[bavarian19]

I love the way they look. But in terms of reliability, I could never buy one.

I honestly think I would rather own an H3T before a Range Rover if I wanted a truck that would be OK off the beaten path.

[ragingclue]

If there was reasonable off-roading involved, I'd get a Disco in a heartbeat over a Range Rover.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

If there was reasonable off-roading involved, I'd get a Disco in a heartbeat over a Range Rover.

I dont think the Discos are any better in reliability. I know its a small sample size, but i know two owners of Discos. They've had serious troubles with them. One of the guys has had to have his car towed out of his garage at least twice.

[lyndon_h]

If you really want a nice SUV that can go offroad, get a Landcruiser and be done with it. But like someone said before, its hard not to look at the RRs when you can get them for less than 1/2 price barely used.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

I dont think the Discos are any better in reliability. I know its a small sample size, but i know two owners of Discos. They've had serious troubles with them. One of the guys has had to have his car towed out of his garage at least twice.

No, reliability-wise, they aren't much better. Only in the sense that you had a maximum of two corners effected by a fail of the self-leveling system, and it was a not-too-commonly selected option. Otherwise, the same gremlins effect it to include randomly cracking headers, failing oil pumps, and all kinds of other headaches.

I was simply stating that it does better off-road than the RR.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

If you really want a nice SUV that can go offroad, get a Landcruiser and be done with it. But like someone said before, its hard not to look at the RRs when you can get them for less than 1/2 price barely used.

Landcruisers retain their value very well. I remember when I bought my Disco, it was slightly used, and like you said, about 1/2 the price of what it was new. Used Landcruisers, however, were a completely different story.

[ChrisV]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

If there was reasonable off-roading involved, I'd get a Disco in a heartbeat over a Range Rover.

Ah, the Disco guys all say that, but I'd rather have another Classic SWB for real offroading. Even my '95 County LWB was great offroad while being comfortable onroad.

For me, I wanted the offroad capability, plus the added stability when towing a trailer than the longer wheelbase RRs have over the Discos.

first one:



Second one:



Current one;



Probably replace it with a Sport in a couple years.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Ah, the Disco guys all say that, but I'd rather have another Classic SWB for real offroading. Even my '95 County LWB was great offroad while being comfortable onroad.

For me, I wanted the offroad capability, plus the added stability when towing a trailer than the longer wheelbase RRs have over the Discos.

OK not fair comparing it to the classics. RRs used to be something completely different from what they are right now. But then agian, look at the LR3 compared to the Disco. Big fat thumbs down there.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Second one:

Reminds me of mine

[TK-421]

I know two people who have an '05 Range Rover and have had 0 problems except for normal wear and tear. One has 82,000 miles on the clock while the other has 191,000 miles


I think this may be because it had the BMW M62 engine

[tom_48]

So, therefore, would you guys think that it is better to get an ML63 AMG, instead of a big Range Rover Supercharged?????