Discoveries - a few newbie questions
Discussion
Toying with the idea of picking up a 4wd to play with in the next while, after thinking mostly about sensible/bulletproof options like the Nissan Safari I've just realised how cheap Landrover Discoveries (and mid/late-90s Rangies) have got down here (NZ). But unlike a few of the Jap 4wds, I don't really know much about them.
Now I'm aware of the general reputation for reliability (or rather lack thereof) and I expect the electronics of a cheap Range Rover could rapidly become a money pit, but are 1st-gen Discoveries a bit simpler and more reliable? What sort of milage would you start to worry about things falling apart?
Next question, most for sale (especially the cheap ones!) are V8 rather than the 2.5td and a quick google suggests real world fuel economy of ~20mpg - are they really that thirsty when driven nicely, and how much worse than that when off road? Also what sort of range to a tank is considered normal? As that could become an issue when venturing into the back of beyond.
Any other general advice about these machines (or alternative suggestions) is welcome too.
ETA: To give some idea of prices, this one seems good value in our market for the equivalent of 1600 pounds - there are cheaper ones around, but the sensible mods add appeal to me:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Land...
In general I loath autoboxes and would prefer a manual, but I know autos can be useful in some offroad situations.
Now I'm aware of the general reputation for reliability (or rather lack thereof) and I expect the electronics of a cheap Range Rover could rapidly become a money pit, but are 1st-gen Discoveries a bit simpler and more reliable? What sort of milage would you start to worry about things falling apart?
Next question, most for sale (especially the cheap ones!) are V8 rather than the 2.5td and a quick google suggests real world fuel economy of ~20mpg - are they really that thirsty when driven nicely, and how much worse than that when off road? Also what sort of range to a tank is considered normal? As that could become an issue when venturing into the back of beyond.
Any other general advice about these machines (or alternative suggestions) is welcome too.
ETA: To give some idea of prices, this one seems good value in our market for the equivalent of 1600 pounds - there are cheaper ones around, but the sensible mods add appeal to me:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Land...
In general I loath autoboxes and would prefer a manual, but I know autos can be useful in some offroad situations.
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 28th February 11:23
They really are that thirsty but are worth it for the noise and the torque when offroading. Most things can be done at tickover.
For good advice try asking on some of the landrover forums such as www.landytown.com there all really good people and really helpfull and friendly. Also on that site there are a few austrailian members, a couple run discovery v8s as well i believe.
For good advice try asking on some of the landrover forums such as www.landytown.com there all really good people and really helpfull and friendly. Also on that site there are a few austrailian members, a couple run discovery v8s as well i believe.
hi, yes things can go wrong on them, but i have driven a series 2a, 2 discos (200 and 300tdi) and a v8 RRC and despite stuff like locks sticking i have never had one of them strand me. that's here (UK) and abroad.
i am biased as i love 'em, but after seeing a bill for £1100+ for a new cylinder head on a land-cruiser a mate had a few years back i made sure i never went over to the dark side
i am biased as i love 'em, but after seeing a bill for £1100+ for a new cylinder head on a land-cruiser a mate had a few years back i made sure i never went over to the dark side
rust is your biggest enemy...
Check wheels arches, sills, footwells, bootfloor, rear crossmember, window frames, etc etc etc
Land rover must have used very poor quality steel judging by the severity of the rust problem on most earlier discoveries.
Hence the cheap resale value.
Offroad wise they have excellent capability... almost on a par with the defender.
Check wheels arches, sills, footwells, bootfloor, rear crossmember, window frames, etc etc etc
Land rover must have used very poor quality steel judging by the severity of the rust problem on most earlier discoveries.
Hence the cheap resale value.
Offroad wise they have excellent capability... almost on a par with the defender.
Rust isn't generally a big issue down here (much drier climate than you lot I guess) but will check any I look at carefully and avoid beach-driven examples, thanks for the heads-up.
Is there much practical difference between the earlier 3.5 V8 and the later (94-98?) 3.9/4.0 V8i?
Is there much practical difference between the earlier 3.5 V8 and the later (94-98?) 3.9/4.0 V8i?
Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 2nd March 06:26
The earliest 3.5's were on carbs simple and reliable but power wasnt great 135bhp, poor on fuel they then gained fuel injection went to 160bhp and later went to 3.9 with 189bhp. Fuel injection means electics but there pretty simple systems and rarely give problems plus yo get more power and better economy. But consumption will still be teens- maybe low 20's if you drive gently. The 2.5 Tdi's are very simple engines completely electronics free engine and are so much better on fuel driven sensibly low 30's is easy but with only 11bhp but plenty of torque they can feel slow. Off road depends where your going a day bashing round a quarry playing will make them drink like a fish V8's in single figure but if its just dirt tracks the slow speed steady driving shouldn't make a differance tot her figure youd get on the road
Off-road use will mostly be tracks rather than just playing round so that sounds ok. I'm keeping an eye out for diesels but they're few and far between (as are manuals), thanks for the V8 info.
Also considering the likes of Jeep Cherokees which share the cheap end of the market - I'm guessing the 4.0 I6 in those has a similar thirst issue pushing the values down.
Also considering the likes of Jeep Cherokees which share the cheap end of the market - I'm guessing the 4.0 I6 in those has a similar thirst issue pushing the values down.
They drink like George Best. Off road they drink like 10 George Bests. Still great motors but I've yet to read any quoted MPG figures that I've believed, save for single digits 
The 3.9 on the road would only ever return MPG in the teens for me, and it ran beautifully. Stick the boot in a bit and it's very easy to get them in the high single - low double digits.
The 3.9s are great, but for me the 4.0 is the one to have having had one of each - it also means you get a later Disco, which again IMO are the ones to have
The 3.9 on the road would only ever return MPG in the teens for me, and it ran beautifully. Stick the boot in a bit and it's very easy to get them in the high single - low double digits. The 3.9s are great, but for me the 4.0 is the one to have having had one of each - it also means you get a later Disco, which again IMO are the ones to have
GravelBen said:
Toying with the idea of picking up a 4wd to play with in the next while, after thinking mostly about sensible/bulletproof options like the Nissan Safari I've just realised how cheap Landrover Discoveries (and mid/late-90s Rangies) have got down here (NZ). But unlike a few of the Jap 4wds, I don't really know much about them.
Now I'm aware of the general reputation for reliability (or rather lack thereof) and I expect the electronics of a cheap Range Rover could rapidly become a money pit, but are 1st-gen Discoveries a bit simpler and more reliable? What sort of milage would you start to worry about things falling apart?
Next question, most for sale (especially the cheap ones!) are V8 rather than the 2.5td and a quick google suggests real world fuel economy of ~20mpg - are they really that thirsty when driven nicely, and how much worse than that when off road? Also what sort of range to a tank is considered normal? As that could become an issue when venturing into the back of beyond.
Any other general advice about these machines (or alternative suggestions) is welcome too.
ETA: To give some idea of prices, this one seems good value in our market for the equivalent of 1600 pounds - there are cheaper ones around, but the sensible mods add appeal to me:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Land...
In general I loath autoboxes and would prefer a manual, but I know autos can be useful in some offroad situations.
Hi Ben,Now I'm aware of the general reputation for reliability (or rather lack thereof) and I expect the electronics of a cheap Range Rover could rapidly become a money pit, but are 1st-gen Discoveries a bit simpler and more reliable? What sort of milage would you start to worry about things falling apart?
Next question, most for sale (especially the cheap ones!) are V8 rather than the 2.5td and a quick google suggests real world fuel economy of ~20mpg - are they really that thirsty when driven nicely, and how much worse than that when off road? Also what sort of range to a tank is considered normal? As that could become an issue when venturing into the back of beyond.
Any other general advice about these machines (or alternative suggestions) is welcome too.
ETA: To give some idea of prices, this one seems good value in our market for the equivalent of 1600 pounds - there are cheaper ones around, but the sensible mods add appeal to me:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Land...
In general I loath autoboxes and would prefer a manual, but I know autos can be useful in some offroad situations.
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 28th February 11:23
Hope I can offer some good advice and info for you.
First up, a RRC and a S1 Disco are very, very similar. In fact all Land Rover's bar a few of the newer models are all very similar.
The chassis is basically the same and a Disco uses a good number of RR parts, such as doors, mirrors and some trim items.
They are both 100" wheelbase and similar overall size and weight. With equal off road ability.
The only difference with the Disco is it's a little taller.
Main differences are most Range Rover's have a vicsous coupled transfer box, whereas the Disco uses the Defender's LT230 type transfer box. For most there is no real advantage or disadvantage to either though.
RR's have a steel bonnet and aluminium roof, Disco has a steel roof and aluminium bonnet.
Rust, as others have said is an issue. But I don't think it's as bad as some claim and many parts can easily be fixed.
For example, the rear floor on a Disco is prone to rot, in the UK at least this is an easy fix. I personally bolted in an aluminium replacement in mine as the floor isn't structural (think of it like a sunroof in the floor in terms of structure).
Now, being controversal, I'd say Land Rover's are actually VERY reliable!!!
They do like a lot of TLC and will suffer silly niggles, but as a rule the major components will last quite well. And they'll always get you home.
Electrical gremlins might be a pain, but if I'm honest I don't think they have that many electrical items anyhow, so it's usually not an issue. Even more so if you buy a basic spec model.
Engines are good, but the V8 is thirsty. And it's an old unit, so don't expect big power from it, or even that easily gained.
And they will like a drink, a V8 can easily return 12-15mpg with highs of 16-20mpg. Diesels are ok, not as fast, but can go ok.
The Tdi engines are quite tunable (rare in the RRC). Stock they don't make much, but they use the Bosche Jetronic injector pump, which you can tweak by hand and add a big intercooler.
VM diesels where also used in the RRC (don't know about in NZ though). We had a 2.5 VM TD and it was very, very good, easily out performed a Tdi on the road and arguably easily out performed a 3.5 carbed V8 too.
One big bonus with a Discovery is it's stock off road capability. I don't think there is any other production 4x4/SUV that comes close (for this money). They are very capable out of the box.
The weak points are the axles though, they are fine with stock sized wheels and tyres. But if you start upgrading then they can become an expensive point to upgrade.
Despite their stock ability, they do lack locking axle diffs, so for specifc use may struggle compared to some other vehicles that might have these as standard. But most don't, so it's all even in the after market.
Things to consider:
-They are very easy to work on
-You can replace almost every part, so no matter what breaks, it's never game over
-Despite being easy to work on, they are a 1940's design, so can take a while to do a simply job, e.g. changing brake discs
As said earlier, they like TLC, so replacing panhard rob bushes and silly little leaks will be common. But they do work and work well. They are also (IMO) a hoot to drive and throw about, although you do have to "get" the 4x4 thing to appreciate this.
Lots and lots of potential upgrades on Land Rover's too. There really is no limit on what is possible.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Tuesday 8th March 14:02
BTW - on the auto vs manual debate. Well I think that's it, it'll always be a debate and comes down to personal preference and the type of off roading you do.
In the UK and for competative trials most prefer a manaul. This is because it usually offers a lower crawl speed and more "in-gear" control. This is good for instant throttle inputs and for downhill descents.
I know at an event the other week the auto guys where having issues with the cars running away from them on some steep down hill slopes due to the speed needed to engine break.
That said, auto's offer other benefits, such as if mudding. You can leave it in D and should you need to shift it'll do so without losing forward momentum. You can't do this in a manual.
Rock crawling is another place where many like auto's, firstly you won't have to ride the clutch, but always being in gear without stalling is good too.
I think all you can do is try both and see what you prefer. As a rule of thub, the manual cars are faster, more fun and better on fuel.
Tdi's are almost always manuals and quite sluggish with an auto. Manual V8's are equally rare (UK anyhow).
In the UK and for competative trials most prefer a manaul. This is because it usually offers a lower crawl speed and more "in-gear" control. This is good for instant throttle inputs and for downhill descents.
I know at an event the other week the auto guys where having issues with the cars running away from them on some steep down hill slopes due to the speed needed to engine break.
That said, auto's offer other benefits, such as if mudding. You can leave it in D and should you need to shift it'll do so without losing forward momentum. You can't do this in a manual.
Rock crawling is another place where many like auto's, firstly you won't have to ride the clutch, but always being in gear without stalling is good too.
I think all you can do is try both and see what you prefer. As a rule of thub, the manual cars are faster, more fun and better on fuel.
Tdi's are almost always manuals and quite sluggish with an auto. Manual V8's are equally rare (UK anyhow).
Cheers 300, thought you might pipe up!
