By charles p. on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Hi, guys,

Any comments or experience on Range Rover Classic? 94'-95' RR vs. pre-93' RR? What's the off-road ability as well as on-road comfortibility?

I have been interested in getting a pre-95' RR and wondering if I should either get one and keep my DII, or replace DII with one. Money is the main issue. Because I am more interested in long-distance, remote-area expedition type off-road, and have been planning it, I want something really reliable engine wise and electric. wise. Any suggestions?

I was also looking at LR 110 (80's) and Series III 109" hard top, but I am afraid it's too old to find a really reliable vehicle, as well as the comfortibility.

Charles P.

99' DII

By Kyle on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Hard to beat the classic rangie with the LT230.....Damn hard...


Kyle

By Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4) on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 05:55 pm: Edit

make sure you dont get a Long Wheel base and you should be just fine...

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 06:23 pm: Edit

There are more off-road goodies for the Disco I than the RR Classic, but thanks to RoverTym, things are looking good for the RR. The LWB models are nice on the road, but a liability off-road in many cases. Pre-viscous Range Rovers are going for under $5k these days.

I've got a VERY nice, bone stock 92 for sale right now on consignemt. And I have carte blanche to deal. It would make an ideal platform to build up an expedition platform. The later models (after 93) do have the 24 spline axles though and that could be important (although if you want to go to HD axles for heavy work, there is no price advantage either way.

I would NOT sell the DII. It is FAR better to have a dedicated trail vehicle if you can pull it off.

-P

By charles p. on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 07:16 pm: Edit

What years are viscous-RR classic made?

So the transfer case that RR has is BW? better than LT230?

How about SWB's trail off-road capability, compared with Disco?

I've heard somewhere that post-91' RR is better (reliable) than pre-91' one. Is it true?

Parrone, I agree with you not sell DII. It's been extremely reliable and I love it too much. But the only concern for me is the cost for mods and acce. for future expedition would go way higher than what I afford.

charles p.

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Ok, here is the deal.

The RR USED to have the same transfer case as is on the Disco and D90. In 1988 I think, they went to the BW viscous coupling. This in and of itself is not bad, but it is different than the other models.

The underpinnings of the RR Classic was used to make the Disco, so they are essentially the same below the body except for some of the electronics and braking systems.

The wheel wells are larger on the RR making it slightly easier to add over sized tires. Modifications for the RR Classic are similar to what is available for the Disco. Many parts directly interchange. Off-road capability is almost the same, save for the RR having a larger rear overhang than the Disco.

There is nothing special about the post 91RR. The 1995 has the new, disco style dash and revised airbag suspension (ditch it anyway). Basically the big history changing in moments in the RR are:

The change from 3.5 to 3.9 engine (1988?)
The change to viscous transfer case (1989?)
The change to ABS brakes (1990)
The change to Air springs (1193)
The 10 to 24 spline upgrade (1993)
The new air-springs and dash layout in 95

If I was doing a build-up for expedition work, I'd do a RR. If I was building up a Rock-Crawler, I'd do a disco. The RR is wider giving more hip and elbow room. Also has the nice arm rests, and a few other neat features left off the Disco. Usually, they even work!

Either one is a great truck. With a few mods, either will make a terrific expedition vehicle.

-P

By charles p. on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 08:31 pm: Edit

So it seems post-93' models are better off in terms of level of axle duty as they have 24 spline axles?

Is there any improvement on electrical/electronic systems among them? the younger it is, the better is it?

So post-89' models with viscous coupling don't have CDL, I assume?

cp

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Well, to be honest, if you are going to make this an expedition vehicle, you'd be smart to go to heavy duty axles anyway. So you'd lose all financial advantange of getting a 24 spline to start with. You'll be upgrading to HD diffs as well if you're smart.

I don't think there were any electrical upgrades worth talking about after the new ECU upgrade in like 90 or 91. (The haynes manual is unclear here).

The viscous models forgo the CDL. Basically you can think of them as having a limited slip between the two axles instead of a lock. This has an advantage on the road, since it slips into a mostly locked mode when necessary, but is less useful off-road because you don't get complete lockup between axles. I've never seen it to cause a problem with locked rangies following locked discos and d90s.

-P

By Brian Jackson (Nerover) on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 10:09 pm: Edit

The 93 - 95 RR have ETC on the rear axle. The ABS started with the 90 model, the 3.9 came in 89, the BW came in 89, but the LT230 was back for 93-95 I think. In my opinion, 89 is the way to go. Cheap prices...viscous is ok, upgrade the axles, you get the 3.9, and don't have to fidget with crappy ABS. If you're not really looking to wheel that much...just want to throw in some 265/75s and have a cool truck around town as well, get a SWB 95. The stereo was awesome, the interior is just like a Disco, but black with extra switches and an analog clock. The air suspension will still function ok and you have rear traction control. They also have the coolest alloys Rover ever designed.

Brian

By PerroneFord on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 11:12 pm: Edit

The air suspension is crap, and so is the traction control. Ditch that foolishness and put on some lockers. The ABS is not that bad if cared for. Most people neglect their brakes and it kills the system.

I don't think the LT230 was back in 93-95. At least not in any of the 8-10 RRs from those years I have ridden in. They were all LWB trucks so maybe the SWB was different. The Disco/D90 axles won't swap directly into pre-ABS range rovers. So there is some benefit to going with a later truck. There are MANY 1990+ RRs in very good conditions available for $5-7k.

I agree with everything else you said.

-P

By Brian Jackson (Nerover) on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 12:51 am: Edit

Perrone,
Sounds like you know your stuff. I've worked on them all, but can't exactly remember. Was iffy on the return of the LT-230 for 93-95, but I actually like the TC from the RR and the air suspension is pretty darn good for stock, as long as you leave it stock...for real wheeling there is no option but to go coils with it, you're right.

Brian

By AL on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 01:01 am: Edit

Are 91 RR County any good?
Found 1 with alot of safari guard stage 3 stuff on it.
Front and rear bumper from ARB AND $G.
I think he wants 12k.

By PerroneFord on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:39 am: Edit

I own a 91 County SE, so I ma partial to them. If you are interersted in a wheeling truck, they are pretty good. But if it has a bunch of SG stuff on it, I'd check it THOROUGHLY for abuse before considering a purchase.

To be honest, I don't consider the SG stuff adding any value. I was going to sell mine for $8k with 97k miles on it. I would have added $1k if I had a 3-link and/or a winch. They just aren't worth that much.

I DID see an 1988 or so RR with 66k miles on EBAY for a VERY good price. That might be worth checking out for both of you.

And as for TC, I don't like ANY system that applies the brake to give me traction. I except the truetrac beause it only needs this to simulate a true locker.

-P

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

al, 1990 has abs brakes. thats just one more thing to go wrong. i have a 1989 RR i'd sell you for cheap it has 3.9l v8 but has the VC transfer case. where are you located?

-rd

rob.davison@kennametal.com

By Bill Bettridge (Billb) on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 10:40 am: Edit

Yeah, i've got a 1990 and luckily the PO had just replaced the ABS pump - about $800, but didn't replace the accumulator - about $200, so that's on me I guess

Stay away from the ABS if you can find a good condition earlier truck

By Ron on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit

You are all missing the boat on this one to a certain extent:

expedition work I would not look at anything like a RR or Disco but IF I DID I would go with an earlier truck.

As far as axles:

87-89 are the BEST why you ask? Well you get the non abs hub which comes with the bigger early style CV. You can then upgrade to 24 splines in front and have less of a chance of breakage.

Stock axles are crap, 24 spline or 10 spline.

The VCU transfer case has issues as

1. It is not as effective offroad as an LT230
2. With the kind of mileage you all are dealing with it will have serious chain wear.

As far as engines. Yes the 3.5 has less power but it is somewhat easier to work on. Avoid GEMS (96 and up on discos and all NBS RRs) like the plague if you are leaving civilization.

Finally if you are thinking about an expedition outside the US/Canada it makes sense to get something other than an NAS spec truck.
110 N/A diesels are great as are the 300Tdis D110

110 is the way to go as you get more cargo room and you get the nice salisbury rear and esentially no electrics associated with the mechanical parts with very slight mods.

If you are doing something for US work I would lean towards an 87-88 RR (1988 you get cruise control so keep that in mind) as you can buy it cheap (well under 5k) and put a little bit into it and some locker/suspension/axles and have a nice truck for 7-8k that will go anywhere and be somewhat field servicable. The other option is a built up series truck with a coil conversion. The best part is that you build it how you are going to use it, the bad part is you have to build it or it will be serious $$$$$

You can do the same thing with a 94-95 disco but ABS and slightly more complicated electrics and of course higher cost than the early RR.

By PerroneFord on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit

All excellent advice. There are a few mitigating factors. The early RRs had a different seal design at the axle that is more prone to bearing failure. It was changed when the move to ABS happened.

The stock 24 spline axles aren't the best, but can handle more abuse than you might think. I'd still upgrade to the GBR axles and CV joints.

If you can get a 110, you should! No doubt! But the NAS 110 also has the weakest of the front axle setups so fix that when you upgrade the axles. The NAS 110 also has that annoying SLU setup at the back.

Lots of stuff to consider no matter which truck you pick. Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much, as long as you find one in good mechanical condition. People have ventured far and wide with each of these models very successfully.

-P

By Charles P. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Thank you all for so much feed-back.

In fact, 110 is what I am interested in most. However, NAS 110 is way out of my pocket range. People might be able to find early 80's 110 or "110" modified from Series III. They are ideally simple for expedition work but I am afraid of their aged mechanicals and rusts. Also, their rides might be too rough for me (in fact, my girlfriend) to stand for long ride. Can we improve the ride/suspensions by upgrading springs & shocks?

Is RRc's ride softer than Disco? or just about the same? Are the earlier models rougher?

cp

By Charles P. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Ooop! I mean Series III 109" w/ 110 look.

cp

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:08 pm: Edit

listen to Ron.

89 - first year of 3.9 (mo powah) and Borg Warner transfer case (no diff lock from there on).

93 - first year of 24-spline axles, but by then there was already a lot of electrical BS, and airbag suspension.

if you can live with 3.5 liter, get an 87-88. i believe both 3.5 and pre-GEMS 3.9 are not that difficult to bring to life should the ECU crap out on you.

you can have 89- or later, and swap in an LT230 from a Disco. Used cases pop up on lrx.com for about $500-1000. On the pre-93, you may need a 24-spline conversion kit, about 800-1000 (axles
+ Detroit or TT). I may be off with numbers.

speaking of RR with a long wheelbase - they are very good. you lose a bit of breakover angle, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with a lift kit.

peter

By PerroneFord on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:12 pm: Edit

The RR Classic suspension is indeed a bit softer than the Discos until 1993 when they moved to air springs. But you can change the ride of ANY coil sprung LR for under $500. If you are setting up for expedition work, you'll be changing springs AND shocks to handle all that weight anyway.

Not all series trucks are rusty. The only problem is any one that you would trust to take you across the country may actually cost you MORE than a RR Classic or earlier Disco.

My only knock against the Disco, or actually FOR the RR, is that the RR can really hold more stuff and sits a little lower. In windy conditions this might make a difference. But as I said before, ANY of these trucks can be modified slightly to do whatever you want them to do.

Not to pry, but what kind of budget are you looking at? That might help us, help you a little better.

Happy hunting!

-P

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Perrone,

how the hell can a rr hold more stuff than a disco? i love my rr, but it is nowhere close to my wife's disco in cargo capacity. You have ALL the cargo room of the RR, and can sleep on top of it!

peter

By charles p. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:46 pm: Edit

"My only knock against the Disco, or actually FOR the RR, is that the RR can really hold more stuff and sits a little lower. In windy conditions this might make a difference. But as I said before, ANY of these trucks can be modified slightly to do whatever you want them to do."

Perrone, I totally agree with you. That's why I am sort of focusing on RR besides cost issue. In fact, I don't mind long wheel base RR too much, too, because, as you said, I can do some lifting work and it can carry much more stuff.

What I am thinking at this moment is basically, the vehicle, then full length expedition rack, winch probably w/ front bumper, suspension mods, underbody protections, then tyres, batteries, more and more..... So, I am trying to limit my budget for vehicle down, preferably below 11k, then go from there. Later models might be "girlfriend" prefered, but not necessary.

cp

By charles p. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:49 pm: Edit

I think, from spec., RR has more load capacity than Disco. Correct me if I am wrong.

cp

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 08:52 pm: Edit

charles, come on. if you're comparing SWB RR with a Disco, they have the same distance from the front seats to the tailgate. Disco is by far taller inside. Also, spare is inside the RR, but outside the Disco!

peter

By ZPukajlo on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:06 pm: Edit

I would have to agree with Peter on this. The Disco is taller on the inside. You'll get an extra 6 to 8 inches or more in height. That translates to more cargo being stuffed behind the seats. The other bonus, as Peter said, is the tire is mounted outside. A LWB RR may be more comparable in terms of cargo space. My two cents.

Zane

By PerroneFord on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit

The Disco is taller, the RR is wider. I hadn't really thought about the spare though. That was a good call.

I just did a review of the "usable luggage space" spec from the LR brocures. Indeed the Disco has more usable space, even more than the LWB Range Rover. I stand corrected.

-P

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:20 pm: Edit

perrone, they are of the same width.
whatever the brochures say, it is as simple as that. same width, same length, disco is taller.

peter

By PerroneFord on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:34 pm: Edit

You may well be right. It would make sense since the underpinnings are the same. What I don't get is why the RR SEEMS wider. I mean there seems ample room for us even with the armrests. Is our cubby box narrower? Do you guys have side airbags taking up room? Every time I've been in a Disco, it just seems narrower. Maybe just an illusion from the extra height.

-P

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Disco's doors (rather, armrests) seem to be thicker, seats are narrower than the RR's, and center cubby box is wider in the Disco by about 1.5-2".

peter

By John Cinquegrana (John_C) on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit

LWB only added space between front seats and rear seats, cargo space stayed the same, right?

By p m on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 10:35 pm: Edit

yeah, but you can flip the rear seats forward.

peter

By charles p. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 12:54 am: Edit

Hey, gentlemen,

What I was saying is "LOAD" capacity, not cargo volume. Classic RR has 1,618 lb payload capacity per spec. Disco II, as far as I know, has more cargo space than RR, but only has max 1,5?? lb payload capacity. They are pretty close, but RR seems lighter in weight so provides more payload.

Curb Weight of RR is 4,401 lbs (4574 lbs LWB) per spec.

cp

By cartner on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 01:55 am: Edit

I think maybe the RR seems wider because the door panels don't intrude as much, the center console is a little narrower perhaps, and the interior is typically darker. the RR looks wider outside because it IS wider and has that broad flat roofline and near vertical windshield to contribute, plus thin bumpers and smaller headlights, all of which contribute to the RR's illusion of wideness...

By John Cinquegrana (John_C) on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 09:09 am: Edit

PM, flip the seats forward? They are attached at the same location than the SWB. The LWB might have more cargo space than the SWB if you consider the area between front and rear seats but it is my understanding that the cargo area behind the rear seats is the same on LWB and SWB.

Cartner, near vertical windshield? A Volvo has a near vertical windshield.

One more thing, do you guys know how much space an oversized spare takes up?

Discos have more cargo space...get the Disco.

John

By ZPukajlo on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 10:19 am: Edit

The payload for a Disco will vary. It depends on whether it is a base model up to the loaded version. A stock D1 in SD trim should be about 1700 pounds. A D2 will be between that number and 1300 pounds. Hope that helps you some.

Zane

By Peter Miller (Njrover) on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 11:31 am: Edit

I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents...

The Range Rover is cheaper. This means you can get more mods for your dollar...The disco does have some nicer features like heated seats and in my opinion has a nicer ride but not enough good points to make the extra money worthwile.

As for cargo area. Put a rack on the Range Rover to hold your spare, fluids and extras leaving lots of room inside. Still not as much as the Disco but darn close enough.

To make it short the Range Rover is cheaper and the price of the disco doesn't make it worth the money.

Either way you really can't go wrong...

Pete

By C. Ross on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

It's funny about the Rangie looking wider inside. When I was driving my mechanics Rangie I actually got out the tape measure and sure enough the inside measurment was almost exactly the same as my 97 D1. The 95 lwb's have the same interior as the Disco. The main difference is the arm rests on the seats.

I thought that the lwb was our solution, having another kiddo so we need a rear seat wide enough for 3 car seats, it would work but the kiddo's would be crammed in there like sardines. So, it looks like the wife's Disco is gonna be replaced by a 98 or 99 Suburban. Anything to avoid a mini-van, not that there's anything wrong with thatI'll still have my Disco though.

Ross
97 Disco LSE
97 Disco SE "for sale soon"

By p m on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Charlie,

sure, with the same underpinnings and heavier body, the disco will have lower payload rating. but, if you set out for a long haul, would you want to load it to the brim, anyway?

peter

By Brock Simmons on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Hello Charles P

I believe the orginal question is if you should get rid of your DII for a RR.

IMHO. The DII is a very capable off roader. Connect your CDL first, Second MT tires, Third trim the front bumper and four HD front springs. You will be suprised how amazing the DII is. The new the vechile... hopefully less problems off road.

Brock, Toronto, Canada
00 Disco II /w stuff

By Charles Phu on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Yes Brock, I know DII is a very capable off-roader and I have been amazed. It's got the potential for my plan, too. Also, my DII has been doing perfect since I bought it and I think it'd be doing great for years to come. I think the only thing I am concerned here is MONEY. I would really like to get my vehicle geared for expeditions but it'd bloodily make me pocket empty. that's why I am wondering if used RR is good for me, since it's a wonderful off-roader, too, and It might get me all the gears and mods I need.

Don't laugh at me... I am thinking maybe I can get a roof camper on top of RR. it might get better fit than Disco as it's flat roof? BTW, anybody has heard rooftop camper sale in the States?

cp