Which one to buy?

[flyfishingbry]

Guys,

As a fly fisher, camper, hiker, hunter and etc my German sports car isn't able to get me to my favorite places, and I have had it with asking friends to come with or use their SUV's.

I don't have $80k for a Porsche Cayenne, $100k for a Mercedes G-500, or $100K for a new Range Rover, nor do I want to scratch such a ride.

While driving past one of those "used car lots" I noticed a Land Rover Discovery about a 1995 model. I stopped after hours to take a look and liked it, but with 150k on the clock I wasn't all that happy. However, the $6000.00 price tag is right in line with my budget before summer.

I have done some research and found the mid-90's Range Rover and Discovery to be in my budget. I like the Discovery for its unique rear jump seats and the windows up top for my two boys 9 and 5 to view the world from.

So my question is this, why would I get a Range Rover over a Discover and vise versa?

Also, am a heavy DIY home wrench, so working on my Rover will be done.

Thanks,

Fly Fishing Bry

[SCSL]

6k is very expensive for a '95 Disco. Lurk around here, and some other boards, and you can find one cheaper. There's a mildly (but well-) built Disco here in Richmond for about 5k. Stock '95s, depending on mileage, should be much cheaper.

Rangie Classic vs DI,,,,I'm sure you will get plenty of strong opinions from the board. Personally I like the looks of a Classic over a DI,,,to me nothing looks prettier than a well built Classic. But I've never wheeled with a stock RRC. I have, however, wheeled w/ a stock DI (and plenty of near-stock DI's) and cannot speak more highly of their capabilities off road. Another (small) advantage of the DI is that you can pack in more gear due to the external spare tire carrier. Flip side is the RRC is probably more Mod-friendly as you can pic one up VERY cheap and the roof is bolt-on. Parts for both are easy to come by. Weaknesses of both are the axles.

[roverX]

If I had to do it over again...I'd probably get a Rangie Classic. But...alas...I am in love with my D1! SCSL is correct in that a built up Rangie looks good. Both perform great as stock vehicles. I think the longer wheel base of 109" on the Rangie Classic does better in stock condition over the Disco but that is just my opinion. And yes, the Classic is more mod friendly!

Now to pricing...you can get a good used Disco or Classic with some mods for less than $5K. Just have some patience when looking. What is your geographical location?

[Serg]

That's very expensive!! I bought my 1997 XD which was a very limited model in near perfect shape with 110k for $8500.. There are good deals out there. They WON'T be on a dealer's lot.. go private party.

Personally I prefer the Range Rover Classic over the DI.. I have had both. The Long Wheel Base RRC has the 4.2 V8 and has LOADS more power than a D1... Plus I think it just looks meaner. My personal preference...

[Muddy Oval]

$6K for a 95 with 150K on it is too high. You can get a much lower mile one for that kinda money and maybe even something with some mods already on it. The RRC and Discos are essentially the same underneath- no major differences but the RRC usually has more electronic gizmos (which also tend to fail). A plain Jane Disco without sunroofs or electric seats is a great camping rig, and the 94/95's have regular distributors instead of the coil packs which adds to the simplicity.
I kinda like the way the RRC drives better than the Disco, but I like the Discos a lot. You kinda have to drive them both and see... for being so similar, they do have a different feel.

[Funrover]

I really like both, but I prefer the RRC!!!! I just like that way it drives. I also camp, hike bike, etc!!!! I have had great times with my RRC and have done very little mods to it.....The discovery, however, seems to be a better family rig because of the alpine windows and more cargo room!!!! I prefer the feel of the RRC but that is just me!!! My friends DI is sweet...... So I guess it's a matter of which you feel is more comfortable.... But the price you posted is very high!!!! I picked up my 92 RRC about 3 years ago and paid $2700 at that time it had 139,000 miles

[01001010]

you all know what im gonna say...D1 all the way baby!!!...lol

[AAXD]

I own both a Range Rover classic and a D1 and like both equally. The 4.2 in the LWB range rover definately has the edge over the 4.0 in the disco 1. Maintenance is about the same on both trucks and they both drive almost the same. I prefer to drive my discovery because of the interior layout. The range rover really doesn't have any room for small stuff, besides the small cubby box in the console and the small tray on the passenger side, there is no small storage space. The Disco1 on the other hand has loads of small compartments to keep stuff. As a daily driver, both trucks are perfectly civilised on the roads and both will fit in a normal height parking garage(assuming they are stock height) The Disco is easier to load stuff in the back because you do not have to lean over the lift gate like on the Range rover. The rear mounted spare also gives the advantage of more space in back. My first Disco had jump seats and for my purposes, they just took up space. My 97 does not have them and instead, has handy side pockets in their place, which are useful for keeping maintenance items like spare belts, oil, bulbs, fuses etc... The Long wheelbase range rover definately has the edge in passenger comfort due to the extended rear floor. I am 5'7" and I can sit in the back seat and stretch out all the way with loads of space between my toes and the front seats. As MuddyOval said, you'll need to test drive both models to find out which one you like more. Keep in mind Disco1's were made until 1999 and Range Rover classic production stopped in 1995, so a later Disco1 has the age advantage. That doesn't mean you won't be able to find a beautiful range rover classic nor does it mean every Disco1 you see will be nice.

[DiscoTex]

Just to add fuel to the fire: Is the 4.2 really that much more responsive than the 4.0/3.9? Because I seriously doubt that it's the extra cubic inches/liters/whatever way you want to refer to it, so is it on the tuning or what?

Oh, and D1 v. RRC: I have the D1, but drove a lot of RRC's, and to be honest, I liked the RRC better. I wouldn't trade my D1, but I am going to start looking for an RRC soon

[FrankyRizzo]

I like the look of a Modded D1 better. RRCs seem to be more docile looking.

[GotRovr]

I own both a 96 Disco and an 04 Disco. And I've seen many a rovers in action both modded and bone stock. On a consistant basis I've witnessed a many near bone stock if not bone stock range rover classics make it through the tough stuff without a scratch.

IMO go for a 95 Range Rover Classic instead of the 95 Disco. You might even have $$$$ left for some new fly rods.

[Rover Nick]

Aren't D1's and RRC's pretty much the same truck with a different body on it. of course with the exceptions of a few small things(such as CDL)

[AAXD]

Originally Posted by DiscoTex

Just to add fuel to the fire: Is the 4.2 really that much more responsive than the 4.0/3.9? Because I seriously doubt that it's the extra cubic inches/liters/whatever way you want to refer to it, so is it on the tuning or what?

Oh, and D1 v. RRC: I have the D1, but drove a lot of RRC's, and to be honest, I liked the RRC better. I wouldn't trade my D1, but I am going to start looking for an RRC soon

The response on the 4.2 vs the 3.9/4.0 isn't really noticeable. It's the increased torque that makes the 4.2 a better engine. I believe it was Serg who had a LWB rangie with a 4.0, maybe he can shed some light on the subject, having driven both engines in the same model truck. The 4.2 is no more than a 3.9 with a redesigned crankshaft. The increase in displacement comes from a longer stroke, adding more torque. I'm no expert but land rover claims 20 more horsepower from a 4.2 than the 3.9. I think the piston is redesigned as well. Land Rover detuned the engine to allow it to better power a 4x4 which doesn't need high revs most of the time like a sportscar. Like I said I'm no expert on the subject but there is loads of info out there on the subject. People tend to knock the 4.2 due to its reputation for breaking. For the most part, the 4.2's fail due to lack of maintenance and having worked on the guts of two of them I can say that they area very robust engine. It's true they are not as robust as the later 4.6's but if treated properly and not abused they will give loads of miles. Mine has over 220,000 miles on it and still pulls as hard as the day I got my truck with 135,000 miles on it 5 years ago. All it takes is regular oil changes and servicing, and (this goes for all rover v8's) Never overheat one.

[flyfishingbry]

Thanks guys for the info. Sounds like I need to drive both and see which one I like best. Next weekend I will try and drive down to Phoenix, Arizona and drive 3 or 4 of each model.

Speaking of engine life spans, any tips that I should keep in mind while looking at these trucks over the next few weeks? Weak areas and etc.?

One last thing as a German car magazine journalist, what are the magazines for Rovers? I might have to do some freelancing on my Rover!

Fly Fishing Bry

[grtdivide302]

i like my classic. i'm 6'2" i have been in a d1 and have found that the diso has more head room but is lacking in the leg room area, at least in the front seats. i would be more concerned about the condition of the sheet metal rather than miles on the truck, assuming the truck has maintence documentation.
al