Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Land Rover Discovery and Discovery II



  • After having driven the new Range Rover for 4 weeks now I am in a better position to accurately compare it to the Discovery. My first reaction (as posted last month) was that it didn't handle the corners nearly as well as the Disco. That is still true, although the appropriate word is probably that it doesn't handle the corners "the same" as the Disco. The Range Rover is a lot bigger and a lot heavier (after all BMW, who originally designed the new Range Rover, wanted it to be distinctly different from their X5)and is designed to handle that weight comfortably rather than sportily. The Range Rover handles broken surfaces with remarkable fluidity and smoothness and makes the Disco feel quite "harsh" by comparison. It also makes the Disco feel quite cramped. All in all I still think the Disco is a hell of a good car ("truck ?") but the Range Rover has won over my affections and now that I have "adjusted" to driving it well, it is the Range Rover keys I grab most mornings, leaving the Disco to the wife.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    Steve: your assessment was correct, that my warped sense of humor was suggesting C4, which was properly identified by is nice to know that my "singular" humor brings out the $2 words in SOMEBODY, and be grateful it is not duplicate or triplicate...forgive the long delay in responding, took the last week of Oct off, celebrated 20th wedding anniversary on Oct 31 (yes, Halloween) with the real marsha, aka marsha1 or marsha numero uno, came back to a ton of correspondence on my desk, and now my head is finally above water to breathe...have already posted to Tide in "I don't like SUVs..." as we have an ongoing discussion in that topic...

  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,946
    Welcome back! I met my wife at a Halloween party 22 years ago (she got a lava lamp for the "anniversary ). You have a couple of years on us for the actual anniversary - congrats on a real milestone.

    No Disco news unless you want to read about not so great mpg: New cars headed in reverse on fuel usage

    Steve, Host
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    Actually, I first dated her on the day before her birthday, so I have two "anniversaries" to remember, but luckily it is not so difficult...married 20 years, dated almost 25 years...waited a long time to get married, as I had almost made a BAD mistake prior to her, so I was slightly cautious...OK, I was scared to death and waited until I knew it was right... gratefully, she waited for me to come to that decision...why Halloween???...the only real reason, actually...that was the only day the CATERER had an opening, so we took it...true story from the "archives of Bob"...
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    Sorry for the sojourn off topic, I guess my life with Marsha does not really qualify for a Land Rover Discovery topic...but, while we were driving away for our honeymoon evening, I thought I saw a Land Rover on the road, does that qualify???

  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    Discovery brochure, I noted the new engine, with 217 HP and 300 ft lb of torque...the HP seems like nothing to brag about at 217, but does the torque allow it to accelerate well from 0-60, or from, say, 30-60???
  • Whats the opinion on this topic?
    Comparing the 2003 to the 2003 4Runner, whats should the main argument be for a Disco?? Starting to compare them both, and the 4Runner is more powerful, better warranty, less expensive. Finding it hard to stick with the Disco (even though I want to so badly!!).
  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    Just for comparison, I went to and built a new 4Runner to "match" up with a new Discovery. This basically meant building the highest trim level (Limited) and adding on a few other goodies. Then I did the same with an '03 Discovery.

    Option for option ONLY, a comparably equipped 4Runner is $40,588.

    I used an S Discovery with comparable options. I wanted to avoid the 18" wheels and ACE as there is no comparable on the 4Runner side. Even with the dual-sunroofs it was only $36,995!

    Now I don't think even the most ardent Roverphile would argue Toyota's reputation for putting together a long lasting, trouble-free product. But there is little doubt in my mind that the Disco would beat it off-road especially over the long run. it's just built a lot tougher, with heavier-duty bits and pieces. It also has a longer warranty, better dealership service and sales ratings, and it's even CHEAPER!

    The Disco has a 4 year, 50k mile bumper-to-bumper warranty.
    The 4Runner has a 3 year, 36k mile bumper-to-bumper warranty.

    I bet Toyota hopes that no one realized that they have priced themselves up to and above the LUXURY nameplates.

    Sure you could get a lower trim level 4Runner and save a few bucks, but then you really don't have a comparable truck do you?

    The new 4Runner is a cool truck, but make mine the Brit!
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    how are the seats for support on a long trip??...good support or exhausting...adjustable lumbar support, bolstering etc???...nothing worse than a vehicle that tires you out after 2 hours of driving on a 5 hour trip...
  • stopgostopgo Posts: 16
    Interesting that this just came up. I just purchased a 2003 Disco HSE (no ACE) and paid $40,195 for it. I waited until the 4Runners came out to test drive one and compare it to the Disco. As previously stated, I went with the Disco. This was a very hard decision since I have been a loyal Toyota consumer for over 15 years and sold my 1994 4Runner to get into the Disco.

    They are quite comparable vehicles in 2003. Yes the Runner is more powerful but it is not by much at all. The Runner is way quieter as far as the engine noise goes, it is a little quicker off the line too. Those are the only advantages over the Disco I saw, oh and the whole reliability issue. Runner gets 3 MPG better gas mileage in town and 1 MPG on the highway better.

    The Disco seats are far more comfortable and supportive, the ride and handling are stiffer and more responsive, and as stated in a post above, over the long haul I'd bet the Disco would hold up longer under adverse off-road conditions than the 4Runner would. The Disco warranty and dealer service is better than Toyota, it's better looking than the '03 Runner with it's cladding, Disco's engine has been around longer than the new Runner V6, and even the V8.

    Again, I think they are very comparable vehicles. You really can't go wrong with either one. I do not regret my Land Rover purchase, in fact, each time I see a new Runner, I am that much more satified with the Disco! It is a really fun truck to drive!

