Land Rover P38
Discussion
As above - the diesel unit was fine in a car but a bit overworked lugging a two tonne lump around. Cooling issues were normally the main hiccup.
I also found that you had good ones and bad ones - e.g. some would pull like a locomotive and others would feel positively gutless. No rhyme or reason - just some seemed to have aged better than others! Automatics were all a bit slow and weezy - which was a bit of a shame since the RR autobox was otherwise the way to go on the V8s.
A TD5 disco is probably a better off roader pound for pound but that has its own issues. A P38 is certainly capable but it's weight will sometimes come back to bite it. Heavy stuff is harder to get unstuck.
HOWEVER.
If you find a good one that drives nicely and has been looked after - its always worth a look. With Landies in particular - it all comes down to the individual vehicle - consistent results across model ranges are not really their thing.....
(I say this as a devotee of the Green Oval).
I also found that you had good ones and bad ones - e.g. some would pull like a locomotive and others would feel positively gutless. No rhyme or reason - just some seemed to have aged better than others! Automatics were all a bit slow and weezy - which was a bit of a shame since the RR autobox was otherwise the way to go on the V8s.
A TD5 disco is probably a better off roader pound for pound but that has its own issues. A P38 is certainly capable but it's weight will sometimes come back to bite it. Heavy stuff is harder to get unstuck.
HOWEVER.
If you find a good one that drives nicely and has been looked after - its always worth a look. With Landies in particular - it all comes down to the individual vehicle - consistent results across model ranges are not really their thing.....
(I say this as a devotee of the Green Oval).
Edited by LandRoverManiac on Thursday 19th November 09:35
LandRoverManiac said:
A TD5 disco is probably a better off roader pound for pound but that has its own issues. A P38 is certainly capable but it's weight will sometimes come back to bite it. Heavy stuff is harder to get unstuck.
I was on the understanding that the TD5 and the P38 were both around 2,150 kg?It's not so much that they are underpowered, but that with the boost characteristic it doesn't develop useful power until almost 2000 rpm. In my experience the TD5 Disco was similar with the additional problem of longer rear overhang and not many had the rear air springs to attempt to compensate.
Probably quite right on the Disco/RR weight range - maybe it was a gut feeling based on the engine character.
A TD5 in a good state of tune gives a nice chunk of torque fairly low down - even in stock form without any chipping shenanigans. The P38 TD less so - needing more revs and a bit more winding up before any motion becomes observed....
A TD5 in a good state of tune gives a nice chunk of torque fairly low down - even in stock form without any chipping shenanigans. The P38 TD less so - needing more revs and a bit more winding up before any motion becomes observed....
Edited by LandRoverManiac on Thursday 19th November 13:09
P38's are very capable off road. Equal to any other model of the same era.
They do have a 108" wheel base vs 100" for a Disco 1 or 2. But they have a similar turning circle.
The 2.5 M51 BMW engine isn't exactly under powered. They make more power stock for stock than any other Land Rover diesel product to that date!!! Including the Td5.
They can also be mapped for a bit more poke.
And if you look at the power/performance of the competition in 1994. They were bang on the money or better than most. Saying they are underpowered is completely wrong and missing the point of the era they were introduced and built in.
That said, the diesel will feel the more sluggish. And I believe a remap does indeed wake them up quite a lot. The manuals being faster than the autos.
However, while the mpg (24-28mpg) is nice from them. The diesels are often low spec and do seem to have their own BMW related problems. For limited annual mileage a 4.0 or 4.6 V8 is likely to be a better choice. Faster and more refined. But budget for 14-19mpg.
The p38's in general are very nice vehicles. But they are a bit fickle. They are the Gen 1 of vehicles with multiple ECU's and electronic everything. And can be a PITA to keep on top of things. However if you aren't paying top money, then a more modest outlook on wanting all it working tends to make for a happier ownership.
If you buy one, petrol or diesel. Budget on getting yourself a proper diagnostic tool. You'll need it. And many bits can be fixed at home yourself and there is a wealth of info on the web these days and in the owners community.
I personally like the Disco 2, but it is my opinion that the p38 is a much nicer vehicle. Much more plush inside and greater sense of occasion. The p38 will "waft" way better too.
Really the only thing the D2 does better is having ACE, which sadly was not available on the p38.
Off road the early p38's (pre 1999) have rear wheel traction control. While the 99+ models (Thor engines) have 4 wheel traction control. Off road the 4 wheel traction control should provide quite a distinct advantage if the going is tough.
The air suspension is often problematic, although isn't the most complex setup. But there are multiple points of failure. I eventually fitted coils to mine. Despite being avid air suspension fan. But overall the coils have made it a lot more usable for me overall, with no real downsides anywhere.
Off road they should be great. But bear in mind the long wheelbase and relatively small standard wheels mean the breakover angle isn't great. But they would be more than fine for green laning.
They do have a 108" wheel base vs 100" for a Disco 1 or 2. But they have a similar turning circle.