Manual is my definite preference (I've done enough off-road miles to know that much - mostly in work Hiluxes, with a bit of time in Safaris etc as well) but it does depend whether I can find one. Ideally I'd go for a Tdi Disco over a V8 but there aren't many for sale (I guess folk are hanging onto them), keeping an eye out though!
Its a case of tossing up which car I want to sell for a 4wd too - do I sell the Legacy for one that can double as nice, comfortable sensible transport for long trips etc, or sell the MX5 for a less practical 4wd toy... either way I've booked a few trackdays in april now so it can wait until after that!
I see you have a Cherokee now, how does that compare to the Disco? Bearing in mind I intend to keep things relatively standard.
Current shortlist is something like (in order of lowest-highest price):
Cherokee
Disco
Rugger/Fourtrak (removable canopy is a definite plus for shooting)
70-series LC/Prado
Safari/Patrol TD42 SWB
Newer LC/Prado
So I've got a lot of narrowing-down to do, but at least I know a bit about the Jap trucks already.
Manual is my definite preference (I've done enough off-road miles to know that much - mostly in work Hiluxes, with a bit of time in Safaris etc as well) but it does depend whether I can find one. Ideally I'd go for a Tdi Disco over a V8 but there aren't many for sale (I guess folk are hanging onto them), keeping an eye out though!
Its a case of tossing up which car I want to sell for a 4wd too - do I sell the Legacy for one that can double as nice, comfortable sensible transport for long trips etc, or sell the MX5 for a less practical 4wd toy... either way I've booked a few trackdays in april now so it can wait until after that!
I see you have a Cherokee now, how does that compare to the Disco? Bearing in mind I intend to keep things relatively standard.
Current shortlist is something like (in order of lowest-highest price):
Cherokee
Disco
Rugger/Fourtrak (removable canopy is a definite plus for shooting)
70-series LC/Prado
Safari/Patrol TD42 SWB
Newer LC/Prado
So I've got a lot of narrowing-down to do, but at least I know a bit about the Jap trucks already.
Disco vs Cherokee is quite a good comparison.
My Disco was a 200Tdi 3 door base spec 5 speed manual (1991). Although I've driven many other LR's and owned a few too.
My Brother had an 82 3.5 Carb V8 5 door Range Rover and a 1991 3.9 EFI Auto Vogue SE Range Rover. I had breifly a 3.5 EFI Vogue Range Rover (1985'ish).
My parents had a 1989 Vogue 2.5VM Turbo diesel Range Rover manual, a couple of 3.9 EFI Vogue SE auto's. Another 200Tdi Disco, a 3.9 EFI auto, a 300Tdi manual and a 300Tdi auto. As well as a couple of 4.6 P38a HSE Range Rovers and a few Defenders/90's, both Tdi and V8.
In the Jeep circle my current Cherokee is a 4.0 HO around 1995 MY auto, my Dad also had a 4.0 auto Cherokee.
The 4.0 six in the Jeep is very smooth, I'd personally say smoother and with a nicer power delivery than any of the Rover V8's I've driven. In the Cherokee it's also makes for fairly nippy motor, it's easily more lively than any of V8 Landy's I've driven and feels just as beefy. I've clocked 8.5 sec 0-60mph in my 100% stock Jeep. I reckon it'd take quite a bit to get an auto 3.9 V8 Disco to do similar.
The Cherokee is a bit lighter though.
MPG wise quite similar, maybe slight adv to the Jeep, 15-20mpg (imperial), more the lower end unless you are on a long run though. My Tdi Disco on big wheels tended to do 21/22mpg rising to mid 20's on a run. One thing I would say, a tweaked Tdi is quite a nice motor to drive, it'll never be as quick as a V8 or make the same HP, but they have quite an addictive power delivery and a very good push you in the seat sensation. Very minimal turbo lag and boost available from around 1500-1750rpm, so you are always on boost with ease. It's also an old school diesel so feels quite different to these modern CRD units you get in cars.
Despite the leaf suspension at the back of the Jeep I think they ride quite well, especially in the front, although maybe a little choppier in the back seats.
They also handle quite well too, the steering is way too light and lacking feel. But you do get used to it after a while, and once you do you can really throw the truck around on the roads. It's actually quite nimble when you get your confidence up.
Standard off road ability is very good, although the Jeep does maybe lack some ground clearance in stock trim and you can't fit as big wheels as easily as the Discovery, but they are quite capable. The leaf rear is technically not as good as coils and maybe won't flex quite as much, but I suspect many would be very hard pushed to truly tell from the drivers seat.
That said, it's very easy and somewhat cheaper to lift the Jeep should you want too.
Some Jeeps have rear LSD's as standard, although very few in the UK. There is no such option on the Discovery.
Some other differences are the transfer boxes.
The Discovery is full time AWD and has an open centre diff which you can lock manually, in either high or low range. This offers good flexibility.
The Jeep has 2 different transfer boxes, Command-Trac and Select-Trac. Not sure what you'll get in NZ. In the UK 2.5 diesel and 2.5 Petrol get the Select-track. This offers 2wd highrange, 4wd highrange (no centre diff, so locked drivetrain) and 4wd low range (no centre diff, locked drivetrain).
The issue I have with this is, if it's just a little slippery out or poor weather conditions you can't use 4wd as you'll break stuff having no centre diff. To me this really limits it's ability as an AWD vehicles, as unless the conditions are right, you'll only have a 2wd truck at your disposal.
The Command-Trac transfer box comes on the 4.0 litre models in the UK - all are auto, although I think you could get manual ones in the USA.
This transfer box has a centre diff, so you can have 2wd highrange, 4wd high range open centre diff, 4wd high range locked centre diff, 4wd low range locked centre diff.
The only thing you can't do with the Command-Trac compared to the Discovery is have low range with an open centre diff, which can be handy if you only wanting low speed control, such as a dry trail or backing up trailers in difficult situations.
Of course the Jeep offers 2wd (rwd) which the Discovery can't. This does help to get slightly better mpg figures and can make for some easy tailout action on the road too sometimes too easy with the 4.0! 
If you are looking at Jeeps, make sure you get one with a centre diff!!! And on that point, it might be worth considering this with some Jap trucks too. Many of them only offer 2wd/4wd locked. So limit what you can use the vehicle for IMO.
To drive the Disco feels bigger and beefier than the Cherokee and you feel higher up (which you are). The steering is way better than the Jeep in terms of feel and weight, although it's no Elise
Again it handles quite well, better in someways than the Jeep, although you can feel it's bulk a little more.
The Disco is bigger inside and with the high roof feels very open and airy. They are a nice place to be and travel in. Personally I prefer the early 200Tdi Series interior of the Discovery's compared to the revised 300Tdi one which I think looks worse, feels cheaper and is more closed in and darker.
The Discovery also has a huge boot/truck with loads of height to it. Back seats are roomy too.
The Jeep by contrast feels a lot smaller on the inside, much lower roof and as it's a unibody (no ladder chassis), so it's lower to get into with a large sill lip to climb over. A bit like getting into a tub, whereas the Disco has a flat opening you can slide in or out of.
You do 'sit-in' the Jeep, rather than 'sit-on' it, compared to the Discovery.
Oddly though, the Jeep feels like a big car to drive though. Can't really explain. Even a stock one feels quite Tonka Toy like from behind the wheel, which is good as it makes it feel like a 4x4, just a bit odd when you realise in stock trim it doesn't look like one...
Rear seats in the Cherokee are smaller with less space and a smaller door opening to get in and out.
In terms of modding and off road, the Disco has very good flex and suspension travel in stock trim and quite good ground clearance too. In fact it would be pretty fair to say, unless you are planning something extreme, the stock setup is more than ideal for most off road situations. It does have fairly large overhangs front and rear. But if you remove the front bumper corners and slightly trime rear wheel arch (called a Camel cut, as this is what they did to the Camel Trophy vehicles) you can easily fit 31.10.50 tyres on them.
In fact, with heavily trimmed arches I was running 33.11.50/ (290/90 (measured about 34" tall)) tyres on a stock suspension Discovery.
The Jeep will only run 235/75's in stock trim (maybe more if you want to hack the arches). But you'll really need a lift if you want to run 31's or bigger. The good thing is a 2" budget boost lift is very easy and cheap, more so than for the Disco.
Most Land Rover's have 16" rims as stock, while most Jeeps have 15". This might make a difference in buying tyres. In the UK 15" tyre sizes are rarer and more expensive as a rule compared to 16" ones.
Both vehicles can suffer weak axles if you go extreme, but I think they are quite comparable in stock trim.
All in all I think they are very comparable and I don't really have a favourite. They are both great and I like them equally as much!
Some pics:
A rather stock looking Jeep
But performed well in the snow
Stock performance
I have added this (last week) for a bit of fun and because it cost nothing. The engine makes a lovely creamy note now under accelerarion
Mostly stock with 31.10.50R15 tyres. Only change was I removed the front bumper corners (plastic end caps)
With some Simex 33.11.50R15's fitted and hacked arches with aftermarket flares, still stock suspension
Same with painted rims
Aftermarket bumper for better approach angle
With the flares, stock suspension and the 31.10.50R15 tyres on
This is the rusty boot floor, easy fix. Cut it out and I bolted in an aluminium replacement
Showing some off road ability with stock suspension and 235/85R16 tyres (about 32" tall). Note the rear arch has had about 6" trimmed off it, so the rear wheel is actually quite well stuffed up in the arch
200 Series interior
My Disco was a 200Tdi 3 door base spec 5 speed manual (1991). Although I've driven many other LR's and owned a few too.
My Brother had an 82 3.5 Carb V8 5 door Range Rover and a 1991 3.9 EFI Auto Vogue SE Range Rover. I had breifly a 3.5 EFI Vogue Range Rover (1985'ish).
My parents had a 1989 Vogue 2.5VM Turbo diesel Range Rover manual, a couple of 3.9 EFI Vogue SE auto's. Another 200Tdi Disco, a 3.9 EFI auto, a 300Tdi manual and a 300Tdi auto. As well as a couple of 4.6 P38a HSE Range Rovers and a few Defenders/90's, both Tdi and V8.
In the Jeep circle my current Cherokee is a 4.0 HO around 1995 MY auto, my Dad also had a 4.0 auto Cherokee.
The 4.0 six in the Jeep is very smooth, I'd personally say smoother and with a nicer power delivery than any of the Rover V8's I've driven. In the Cherokee it's also makes for fairly nippy motor, it's easily more lively than any of V8 Landy's I've driven and feels just as beefy. I've clocked 8.5 sec 0-60mph in my 100% stock Jeep. I reckon it'd take quite a bit to get an auto 3.9 V8 Disco to do similar.
The Cherokee is a bit lighter though.
MPG wise quite similar, maybe slight adv to the Jeep, 15-20mpg (imperial), more the lower end unless you are on a long run though. My Tdi Disco on big wheels tended to do 21/22mpg rising to mid 20's on a run. One thing I would say, a tweaked Tdi is quite a nice motor to drive, it'll never be as quick as a V8 or make the same HP, but they have quite an addictive power delivery and a very good push you in the seat sensation. Very minimal turbo lag and boost available from around 1500-1750rpm, so you are always on boost with ease. It's also an old school diesel so feels quite different to these modern CRD units you get in cars.
Despite the leaf suspension at the back of the Jeep I think they ride quite well, especially in the front, although maybe a little choppier in the back seats.
They also handle quite well too, the steering is way too light and lacking feel. But you do get used to it after a while, and once you do you can really throw the truck around on the roads. It's actually quite nimble when you get your confidence up.
Standard off road ability is very good, although the Jeep does maybe lack some ground clearance in stock trim and you can't fit as big wheels as easily as the Discovery, but they are quite capable. The leaf rear is technically not as good as coils and maybe won't flex quite as much, but I suspect many would be very hard pushed to truly tell from the drivers seat.
That said, it's very easy and somewhat cheaper to lift the Jeep should you want too.
Some Jeeps have rear LSD's as standard, although very few in the UK. There is no such option on the Discovery.
Some other differences are the transfer boxes.
The Discovery is full time AWD and has an open centre diff which you can lock manually, in either high or low range. This offers good flexibility.
The Jeep has 2 different transfer boxes, Command-Trac and Select-Trac. Not sure what you'll get in NZ. In the UK 2.5 diesel and 2.5 Petrol get the Select-track. This offers 2wd highrange, 4wd highrange (no centre diff, so locked drivetrain) and 4wd low range (no centre diff, locked drivetrain).
The issue I have with this is, if it's just a little slippery out or poor weather conditions you can't use 4wd as you'll break stuff having no centre diff. To me this really limits it's ability as an AWD vehicles, as unless the conditions are right, you'll only have a 2wd truck at your disposal.