    Good luck with your decision,

  • Actually the 4Runner does have a comparable option to the Disco's ACE. I forget the inevitable initials, but what it does is cross link the shocks (dampers) to inhibit roll. Not nearly as effective as ACE. Apart from all that is the fact that the 4Runner lacks "SOUL". Also, in my case, it still doesn't fit. I have to contort myself to get into a 4Runner ( I'm tall). Finally, one must ask which one will you look forward to driving a year or two from now?
  • I was going to purchase a 99 Disco but I've changed my mind now, thank-god. After reading about all these problems. I'm looking for something to drive thats reliable for me and my family.I have six mouths to feed can't afford one more thanks a h#!^ of alot
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    No matter what you buy you're risking a truck that will give you problems. Over the long run a Rover will give you fewer problems than almost any other truck. If you're pragmatic, and I can only assume you are by your post, then you won't buy a truck on a whim... and you'll keep it many years. Over that "many years" period a Rover will cost you perhaps half as much as the other brands you're considering, which will need replacing every 5 years.

    Not to stir your kettle or anything, but this has been my personal experience. I can vouch for it. My sisters in law have bought three 4WDs apiece in the space of time it took me to pay off my Rover. They thought they were saving money to spend a little less than I spent on the Rover... and their most recent purchases each cost more than I paid for the Rover 4 years ago. In their search for durability and reliability they have tried Jeep Grand Cherokees, Ford Explorers, Ford Escapes and Dodge Durangos. Now they each still have 5 years of payments to make, and I have a free and clear Rover. And mine has been *FAR* more reliable than any of the six vehicles they've tried.

    Sorry, but those are the facts. And a hint: you won't get your "six mouths to feed" in a Rover anyway. How about a minivan?

    Regards, -Bob
  • I have a 99 Disco Series II and only 1 major problem during my 3 years of owning it. It was a radiator leak around 32k. It was fixed under warranty and now at 52k not a single problem since. Still loving it!!!
  • Dave (stopgo) or anyone else-

    Which would you say will retain a better resale value (say 5 years), Disco or 4Runner?
    Also, during your evaluation of the new 4Runner was it considerably roomier than the previous 4Runners? That's one item I disliked with the 2002 4Runners. Seemed as if it was more of a pain to get in and out of, where as the Disco felt much more comfortable. I'm always taking long trips (beach, skiing, etc.) and want the passengers to feel comfortable for the long hours.
    Last question...what is the difference between a Discovery and a Discovery Series II? I find dealers selling both, but can't find out the difference.

  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    Talk to Mike Green at West Coast British in California. He has a '96 Discovery and a year ago he had already put 650,000 miles on it.

    His friend had a 4Runner and it needed rebuilt at 108,000 miles so Mike did it. Then he thought "ya know my Disco would probably benefit from a rebuild" so he tore it down and it was basically still within tolerance.

    At 6 years age my Disco still feels as tight and drives as well as (or better than) a new truck. It's the only vehicle I've owned where I can say that. And it's been more reliable than any of the 13 Hondas I've owned. And it lives a hard life (ahem) with me.

    Of course it's subjective, but the things that matter to me point me toward the Rover.

    There are many differences between the DI and DII. The DII is even more reliable and stronger in the drivetrain. It offers roadholding features like ACE, and it has a longer tail for more storage. But I want my Disco short for offroading, and I never corner hard enough to want ACE. And, to me the view out of a DI is less claustrophobic than the DII. The DII has Bosch systems vs. Lucas (big thumbs up), and it went to Range Rover axles with fewer moving parts than the early DI axles. But how many of you have exploded a differential lately? For offroading I'd go with a DI with lockers and upgraded halfshafts. For mainly road use, look for a DII.

    Regards, -Bob
  • intmed99intmed99 Posts: 485
    The new Disco can make from 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds...which is 2 seconds better than the '02 model (with 4.0 V8).
  • intmed99intmed99 Posts: 485
    Both are good better at off-roading, the other better on-road and better reliability. Structural stiffness...i am not too sure on that one...the '02 4Runner (what i own) has one of the strongest frame (high-strength fully-boxed frame and high-strength fully-boxed 8 crossmembers). The '03 4Runner has 9 crossmembers.

    I highly respect the brother has one (2001 model) with only one minor problem so far (driver door lock froze).
  • Bob: What tires are you running on your Disco. I know you get a lot more snow there in Ak than we do here in the Mtns on NC, but it can still get grim in the winter. When the lease on the ML runs out, I plan on getting a year or 2 old Disco and an extra set of wheels, and mount a set of Nokian Hakka's on them. Any better suggestions? BTW most of our roads ar semi maintained gravel, and any offroading I might do would be light.
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    Like the British spelling?? I run Nokians here, year round. I went non-studded and have not regretted it. The Hakka's stick like a scared cat on carpet. Take a look at for sizing... I upsized a couple steps and they rub a bit over serious cross-axle conditions... not to worry. I run them at 50psi (recommended pressure is 85) and they're fantastic. Plus, the increased diameter put my speedometer spot-on.

    I considered the BFG Trac-Edge... if I hadn't got a good deal on the Nokians I would have gone that route. But I think I would have regretted it by now, they're not as good in deep snow.

    Avoid the Blizzaks and Alpins... one of them (I forget which) uses a spongy soft "open" rubber that sticks well for a few thousand miles but wears quickly. My Nokians have DEEP tread.

    Last winter we got 36" snow in 24 hours and I took my Boy Scout troop out playing in it. I broke trail down an unused road, and I was pushing snow with my headlights. When I got where I wanted to go, I stopped but couldn't get my doors open! I had to climb out the back hatch. THAT'S how well the Hakkas work in deep snow.

    Enjoy your Disco! You might find that one set of wheels is plenty good enough.

    Best regards, -Bob
Sign In or Register to comment.