The 2.5 M51 BMW engine isn't exactly under powered. They make more power stock for stock than any other Land Rover diesel product to that date!!! Including the Td5.
They can also be mapped for a bit more poke.
And if you look at the power/performance of the competition in 1994. They were bang on the money or better than most. Saying they are underpowered is completely wrong and missing the point of the era they were introduced and built in.
That said, the diesel will feel the more sluggish. And I believe a remap does indeed wake them up quite a lot. The manuals being faster than the autos.
However, while the mpg (24-28mpg) is nice from them. The diesels are often low spec and do seem to have their own BMW related problems. For limited annual mileage a 4.0 or 4.6 V8 is likely to be a better choice. Faster and more refined. But budget for 14-19mpg.
The p38's in general are very nice vehicles. But they are a bit fickle. They are the Gen 1 of vehicles with multiple ECU's and electronic everything. And can be a PITA to keep on top of things. However if you aren't paying top money, then a more modest outlook on wanting all it working tends to make for a happier ownership.
If you buy one, petrol or diesel. Budget on getting yourself a proper diagnostic tool. You'll need it. And many bits can be fixed at home yourself and there is a wealth of info on the web these days and in the owners community.
I personally like the Disco 2, but it is my opinion that the p38 is a much nicer vehicle. Much more plush inside and greater sense of occasion. The p38 will "waft" way better too.
Really the only thing the D2 does better is having ACE, which sadly was not available on the p38.
Off road the early p38's (pre 1999) have rear wheel traction control. While the 99+ models (Thor engines) have 4 wheel traction control. Off road the 4 wheel traction control should provide quite a distinct advantage if the going is tough.
The air suspension is often problematic, although isn't the most complex setup. But there are multiple points of failure. I eventually fitted coils to mine. Despite being avid air suspension fan. But overall the coils have made it a lot more usable for me overall, with no real downsides anywhere.
Off road they should be great. But bear in mind the long wheelbase and relatively small standard wheels mean the breakover angle isn't great. But they would be more than fine for green laning.
I had my second 38A remapped. It did wake it up, but also exaggerated the basic turbo characteristics. So there was still little torque before the turbo started working at about 1750rpm with a then larger difference over 2000rpm.I think the main advantage of the manual (both of mine were autos) would be keeping it in the boost range.
[
And if you look at the power/performance of the competition in 1994. They were bang on the money or better than most. Saying they are underpowered is completely wrong and missing the point of the era they were introduced and built in.
That said, the diesel will feel the more sluggish. And I believe a remap does indeed wake them up quite a lot. The manuals being faster than the autos.
]
I agree with you in most other respects but surely you've contradicted yourself here?
That they feel sluggish would possibly imply that they are a tad underpowered in stock form, no? A remap increasing the available power on tap then makes them better. Ergo - the general opinion that they feel a bit underpowered in their cooking model form.
It doesn't help of course if you jump from one of the 4.6 models and THEN use an auto diesel - it feels positively glacial then. Don't test drive a V8 one before a diesel one - your entire inner petrolhead will be screaming at you to plump for the louder one and the comparison is not an easy thing to get out of your head.
I used to take these apart regularly so got a chance to shuffle around in almost every model.
And if you look at the power/performance of the competition in 1994. They were bang on the money or better than most. Saying they are underpowered is completely wrong and missing the point of the era they were introduced and built in.
That said, the diesel will feel the more sluggish. And I believe a remap does indeed wake them up quite a lot. The manuals being faster than the autos.
]
I agree with you in most other respects but surely you've contradicted yourself here?
That they feel sluggish would possibly imply that they are a tad underpowered in stock form, no? A remap increasing the available power on tap then makes them better. Ergo - the general opinion that they feel a bit underpowered in their cooking model form.
It doesn't help of course if you jump from one of the 4.6 models and THEN use an auto diesel - it feels positively glacial then. Don't test drive a V8 one before a diesel one - your entire inner petrolhead will be screaming at you to plump for the louder one and the comparison is not an easy thing to get out of your head.
I used to take these apart regularly so got a chance to shuffle around in almost every model.
The same would be true for other models. Range Rover classic 3.9 EFI vs 200/300Tdi or even worse a Tdi auto.
Disco 1 same engines as RRC.
Disco 2 pretty much the same. Although the UK market didn't get the 4.6 in the D2. But it was available elsewhere.
A 1994 Mitsubishi Shogun diesel would have had less power and been slower than the p38 diesel. But likewise Mitsubishi did also offer a 3.5 V6 petrol with 177hp and more akin to a 4.0 Rover V8 in performance.
Disco 1 same engines as RRC.
Disco 2 pretty much the same. Although the UK market didn't get the 4.6 in the D2. But it was available elsewhere.
A 1994 Mitsubishi Shogun diesel would have had less power and been slower than the p38 diesel. But likewise Mitsubishi did also offer a 3.5 V6 petrol with 177hp and more akin to a 4.0 Rover V8 in performance.
Gassing Station | Off Road | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff