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



  • waskowasko Posts: 103
    Bob, other old-timers (to this board),

    I saw the lucrative side-button called "Future Vehicles" on the left side of the townhall screen and clicked on through. I was out perusing the new models for 2003 and noticed that Isuzu was introducing an SUV to replace the Trooper.

    Bob, do you remember some guy named Jimmy DelRay posting in this forum in 98/99 talking about the merits of the Trooper over the Disco?

    Funny thing is, the Trooper is now end of life, while the Disco continues on in grand tradition. Sure there has been changes from the DI to the DII, but the spirit, soul, and brand are still intact. Same can't be said for much of the competition out there!

    Lets hope Ford does the right thing and keeps the Disco torch shining bright for at least another decade. Let's hope the upcoming changes planned for the new Disco don't make the vehicle lose its unique characteristics, charm, and British quirkiness! And lets keep our fingers crossed that Ford keeps their hands out of the American Explorer parts bin!

    Cheers, wasko
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    I believe the replacement for the Trooper is the Ascender, which is just a rebadged Chevy Trailblazer...

  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    And, in truth, it is not a Trooper "replacement," just a new model that Isuzu will be offereing in the states INSTEAD of the Trooper. The Trooper will live on outside of the US and Canada, but it is done here.

    After the CR tippytest, the Trooper has been nothing but a thorn in Isuzu's side, despite being an otherwise excellent truck.

    The newer Troopers are god trucks, but i don't think any rational 4x4 fan would think they were better OFF-ROAD then a Disco.
  • I have been driving a new Range Rover all weekend (instead of my Discovery Series II). Whilst undoubtedly a very accomplished and superbly put together motor car, I can honestly say the Discovery is a better drive. The Range Rover simply doesn't like corners and is a yacht at sea compared to the Discovery. ACE is no doubt the main reason for this difference. I can hustle the Discovery through corners at speeds that would have most saloon cars squealing their tyres and drifting into the green stuff. The Range Rover doesn't have ACE for some reason (anyone know why?) and as such it is real bouncy castle stuff. And the Range Rover costs almost twice the Discovery !
  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    You mean the completetly redesignd, 2003 "new" Range Rover?
  • Yes I am refering to the current Range Rover model, launched here (UK) earlier this year. I suspect the reason ACE isn't an option is that the Range Rover no longer has a ladder rail chassis. I suspect ACE needs the suspension set up that such a chassis allows. It was worrying getting complaints from rear seat paasengers in the Range Rover who felt sea sick after a few miles on twisty country lanes. I haven't had a complaint like that since I replaced the Series I disco with a Series II.
  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    I wonder if the UK version is suspended differently. EVERY report here int eh US says the new Rangie is absolutely terrific on road and off.

    I covet them. :-)
  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    I've driven both the 2003 Range Rover and the 2002 Discovery (haven't had the opportunity to drive an 03 Discovery yet). The differences are minimal at best, but then again I don't drive top heavy SUV's like they were sports cars. I found the 03 Range Rover far superior in ride quality over both the 4.0-4.6 Range Rover and the Discovery. Steering feel with the rack and pinion was also much more precise than the Discovery. ACE does reduce body roll, but once the 03 Range Rover takes its initial set, it handles curves extremely well.
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    Yep yep yep, I remember Jimmy. How about "TEST"?! I wonder whatever became of that poor misguided soul.

    Speaking of trucks not holding up, I bought my DI early on in '97. Around the same time my sister in law bought a Ford Exploder and my other sister in law did the same (green vs. white). Now, I'm about the sign the last payment check on my Disco and in the same period, SIL #1 has had the Exploder, another Exploder (go figure), a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and now a Durango. SIL #2 had the white Exploder ("Moby"), a Jeep GC (think they were talking to each other?) and now a Ford Escape.

    I'm seeing huge amounts of money changing hands, and they both still have 5 years of payments left, trying to find something with some offroad ability, and that will "last". They both wondered at my truck costing $5-10k more than theirs on original purchase... but I've had to buy ONE truck, not lose money on 2 or 3 trade-ins.