The Command-Trac transfer box comes on the 4.0 litre models in the UK - all are auto, although I think you could get manual ones in the USA.
This transfer box has a centre diff, so you can have 2wd highrange, 4wd high range open centre diff, 4wd high range locked centre diff, 4wd low range locked centre diff.
The only thing you can't do with the Command-Trac compared to the Discovery is have low range with an open centre diff, which can be handy if you only wanting low speed control, such as a dry trail or backing up trailers in difficult situations.
Of course the Jeep offers 2wd (rwd) which the Discovery can't. This does help to get slightly better mpg figures and can make for some easy tailout action on the road too
sometimes too easy with the 4.0! If you are looking at Jeeps, make sure you get one with a centre diff!!! And on that point, it might be worth considering this with some Jap trucks too. Many of them only offer 2wd/4wd locked. So limit what you can use the vehicle for IMO.
To drive the Disco feels bigger and beefier than the Cherokee and you feel higher up (which you are). The steering is way better than the Jeep in terms of feel and weight, although it's no Elise
Again it handles quite well, better in someways than the Jeep, although you can feel it's bulk a little more.The Disco is bigger inside and with the high roof feels very open and airy. They are a nice place to be and travel in. Personally I prefer the early 200Tdi Series interior of the Discovery's compared to the revised 300Tdi one which I think looks worse, feels cheaper and is more closed in and darker.
The Discovery also has a huge boot/truck with loads of height to it. Back seats are roomy too.
The Jeep by contrast feels a lot smaller on the inside, much lower roof and as it's a unibody (no ladder chassis), so it's lower to get into with a large sill lip to climb over. A bit like getting into a tub, whereas the Disco has a flat opening you can slide in or out of.
You do 'sit-in' the Jeep, rather than 'sit-on' it, compared to the Discovery.
Oddly though, the Jeep feels like a big car to drive though. Can't really explain. Even a stock one feels quite Tonka Toy like from behind the wheel, which is good as it makes it feel like a 4x4, just a bit odd when you realise in stock trim it doesn't look like one...
Rear seats in the Cherokee are smaller with less space and a smaller door opening to get in and out.
In terms of modding and off road, the Disco has very good flex and suspension travel in stock trim and quite good ground clearance too. In fact it would be pretty fair to say, unless you are planning something extreme, the stock setup is more than ideal for most off road situations. It does have fairly large overhangs front and rear. But if you remove the front bumper corners and slightly trime rear wheel arch (called a Camel cut, as this is what they did to the Camel Trophy vehicles) you can easily fit 31.10.50 tyres on them.
In fact, with heavily trimmed arches I was running 33.11.50/ (290/90 (measured about 34" tall)) tyres on a stock suspension Discovery.
The Jeep will only run 235/75's in stock trim (maybe more if you want to hack the arches). But you'll really need a lift if you want to run 31's or bigger. The good thing is a 2" budget boost lift is very easy and cheap, more so than for the Disco.
Most Land Rover's have 16" rims as stock, while most Jeeps have 15". This might make a difference in buying tyres. In the UK 15" tyre sizes are rarer and more expensive as a rule compared to 16" ones.
Both vehicles can suffer weak axles if you go extreme, but I think they are quite comparable in stock trim.
All in all I think they are very comparable and I don't really have a favourite. They are both great and I like them equally as much!
Some pics:
A rather stock looking Jeep
But performed well in the snow
Stock performance
I have added this (last week) for a bit of fun and because it cost nothing. The engine makes a lovely creamy note now under accelerarion
Mostly stock with 31.10.50R15 tyres. Only change was I removed the front bumper corners (plastic end caps)
With some Simex 33.11.50R15's fitted and hacked arches with aftermarket flares, still stock suspension
Same with painted rims
Aftermarket bumper for better approach angle
With the flares, stock suspension and the 31.10.50R15 tyres on
This is the rusty boot floor, easy fix. Cut it out and I bolted in an aluminium replacement
Showing some off road ability with stock suspension and 235/85R16 tyres (about 32" tall). Note the rear arch has had about 6" trimmed off it, so the rear wheel is actually quite well stuffed up in the arch
200 Series interior
Gassing Station | Off Road | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff