is this 'QC' you speak of?" | ||
| Felix Gumbiner (Felixthecat) Member Username: Felixthecat Post Number: 63 Registered: 02-2004 |
I'm pretty sure the 4.0 V8 started in '96. | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 127 Registered: 01-2004 |
The debate continues! I've owned both Rovers & Cruisers & they both have their Weak/Strong points. I now own a D2 (99 w/55k) & have spent as much on repairs in the 3mos I've owned it than I spent on my FJ-62 in 3 years of ownership. That having been said I'm happy w/ my choice, if you are willing to spend the coin on the upkeep the Rover is an excellent choice. If you want something you rarely have to repair, buy the Cruisher. If you are looking for an off road rig & not just a mall crawler, the Toy comes from the factory w/ CDL & locking diffs, the Rover has a shorter wheelbase & better approach/departure angles. Much to my suprise, parts for the Rover seem to be less that the stuff from Rising Sun Inc, (make it up on volume I guess). When I bought my D2 I was hell bent on a locked FZJ-80, but after about 6mos of searching I found my 99 for less than 95-96 Cruisers w/ 100k+ on the odo. Time will tell re: running costs. My glasses arn't rose colored, but I'm an Anglophile @ heart, & willing to live w/ the Rovers "personallity". Cruisers have their quirks too & when they break it cost's. Whichever you choose get involved in the community. it will save you many heartaches. One other thing to keep in mind if this is to be your primary mode of transportation, I can drive to 5 Toyota dealers in the time it takes me to get to the Rover dealership. | ||
| Alan E. Foster (Vt_alan) Member Username: Vt_alan Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2003 |
Felix is right ... the 4.0 came about in '96, although it wasn't in the D90s until '97, since there were no official NAS 90s in '96. | ||
| James M. Reed (Utahdog2003) New Member Username: Utahdog2003 Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2004 |
Traded my 99 Tacoma 4x4 for a 2003 Disco just a few weeks ago. I do not have the CDL, but then neither did the Taco (which was also had open difs fr and rr, and was still nearly unstopable, even at Telico). I have drooled over the DiscoII since they arived on the market, which made the "which 4x4 to get thats family friendly, but still a real truck" question a no brainer! I would guess that your 'Cruiser-80 with many computers' vs 'DiscoII with many computers' question will lead you to some expensive repairs either way, especially if you're trail bound. what can I say, I'm an Optimist! | ||
| Jonathan Good (4n24wd) New Member Username: 4n24wd Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2004 |
Ok, now I'm getting somewhere ! I must say that the more I hear about cost and service, the more I cringe about it ! I love the DISCO style as well as Range's and such, BUT the cost, ongoing problems seem to be daily ! I must say I'm leaning towards the Land of the Rising Sun guys! Are there any convincing things I'm forgetting ? The dealer toic is a good one too. Never thought about it but it's way more likely to have to get something from AUTOZONE for a Toyota than a DISCO I suppose. How long should one expect out of the original engine of a DISCO, Series I or II ? I must say I haven't seen many after 150k ! | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 128 Registered: 01-2004 |
Don't plan on finding much in the way of parts @ Autozone ect for a Cruisher or a Disco. Or @ the Toy dealer for the Cruiser for that matter. These things are just too rare in the grand scheme of things. Parts are available for both, it just might take a few days. | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 129 Registered: 01-2004 |
Do a search re: your engine ???'s The 4.0's have some pretty major problems, sticking valves, slipped cyl liners, ect. Seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which ones, but common failures none the less. The 1FZ-FE is pretty much bullet proof, with the exception of a little known heater hose that tends to get overlooked, fail & blow the head gasket. | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 1144 Registered: 09-2002 |
The Disco has a unique character that's hard to put a value on. FWIW | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 130 Registered: 01-2004 |
Alan, I agree, but so does the Cruiser. I love this debate, we're talking about the 2 best all around 4X4 "utility" vehicles ever offered to mere mortals in the US. They are both the last of a dying breed, vehicles designed & expected to be used off road. I could be extremely happy w/ either one, albiet for different reasons. B | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 1145 Registered: 09-2002 |
Yea the Cruisers do too. A family friend had one a long time ago for hunting. Took me out on cut-lines and stuff when I was a kid. Fun as hell. I have another friend though that had a Cruiser before and now has a D90. He considers the D90 actaully cheaper to fix than the Cruiser he had. Said parts can be hard to come by for Cruisers and when you do find them, very expensive. Of course, if you rarely break anything then it's relative I guess. | ||
| Felix Gumbiner (Felixthecat) Member Username: Felixthecat Post Number: 64 Registered: 02-2004 |
Jonathan -- Just because it's the experience of many that Rovers need a lot of expensive upkeep, don't feel that you'll necessarily have the same problem. I bought my '96 Disco (1996 is considered a "trouble" year) with 87k on the clock, with two previous owners. It's in fantastic shape inside and out, and only set me back $8,000. I take it out on trails at least 4 or 5 times a month, and so far I haven't put any significant amount of money into it. Don't be put off and feel the minute you buy the truck it'll fall apart. | ||
| Jaime Crusellas (Jaime) Senior Member Username: Jaime Post Number: 307 Registered: 05-2003 |
Jonathan, I have a pair of 97's that I've owned since new. 75k on one, 115k on the other. Outside of normal maintenance items, I had to change the water pump and wheel bearings on the high mileage one, and exhaust systems on both. I'm very happy with their reliability, and expect to continue maintaining them indefinetly. there are 30 and 40 yr. old Rovers running around, and I expect that my pair will age gracefully. | ||
| Andrew Homan (Andy) Member Username: Andy Post Number: 56 Registered: 01-2004 |
We need to remember that Land Rover was making Off road vehicles when Mr. Toyota was a baby. Some credit should be given to being the originator of something not the copier. I worked for Toyota, Yes they are reliable. Yes they hold there Value. Yes they have "some performance". But they will never beat Originals ? NO. Toyota has so much more money that Porsche or Ferrari, but who has won more world championship with less money? yes Porsche and Ferrari. Same goes for off-road. Toyota is trying to break into the Big pick-up category they may do ok but who started it? Ford Chevy and Dodge. Yes my rover leaks (very little) but I put it in the same condition if not better than the last Toyota I bought used and it rattles a lot less. I heard many complaints similar to those on this site about Cruisers when I worked at a service dept for Toyota. If you like the disco buy it!. be smart and check it out learn how to service it or find a good truthful mech and enjoy. In the short time I've had mine I have bonded with it and truly enjoy it. All the parts I've needed (not many) have been at my local NAPA store. Hell my wife is even starting to like it. just remember a rover is an enthusiast vehicle a toyota is transportation. (no disrespect intented to toy owners I've had three). I'm done ranting now! Just remember this was from a guy who has the Union Jack tattooed on his shoulder. Cheers, Andy | ||
| Denis K (Deniska) New Member Username: Deniska Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2003 |
i would def go with a dII... your crusier would be much older vehicle for the same amount of dough | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 137 Registered: 01-2004 |
Andrew, If you want to give credit to the originator then site the brand we all love to hate, Heep, or more correctly Willis Overland Corp (or the Bantam Car Co.). Toyota started making 4x4 "utility" vehicles for the US occupation forces in Japan in the late 40's, about the time the 1st Rovers went into production. B | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 1150 Registered: 09-2002 |
First LR ever designed was off a Willis chassis...if you want to get technical about it.  | ||
| Andrew Homan (Andy) Member Username: Andy Post Number: 61 Registered: 01-2004 |
Bob correct me if I'm wrong but there were rovers in North Africa when the British were fighting the Nazis which was a few years before we dropped the bomb and began our occupation of Japan. I believe the SAS forces used them during many of there early battles. And yes I will give much credit to Willis Overland corp. Cheers, Andy | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 142 Registered: 01-2004 |