    And besides that they still call me to pull them out when they bury their 4WDs. Gotta love it.
  • I am in the market of buying an midsize SUV, does anyone know why does the Discovery depreciate so much, so quick when the car is suppossed to be that good and specailly when compared to the depreciation rates of the other makers such as BMW, LEXUS and Mercedes?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    does anyone know why does the Discovery depreciate so much...?

    I imagine a good chunk of it is due to the high markup on the vehicle which basically evaporates the second you drive it off the lot.

    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    ...and is EXACTLY why you should buy one that's 9 months old, with plenty of warranty left. Any initial build quirks will be sorted by then and it won't even be completely broken in yet.
  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    That steep depreciation also makes them affordable to us common folk. :-)
  • buroskyburosky Posts: 90
    I thought it's more because of the demand. If there is as much people looking for a used BMW, Lexus or Benz as there is looking for a Discovery, I don't think the depreciation would be any different. I think Rovers are just not as popular for one reason or another. Better for us since there would be less on the road. It sort of preserves the prestige of owning one.
  • denver8denver8 Posts: 42
    Look at the Defenders, low supply;and they cost as much now for used ones as the original sticker price.=high demand... In 1999 I bought a 1995 Defender with 56,000 miles and paid more than the original sticker price. Best money I ever spent. Maybe the depreication on the Discoverys has to do with the large number of leased vehicles coming on the market.

    And for a good depreciation story... In 1996 I bought a 1993 Mitsubishi 3000GT V-R4, Twin turbos all the good stuff. The car had an original sticker price of around $45,000, the guy I bought the car from had leased it for 3 years so I basically bought out his lease. Paid $19,000. That is some quick depreciation of $26,000 in 3 years. After a year when my young life crisis was over I could hardly give the car away.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Please don't shout. ALL CAPS is hard to read.

    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • mrwhipplemrwhipple Posts: 378
    No xenons on any model. They're all halogens. Xenons only come on the '03 Range Rover.
  • mrtoad3mrtoad3 Posts: 68
    I have a 2001 Discovery II with 18" rims and 255/55 R18 all-terrains. I would like to use some winter weather tires and 16" steel wheels with 255/65 R16 Nokians. Will this affect the height of the vehicle? My concern is the already tight tolerances with the garage opening I have. I fitted a roof rack that gives 1/4" clearance now and am concerned with overall height with the new tire/rim combo. Any insight would be helpful as winter is approaching in the Sierras. Thanks for all the great posts.
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    The 255/65x16 should be the same height as stock. Take a look at the Discoweb for all the sizes and fitments... you'll have to pursue the "tech" section and then the "tires/wheels" part.

    Good luck! Nokians are GREAT winter tires!

  • waskowasko Posts: 103

    My wife drives and X-5 and I drive a 2001 DII. I definitely like both vehicles. Would I own an X5 as my own vehicle? Definitely! But will I ever give up my Rover? Absolutely not :)

    Each vehicle has their pros and cons:

    The X5 has superior road handling skills, lots of little BMW extras (the red light illumination in all the right places at night), superb engineering, and the most solid feeling steering wheel/turning radius response of any SUV I've ever driven, those great Xenon bulbs, and plenty of room for our lifestyle.

    Things I dislike about the X5: Electronics in weird places (like under/around the spare tire cover in back cargo area), AWD not= 4WD and it's not bad in the snow, but it's definitely not as capable as my Disco! Cheap dashboard buttons and cupholder spring tensioners (my wife lost 4 dashboard buttons and 2 of the cup spring tensioners so far in the 1st year). Plus, if you plan on owning this (buying instead of leasing), you'd be hard pressed to do ANY maintenance on it - the engine looks like something that would belong on the Battleship Enterprise. Oh, and snooty-tooty dealership people - I always feel out of place when I take her vehicle in for service. (i.e. I don't consider myself one of the 'beautiful people' that you typically see driving beemers).

    As for the DII - very commanding view, trucklike ruggedness, over-engineered for complete durability, superior in the snow/mud/offroad conditions, more cargo space, better towing capacity, etc. Also, pretty straightforward to do a lot of your own maintenance on, should you chose to do so after the warranty expires. And the dealership experience in both Detroit and Seattle has been better than any other brand/marque in the world - no snooties there, just plain old good people in both sales and service depts!

    So, if you're looking for an SUV that will only go offroad 1-2x a year and has superior road handling qualities, I'd be hard pressed not to recommend the X5.

    If you like your SUV to be more SUV and plan on riding trails, towing, being in a lot of mud or snow, need more cargo capacity, and generally like an SUV that behaves more like a truck, I'd be hard pressed not to recommend the DII.

    Glad to discuss offline if you'd like more details.

    Thx, wasko
  • waskowasko Posts: 103
    Ok, now that I've posted some goodness about Discos to polo, it's time to vent a bit...

    I've blown 2 tires in less than a month offroading. The first was totally my fault, hitting a patch of paved road on a dirt road at speed (35mph). Funny thing though is that my buddy has a honking large early 80's oldsmobile and we hit the same slab the next weekend at 50 - NO TIRE DAMAGE on his old boat!

    Then this past weekend I'm on a logging road that is very muddy - near the tops of the fender-wells. I'm going through in 4L with a fair amount of speed (7-10mph) to keep forward momentum and I hit (I think) a shard of stone in the muck. Tire goes flat.

    I haven't had a chance to put air in this flat and wet it down to see where it is leaking yet, but I didn't see sidewall damage. That would initially seem to indicate that something penetrated the main tire surface.

    Has anyone else had any problems like this with the tires being really frail? I'm thinking about replacing the whole lot.

    As an FYI, I've only had 1 other flat tire in my life on all the vehicles I've owned before these 2 flats in the past month on the DII. That seems to add insult to injury.
    Thx, wasko
  • nanuqnanuq Posts: 765
    I had some trouble with the stock tires (whoops, "tyres") on my '96. When they died I replaced them with a tall set of Nokian Hakka LT10s. I'd never go back. I have about an inch of tread depth, something like 10 plies in the tire carcass, and these things DO NOT deflect off rocks and roots when I'm wheeling. They call for 85psi and I run them at 50psi front and rear. They're great in deep snow, great on COLD snow... incredible grip... and chew well in deep snot. Last winter I was out regularly camping off "roads" where I was pushing snow with the bumper and headlights and I only buried her when I knew it was going to happen (like when I drove off the side of the "road" to park at night). I've hit some hard things awfully hard and never flatted one yet.

  • intmed99intmed99 Posts: 485
    Bridgestones just came out with a new all-terrain (AND all-season) tire, called Dueler A/T REVO. It is relatively cheap, but has the latest technology. It does not come in 18" yet. However, for those of you with 16", they do come in 255/70/16 (which is slightly taller than what you have now). BTW, i do not work for Bridgestones. However, my brother has a '01 Disco and he may get this. I have a 4Runner 4x4 with these tires...looks very unique!

    Pics of my tires on 4Runner:

  • mrwhipplemrwhipple Posts: 378
    That is a good tire. Yokohamas a very good too.
  • 01r101r1 Posts: 280
    I'm looking at some used 99 & 00 DII's, most of the on-line ads list the VIN, does anyone know of an on-line resource to decode this? I would like to get the build date out and presence of ACE or SLS.

  • tincup47tincup47 Posts: 1,508
    There is nothing in the VIN that specifies whether a vehicle has ACE or not. I can find build date and whether it has Ace if you provide the last 8 digits of the VIN number.
  • 01r101r1 Posts: 280
    How about:

    Thanks for the help!
  • Hi I was wondering what you guys think I should pay for either a 2001 or 2002 disco II Se w/ black and beige interior? I was also wondering what you guys think about the ACE system?

    Thank You
Sign In or Register to comment.