From what I've read & seen the troops in North Africa were using "Jeeps" (Willis, Ford ect.) Check this site http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/4/LandRover/S1/ First prototype 1947, based on the Jeep chassis, (thank god that didn't last long)! Interested to research & find out if there was a MOD version B4 the "prototype" Bob | ||
| Jim Reynolds (4x4xfar) Senior Member Username: 4x4xfar Post Number: 377 Registered: 05-2003 |
World War II ended in 1945 and Land Rover states they began in 1948. Same thing with Honda,1948 after the war. -Jim | ||
| Brett A. Naquin (Bnaquin) Member Username: Bnaquin Post Number: 112 Registered: 09-2003 |
The discussion about Land Rovers and Toyota Land Cruisers seems to come up frequently. I own both so I�ll share my opinions. I have a 1995 Discovery SE7 and a 1995 Toyota FZJ80 Land Cruiser. When I compare each I find both provide excellent performance off-road. On road performance is similar; however, the Land Cruiser is a bit more comfortable for me to drive long distances and gets slightly better gas mileage. Land Rover: Better maneuvering ability due to the shorter wheelbase and a lower center of gravity. Comes from factory with selectable CDL (I drive a D1 so this is what I�m basing my comparison on). Dual climate zone is nice since my wife is cold natured wears sweaters in the summer. I also have come to appreciate the �stadium� style seating and excellent visibility. On the negative side I find I�m always fixing little things that stop working but fortunately haven�t had any major problems yet. Parts are in my opinion a bit more expensive. I�ve never been stranded in my Rover but I have had to have it towed before. Fuel economy is poor. The lack of a factory locking differential in the front or rear keeps my truck from climbing some things my Land Cruiser has no problems with. Land Rovers are generally less expensive than Toyota�s of the same year. Land Cruiser: Smoother ride on-road and equal to Disco off-road. The factory front, center and rear locker will allow this truck to climb almost anything. The CDL on the Land Cruiser automatically locks when in low gear and cannot be selected when in high gear UNLESS you purchase a $30 switch and install it into your dash (the wiring harness is already there, for some reason this is how the Land Cruiser was imported to the U.S.) I�ve added the switch and it�s a nice mod. The Land Cruiser has more interior room and is more comfortable on long trips. Toyota reliability is fantastic. Parts are easy to find and not quite as expensive as my Rover parts. They�re both fantastic trucks. I�ve been a Land Cruiser guy for years and bought my Disco last year primarily because Land Rover beats Toyota hands down when it comes to the actual off-road lifestyle. Toyota does a terrible job marketing the Land Cruiser as an off-road vehicle and there isn�t near the dealer support for the lifestyle. There is a very active Land Rover club in town that does things on a weekly basis. If I had to choose between the two it would be tough. You can�t go wrong with either but unless you live in an area where there is a large Toyota Land Cruiser Association presence (i.e. Club), you�d be happier with the Land Rover and the sense of community it brings with it. My Land Cruiser can usually do circles around my other Land Rover club members� rigs (sorry guys) but there is something about a Land Rover that makes you love it even with its shortcomings. | ||
| C�sar G�mez (Hks3sgte) New Member Username: Hks3sgte Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2004 |
http://www.off-road.com/tlc/body_styles/ | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 145 Registered: 01-2004 |
Very well said Brett. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1440 Registered: 09-2002 |
What makes you think that way, Bob? The 1st Land Rover production year was 1948, three years after the WW2, just as Jim said. The WW2-era jeeps were made by Willys Overland and Ford, based on a 1940 Bantam Motor Co. quarter-ton design. Dodge was making 3/4 and 1-ton 4x4 trucks before Bantam, Willys, and Ford. There were even earlier 4x4s, made both in America and in Europe. So, "who's yer daddy" is kinda pointless. | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 147 Registered: 01-2004 |
Peter, I think compairing the early Dodges is apples to oranges, this thread evolved into an early Rover/Landcruiser conversation & I stand by my opnion that they trace their roots to the Bantam/Willis/Jeep. Andrew made the statement that Rover was making 4x4's long before Toyota. I simply stated that they both started production about the same time in the late 40's (after WWII). I'm not in the "who's yer daddy" mode, this seemed to be a civil, even cordial discussion. The Jeep chassis comment was tung in cheek, I'll bet most members of this board (me included)would prefer the LR3 be based on the Rubicon chassis than on the Explorer. Bob | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1441 Registered: 09-2002 |
Bob, the "who's yer daddy" comment wasn't directed to you at all The LR vs jeep hardware has some long-standing differences. Basically, from the get-go, land rovers were designed as half-ton trucks, despite being derived from quarter-ton jeeps. Sure enough, given the same dimensions, LRs had sturdier design and some better hardware. The Rubicon's half-ton axles are a nice feature... (PITA to work on, though). | ||
| Andrew Homan (Andy) Member Username: Andy Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2004 |
Wow, didn't mean to start a problem. I was wrong and thought rover preceeded toys and the like. My mistake. I was in motorcycle mode where Japan vs Euro is often an argument amongst us. many felt Japan copied euro designs and then ultimately made them so much better until recently. now it seems to be swinging the other way with Triumph , Ducati and Aprilia. Anyway sorry about my poor History. But I am correct on the racing anology with larger factories having to spend a lot to beat the smaller more focused manufacturers. Cheers and apologies, Andy | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 148 Registered: 01-2004 |
No worries, like I said cordial discussion, that's all. | ||
| Brett A. Naquin (Bnaquin) Member Username: Bnaquin Post Number: 113 Registered: 09-2003 |
I was thinking about all the talk concerning the D3 and the move to independent suspension last night and wanted to pass along some thoughts. Land Cruiser people thought the introduction of the 100 series cruiser with front IFS (current body style) was the end of the line for the true off-road cruiser. However, that�s changed significantly in the past few years. More and more 100 series cruisers are hitting the trails and their performance is considerably better than most imagined. Are they going to be extreme rock crawlers, well no, probably not, but they are excellent backcountry trucks. Think about it. Even with the IFS, they still have a CDL and rear axle locker. In addition they are equipped with traction control so the front IFS isn�t a total dog. My point is I think the new Disco will be able to do more than the majority of 4x4�s on the market. I don�t know what percentage of people using Discos off-road do extreme rock crawling but my guess is not many. I think it will be very capable for the majority of off-road applications. It�s almost become faddish to knock the performance of the new disco; which puzzles me because no one has driven one as of yet. Now its appearance, well, that�s another thing. I like the new look on the front of the vehicle and the interior isn�t too shabby either but I wish they had done something different with the back. It looks a bit to �mini-van� with one large lifting door. A tailgate would have been nice for those little get togethers before a game or when camping. Just my opinion. | ||
| James M. Reed (Utahdog2003) New Member Username: Utahdog2003 Post Number: 27 Registered: 03-2004 |
I think the negative reaction from the Rover community is fair, and in line with the reaction other 4x4 makers (Toyota IFS in the 80s, then Jeep starting with the Liberty). It just took longer for the IFS to work it's way against the tide to Rover. As far as the FJ100 being redeemed somehow in the eyes of 4x4 owners who expect the best performance from their trucks, I think you're reaching. Sure there are people who are happy with the FJ100, and the Liberty, and the Freelander. Nobody is saying that they are POSs, just that they are vehicles compromised AWAY from the original market of the nameplates they cary. I'm glad that means there are more options for my Mom to choose from, unfortunately it also means I get screwed. In the push for more mainstream, interstate-ready vehicles, Land Rover has simply reduced the number of turn-key, trail-ready trucks by one, and the number of them in the LR stable to Zero. I hate to say it, but come 2005 the Cheep Wrangler will be all alone. | ||
| Bob Shinn (Bshinn) Member Username: Bshinn Post Number: 150 Registered: 01-2004 |
Funny, D90's & 110's, & 100 series Cruisers w/straight axles & sweet 4 valve turbodisels are available in other makrets around the world. If we would all write our Congressmen/women (Fed & State), & demand they curb the echo freaks who won't allow diesels & the safety nazis woh demand EVERY vehicle be equipped w/ airbags, ABS, rubber interior ect. We might just get what we want, doubt it, but I'm an opitmist. I agree that LR sold out in the hopes of increased market share in 05. But some of the blame falls to Gov't over regulation, & overzealous attourneys for the fact that simple rugged "utility" vehicles are no longer for sale in the good ole US of A! | ||
| James M. Reed (Utahdog2003) New Member Username: Utahdog2003 Post Number: 30 Registered: 03-2004 |
echo freak isn't needed here. government regulation aint the factor (although I agree with the airbag vs D-90 point). marketing is the real enemy. No manufacturer seems satisfied with the idea that they can make a 25,000 unit/year model. Everybody wants to hit the next 400,000 unit homerun. Blame it on the "pandering to the lowest common denominator" factor lets try to keep politics out of this discussion. I hear enough of both sides blaming the other when I listen to NPR cheers! | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1442 Registered: 09-2002 |
Brett, I can think of two big drawbacks of independent suspension for an off-roader - wheel travel and CV joints. Think of a straight axle as a control arm, somewhat like 6+ ft. long (if it isn't pivoted in the middle, in which case it's still good 3 feet). In vast majority of independently suspended vehicles, lateral control arms are about a foot long. To get a foot of total travel from a foot-long control arm, you need to swing it from 30 degrees down to 30 degrees up - at which angle the wheel will move nearly 2" inboard. This is very significant geometry change; you can derive all kinds of conclusions from there. With a 6' long straight axle, if one wheel is on the ground, you can swing another up or down 6", with lateral displacement of about 1/4". An IFS/IRS axle will sport 4 CV joints, protected by rubber boots. A CV joint with a crack in the boot will live about 500-1000 mi (give or take, depending on moisture and sand). H1 guys should know all about it. So, to me, it's not an argument like "old's better than new," but pure mechanical reasoning. BTW, a good alternative example of long-travel IFS is Ford's twin I-beam (2WD only). | ||
| James M. Reed (Utahdog2003) New Member Username: Utahdog2003 Post Number: 31 Registered: 03-2004 |
Ford's I Beam was only a good idea if you worked for the tire industry! | ||
| Matt Moore (Mmoore) Member Username: Mmoore Post Number: 50 Registered: 01-2004 |
Ford's I Beam was not 2WD only, they had a 4WD version too | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1445 Registered: 09-2002 |
James, it applies to nearly every non-parallelogram independent suspension. Any McPherson-strutted vehicle is going to have camber problems when lifted or lowered, unless control arms are modified. Matt, a TTB is a thing of joy. I don't even know what to put it next to A Twin-I-beam is a good long-travel suspension, but what dazzles me is - why? Unsprung weight is just as much if not more than a solid axle. | ||
| James M. Reed (Utahdog2003) New Member Username: Utahdog2003 Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2004 |
wow! I've never actually had anybody stick up for TIBs before. Let me guess...you're the inventor? actually increased tire wear would be a side effect of any suspension design that, as you point out, doesn't allow the tire to move as close to a straight line up and down as possible. I'm saying that the TIB actually displays camber shorcomings just by turning the wheel to pull out of a parking space!!! result...uneven tire wear. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1446 Registered: 09-2002 |
no no no... while turning from parking space, castor angle translates into changed camber, hence the effects you see. It is common for all kinds of suspension, the ones with larger castor angle are more susceptible to it. TTB? Me? I'm nowhere as smart to invent this contraption. |
