Come on...convert a Rover guy

[Tom B]

Hey all,

I've been a lurker on ih8mud and yotatech for awhile. I've been driving Discos for 8 years and have been contemplating a jump to the Toyota world for my next rig (100 series LC - prefer a 105, but oh well). Unlike the forum banter that depicts Rovers in the shop every two weeks, mine have been, ahem, fairly/decently reliable --- thus far.

With the addition of a kid to the family, I'm looking at spending more dough on building a DD for obstacle wheeling, camping, and long distance offroad trips. My 2001 Disco II does this pretty well (1.5" OME lift, sliders), but I've been a little reluctant to spend any more on upgrades as I've been eyeing on switching to a 100 cause I'm getting the urge to try something different. I have never owned a Toyota before - or anything superbly reliable for that matter (Rovers, Jeeps, one or two other domestics).

About the max I'm willing to spend on a new rig is $19k and an initial 2-3k for mods -- which seems to go far less in the Cruiser world than the Rover world. This amounts to about 2000 a with ~100k miles. I want to go with a model that has the traction control (hence 2000+) and add the lockers later (TC front, locker rear better combo than the '99/'98 models). What kind of problems can I expect if I drive it hard for the next say 40k miles?

ARB vs Toyota E-lockers? What are your opinions and what are the price differences? Since Toyota obviously made an E-locker to fit the new 9.5" rear, one should be available. I've read that the diff in the front IFS is the same as the 80, so an E-locker should be available for that? I have front/rear airlockers on my D90, and while the compressor hasn't failed (and no air leaks), I'd be tempted to go with a electrical setup. A difference seems to be that the ARBs engage instantly while the Toyota lockers take awhile to engage?

Can anyone compare the performance of Toyota's Trac system with Rover's ETC in a difficult offroad environment - one or two tires in the air?

What's required to get 12" or 14" shocks in the rear? I saw a pic of Podvin's ride doing this. Is it just new shock mounts and removing the rear sway? Obviously the top of the springs are unretained. Is there a cone mechanism stock or added to guide the spring back into the upper perch? As an aside, I did a similar 14" shock setup on my D90.

How does the ride compare to stock with a 3" lift + 35's t-bars cranked and all? What kind of gas mileage do you 35'ers get?

What's the threshold for breaking CVs, diffs, and axle shafts? I.e. bouncing while locked on slickrock?

How often do you have to get alignments done because of wheeling? Does the IFS ever hang you up? Do any of you guys have front solid axle envy while offroad? (onroad is a nobrainer)

What is parts availability like at most the dealerships/NAPA, obviously I would go with someone like CDan if I have a breakdown at home?

Oh yeah, and more importantly, for those of you that have wheeled with comparable Discoverys, what are your unbiased (heh) opinions? I've already checked out expeditionswest writeups and they seem quite good and objective. My current thinking is I'd be taking a step up in reliability even with a higher mileage Toyota, but taking a step down in offroad performance. Feel free to convince me otherwise on the latter.
Has anyone completed something like Carnage Canyon or Holy Cross in a 100?

 

[ryanjl]

I can answer what I know, and leave the rest for others....

Toy E-locker compared to ARB: kinda an individual opinion thing. Some people like the e-lockers because of their reliability, and the fact that they are free if you buy a 98 or 99 with one in it already. Some people do not like the ARB for quality issues, others have never had a problem with them and love their performance. In the 80 series world, retrofitting an e-locker to a vehicle without them will normally cost a lot more than having ARB's installed (mainly because the axle housings are different between a locked axle and a non-locked axle), though I'm not sure if it's the same on 100 series.

I'm pretty sure the front diffferentials are different than an 80 series.

Having owned a 95 Discovery for a few years, I would say that you are in for quite the surprise. Toyotas are simply the most reliable vehicles on the planet. It's so nice to be able to get in your vehicle and drive anywhere without having to worry about any electrical gremlins acting up. On a LC with the mileage you are looking at, the two things you'll have to consider is replacing the timing belt and the starter contacts. After that, you should be able to go another 100K miles with no problems.

Most people (read: everyone who's posted here) have been extremely pleased with the ride of their lifted 100 series.

If you haven't already, you might consider a Lexus LX470. The variable ride heigt suspension can essentially give you a lift for free if you tweak it a little, and it's FAR more reliable than the notoriously crappy airbag suspensions on the 90's Rangies. Christo has wheeled his pretty hard, and had no problems with it at all.

As far as offroad performance goes, I don't really think you'll be taking a step down. Assuming you've used your D90 for more hardcore stuff, and used the Disco for more average stuff, you'll probably like the 100 series a lot more in replacement of the Disco. Surprisingly to everyone, even the people who own one, the 100's IFS hasn't hindered off-road performance as much as you would imagine. The major limiting factor is the size of the vehicle in the first place.

 

[superdosser]

consider the wheel base too....

I think the dependablity of the Toy vs. the RR is obvious and I won't beat that horse. (But my Jeep friends laugh at RRers.) One huge offroading issue is going to be wheelbase. The D90 is a much shorter rig -- and even stock has better approach and departure angles than 100s. I'm guessing here -- but you'll hit the tail on a lifted 100 WAY sooner than your 90. I've looked at owning a 90 because of all the offroad capabilities. But I'd hate to do a 1000 mile road trip in one (yeah yeah, I'm sure zillions of guys "have" done this...). And unless I had a bunch of buddies who are better wrenchers than I -- I'd be scared for a middle of nowwhere Nevada or Mexico trip....

 

[Jukelemon]

B:

Your questions are well thought. However, comparing a d90 to a 100 is not a good comparison. Extremely different vehicles in many ways. The d90 is more like what a 40 would have been if it was continued on the model line.

I owned a Disco II and here is what I liked about it. Hands down, better feel and look in the interior. It looks the part of a nice vehicle. The LC's still look basic even with the wood trim. The seats in the Disco were incredible. The V8 in the Disco was a slug. Suspensions was decent and handled well. A bit more supple than the LC. Hill decent was cool but not really necessary. I was not at all impressed with the traction control. I took it through some pretty hard terrain and it was weak in my opinion. My 98 100 with center diff lock would surpass the Disco's TC performance. With my rear locker engaged, far surpass the Disco.

In terms of what 2-3k would buy, I tend to disagree it would not buy much for the 100. As well, you can pick a 98 or 99 100 with rear locker in the 100k mark for 16-18k if you look.

Unbiased opinion: Discos look and feel cooler but perform at a lower performance level (stock to stock) and break down more.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

While a lot of good answers have already been given, I'll elaborate some. I travel with Rover's often. Most are Disco's, one is a very modified D90, and some are RRovers. You also mentioned Scott's site, Expeditions West, so you know his terrible experience with Rover reliability. He simply had to sell the Disco in order to continue doing what he does.

Hey all,

I've been a lurker on ih8mud and yotatech for awhile. I've been driving Discos for 8 years and have been contemplating a jump to the Toyota world for my next rig (100 series LC - prefer a 105, but oh well). Unlike the forum banter that depicts Rovers in the shop every two weeks, mine have been, ahem, fairly/decently reliable --- thus far.

**Don't prefer a 105. Owning an 80 and a IFS 100, I wouldn't trade the IFS on my 100 for anything, It takes the 100 to another level in terms of handling and ride quality while maintaining a very capable off-road prowess.**

With the addition of a kid to the family, I'm looking at spending more dough on building a DD for obstacle wheeling, camping, and long distance offroad trips. My 2001 Disco II does this pretty well (1.5" OME lift, sliders), but I've been a little reluctant to spend any more on upgrades as I've been eyeing on switching to a 100 cause I'm getting the urge to try something different. I have never owned a Toyota before - or anything superbly reliable for that matter (Rovers, Jeeps, one or two other domestics).

**Should you make this change from Rover to Toyota you won't be sorry. Reliability alone justifies the switch.**

About the max I'm willing to spend on a new rig is $19k and an initial 2-3k for mods -- which seems to go far less in the Cruiser world than the Rover world. This amounts to about 2000 a with ~100k miles. I want to go with a model that has the traction control (hence 2000+) and add the lockers later (TC front, locker rear better combo than the '99/'98 models). What kind of problems can I expect if I drive it hard for the next say 40k miles?

**Smart choice. I drove my traction controlled 2001 100 for 70K miles before adding lockers. I ran every trail sucessfully along with 80's even when they were using lockers and I just had traction control. Trails ratings were up to the "4" rating. My 100 has been worked to death though at 90K is rock solid reliable. Don't settle for a pre-2000 100. Take the ActiveTrac over the rear locker. When you do add a locker(s) to the 2000+ model you can run rear locked and front traction control which provides super traction while maintaining full turning capability. RARELY must I ever lock my front in my 2001.**

ARB vs Toyota E-lockers? What are your opinions and what are the price differences? Since Toyota obviously made an E-locker to fit the new 9.5" rear, one should be available. I've read that the diff in the front IFS is the same as the 80, so an E-locker should
be available for that? I have front/rear airlockers on my D90, and while the compressor hasn't failed (and no air leaks), I'd be tempted to go with a electrical setup. A difference seems to be that the ARBs engage instantly while the Toyota lockers
take awhile to engage?

**If you opt for 2000+ then the choice is ARB. ARB diffs are stronger. The stock front diff is the same as an 80 and is a weaker point. ARB corrects this. The ONLY issue I ever had in the 90K miles on our 100 was I damaged a front diff trying to climb a hill I had slid all the way down. DUMB. REALLY DUMB. That's why and when I put in ARB lockers, though even now, the 100 and 80's fully locked JUST make that hill and sometimes requiring extra attempts.**

Can anyone compare the performance of Toyota's Trac system with Rover's ETC in a difficult offroad environment - one or two tires in the air?

**Search for more on this. The ONLY two systems I've ever seen work are the 100's and the Rovers. The 100's system is far more controlled on the tough stuff. While the Rover's are spinning and spinning waiting for traction the 100 pops up and over like a locked vehicle.**

What's required to get 12" or 14" shocks in the rear? I saw a pic of Podvin's ride doing this. Is it just new shock mounts and removing the rear sway? Obviously the top of the springs
are unretained. Is there a cone mechanism stock or added to guide the spring back into the upper perch? As an aside, I did a similar 14" shock setup on my D90.

**Stock and OME travel is already 13-inches in the rear on a 100. The front travel is 7.5 inches, more than a Disco with soldi axle.**

How does the ride compare to stock with a 3" lift + 35's t-bars cranked and all? What kind of gas mileage do you 35'ers get?

**The ride is far improved over stock. Even with 35's and stock gearing the 100's a sports truck when outfitted this way. 12-15 MPG.**

What's the threshold for breaking CVs, diffs, and axle shafts? I.e. bouncing while locked on slickrock?

**My truck has been trashed off-road. The front CV's don't concern me whatsoever. The axleshafts are larger than an 80's front axle shafts. IFS doesn't limit the 100. It's size does a tad.**

How often do you have to get alignments done because of wheeling? Does the IFS ever hang you up? Do any of you guys have front solid axle envy while offroad? (onroad is a nobrainer)

**Again, would trade my IFS for anything. My 100 does everything my 80 does except where it doesn't fit. My last alignment lasted 60K miles.**

What is parts availability like at most the dealerships/NAPA, obviously I would go with someone like CDan if I have a breakdown at home?

**Can't tell ya. I've spent pretty much ZERO on 100 repairs. Fluids, etc have been about it.**

Oh yeah, and more importantly, for those of you that have wheeled with comparable Discoverys, what are your unbiased (heh) opinions? I've already checked out expeditionswest writeups and they seem quite good and objective. My current thinking is I'd be taking a step up in reliability even with a higher mileage Toyota, but taking a step down in offroad performance. Feel free to convince me otherwise on the latter.
Has anyone completed something like Carnage Canyon or Holy Cross in a 100?

**Modified Disco's are very capable. The 100" WB and vehucle design flourish off-road. At the same time, my Cruisers dwarf the Rovers off-road making just about everything look effortless. With the huge tires, gobs of clearance and vehicle build quality, disco or RRover just can't compare. Again, I'm not a snob. I luv riding with the Rover Club and have HUGE respect for these guys and their rigs and the Rover history. On the trail, I'm the clear winner though.**

 

[Tom B]

Thanks for the replies guys, this is the type of information I'm looking for. I was probably a bit opaque in my original message, but I'm looking at selling (and thus comparing) the Disco II to the 100. There's no way in hell I'm selling my D90.

Shocker,
Looks the an ARB is the way to go in the diffs. I was hoping that it would be an easy and cheap 3rd member swap to get a diff with an elocker in it, but that's probably not the case. After seeing LR's failure with the airbags I think I'm scarred from ever getting a wheeler with bags. Funny thing is, I've snapped an aftermarket (not OME) coil before 2.5 hours from the nearest paved road, and of course I don't carry replacement springs with me.

Superdosser,
Definetly no need to beat the reliability horse, pretty well aware of that one. I've taken the D90 on a 600 mile roadtrip with offroading and plenty of camping thrown in, of course I was younger then. It gets alot harder after doing the same trip in the Disco.

Yukelemon,
Yeah, one of the things that get's to me is the interior of the LC, after living with the interior of the LR. The LR's interior materials (especially the leather!) seem to be more durable and have more longevity than the LC's...but that's about as far as it goes. With the money thing not going far enough, LC upgrades are more expensive than LR upgrades. For the LC, sliders are ~$700, bumpers +$1000, while for the LR, I can get sliders for $300, bumpers for $500-600.

Shotts,
Thanks for all your replies, I really like how you have built your 100. Funny thing about when Scott was mentioning the terrible reliability of his Discovery on the site, I looked at the things that went wrong and was mentally thinking, so what's the big deal...that's not bad. Viscous fan units are easy to replace, replacing wheel speed sensors are easy, but getting access to the proprietary diagnostic equipment is a pain, etc, I'm just use this stuff breaking and it has never left me stranded (other than the above mentioned aftermarket spring break).

From what you're saying, and after seeing trip pictures, it seems the IFS won't be that big of a deal for moderate stuff. Also, from what you've described, it seems that ActiveTrac has better algorithms than LR's ETC, which seems odd since Rover is so bentup on having good fourwheel drives (Ford OTOH is not!). As a side note, are you comparing the performance against DII's that have CDL reinstalled, the system really sucks without it.

When you are talking about travel, are you talking about shock length? Running 13" rear stock shocks is pretty impressive, but I haven't seen any picture's actually showing that other than Podvin's which had modified shock mounts. With the 14" shocks in the rear of my D90, I can literally sit on the tire and fit myself in the wheel well when it's at full droop (I'm 6'1"). Do you have to remove the rear swaybar to get full travel? I think the stock shocks on the DII's are a little over 8" front and rear. I'm not sure if the guys you run with have their swaybars connected, but it does make a difference. Here's some pics of what can be done with different shock mounts and longer shocks for the DII.

http://www.discoweb.org/gregdavis/fork1.jpg
http://www.discoweb.org/gregdavis/fork2.jpg
http://www.discoweb.org/gregdavis/fork3.jpg

You can get alot more travel out of a D1/D90, 14" shocks f/r and more with coilovers, but that's a terrible setup for a DD. Some good D1 flex pics that dwarf the DII.

http://www.discoweb.org/kentpollack/P4160045.jpg
http://www.discoweb.org/kentpollack/rover2.jpg
http://www.discoweb.org/kentpollack/P5260024.jpg


Thanks for the replies, I think I'll eventually see what my Disco can fetch on the open market and continue to hunt for a 100. It stinks that the Toyota dealership service departments are not networked with one another, so one could get a full service history.

 

[ChuckB]

Those D1 picts are ridiculous...

 

[NMuzj100]

So should I test my suspension with a ramp or a forklift?

 

[Pitbull]

You will like the engine in the 100 a lot better than the engine in the disco. I know I once owned a 1962 olds cutlass same engine you had in your disco Good luck.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

From what you're saying, and after seeing trip pictures, it seems the IFS won't be that big of a deal for moderate stuff. Also, from what you've described, it seems that ActiveTrac has better algorithms than LR's ETC, which seems odd since Rover is so bentup on having good fourwheel drives (Ford OTOH is not!). As a side note, are you comparing the performance against DII's that have CDL reinstalled, the system really sucks without it.

**With the CDL locked the Rover's do not compare to a 100 in the traction control dept. With the CDL unlocked the Rover's are quite dangerous.**

When you are talking about travel, are you talking about shock length? Running 13" rear stock shocks is pretty impressive, but I haven't seen any picture's actually showing that other than Podvin's which had modified shock mounts. With the 14" shocks in the rear of my D90, I can literally sit on the tire and fit myself in the wheel well when it's at full droop (I'm 6'1"). Do you have to remove the rear swaybar to get full travel? I think the stock shocks on the DII's are a little over 8" front and rear. I'm not sure if the guys you run with have their swaybars connected, but it does make a difference. Here's some pics of what can be done with different shock mounts and longer shocks for the DII.

**In stock and OME form you have an actual rear travel of 13-inches. Disconecting sway bars doen't gain you added travel. Basically on an 80 or 100 series Cruiser you spend under $1000, can add 35-inch rubber and eat up just about anything out there. As for IFS and "moderate" trails? No. IFS doesn't hinder the capability on very difficult trails. If it did we wouldn't be running 4+ trails in Moab and throughout AZ.**

 

[DMX84]

The people on the Discoweb BB are snobby. (I was considering a Discovery at the time) and they were very rude. Go ahead and ask them how the discovery tows. That’s what I did and they told me if I wanted to tow, than buy a Suburban or Ford F150! lol

 

[DMX84]

Thanks for the replies, I think I'll eventually see what my Disco can fetch on the open market and continue to hunt for a 100. It stinks that the Toyota dealership service departments are not networked with one another, so one could get a full service history.

I heard that the Land Rovers are hard to sell used, especially if you do not have all the service records.

 

[NorCalDoug]

...It stinks that the Toyota dealership service departments are not networked with one another, so one could get a full service history.

I wasn't aware of that...must be a Toyota thing. Lexus dealerships can pull the entire service history for their vehicles. They pulled one for mine when I bought my LX 450.

 

[expeditionswest]

Bielecki,

My heart bleeds for you! I know the $$$ loss I took when selling my 2001 Discovery II, and it was painful.

As everyone knows, it is difficult to get unbiased opinions on vehicles, especially from the people that own a model in question.

I am going to stick my neck out here a bit, but I have owned or driven all of the vehicles mentioned on this site, in some of the most remote and rugged areas in the southwest and Mexico. My two most frequent travel companions own 100 Land Cruisers (shotts and strassman) So having said that....

There is NO appreciable off-highway capability advantage of a stock TLC100to a stock Discovery II if the Discovery has a CDL installed. Before anyone gets too fired up , let me explain.

A vehicles for the purposes we buy them for can be measured by a few criteria (of my own creation), and this is where the Toyota products shine:

CAPACITY:
The ability to carry weight in the vehicle. This is measured by payload statistics.

...Discovery: Tie (1,400 lbs)
...TLC100: Tie (1,470 lbs)

DURABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to travel rugged terrain, fully loaded without chassis or drivetrain failure with years of continual use.

...Discovery: lose
...TLC100: clear winner (the TLC drivetrain is considerably overbuilt for the application with larger axles, differentials, etc. The engineering and quality control is also superior)

RELIABILITY:
The ability of a vehicle to perform over long distances and after years of service in rugged terrain without engine, electrical and support system failure due to component malfunction.

...Discovery: Lose
...TLC100: Clear winner (I dont think I need to go into this much, but words like Kaizen, Poke yoke, lean manufacturing, six sigma and others are unknown to Land Rover North America.)

CAPABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to traverse rocky, muddy, crossed axle terrain including deep water crossings, severe side slopes, hill climbs and descents.

...Discovery: Tie
...TLC100: Tie

Please keep my opinion in context, and consider the other categories. The 100 has a clear advantage in durability and reliability, which is why it is a superior vehicle.

having driven with 100's on rugged terrain, I never witnessed a clear advantage to either vehicle. The Discovery is smaller and more nimble, which is an advantage, but the 100 has a longer wheelbase which helps on steep climbs. The Discovery has a better approach and departure angle, and nearly the same running ground clearance, but the 100 has larger tires.

I will say that if a stock 99 TLC and stock Discovery were compared, the TLC would reign victorious. The TLC was available with a rear locking differential with has a clear advantage in trail performance and treading lightly. The Discovery in that year did not have a CDL and suffered greatly on the trail as the traction control did all of the work.

Remember, these comments are stock vehicle to stock vehicle. Put 35" tires and air lockers in a Discovery II and the vehicle will still perform at the same capability as the 100 with the same modifications.

I will also say that there is no advantage to the TLC traction control over the Discovery system, with the exception of reliability. The Discovery system is continuously variable and uses a very fine gear pitch to measure wheel spin. The system actually changes as the trail progresses. Initially, there is lots of wheel spin, and then the system figures out you are really playing on a trail and becomes much more responsive. Again, I have driven MANY trails with TLC 100's with traction control, and even have several videos of the two systems in action.

Now I am sure there are some of you that will disagree with me, and that is cool. Remember, I am driving a Toyota now

 

[hoser]

Nice comparison, Scott!

Just a small correction on payload capacity--(afaik)

2000 TLC 1745lb capacity (~300lbs more than a discovery)
2000 LX470 1459lb capacity

 

[expeditionswest]

Nice comparison, Scott!

Just a small correction on payload capacity--(afaik)

2000 TLC 1745lb capacity (~300lbs more than a discovery)
2000 LX470 1459lb capacity

Could be for the 2000 year model, thanks for the update. I just went to toyota.com and found 1470 lbs. for the 2005 model.

It is probably a baseline options change from year to year, or maybe a change in spring rate. I know that Isuzu Troopers have a 400 lb higher rating in AU because of different springs. Nothing else is changed.

 

[Tom B]

I've test driven 2 so far, and yeah I like the engine alot more. I punched one of the 100's on a long ice patch to test the traction control, and sorry as it is, the TLC took off faster on the ice than my Disco takes off on dry pavement (the tires were spinning and TC was activating).

The guys on Dicoweb can be a little difficult at times, but the tech info is good since most really work on the rigs (you could find at least a dozen people that can do head gasket jobs in their sleep). I've trailered with my Disco (6800-7200 lb load on a 19 ft trailer) for over 1000 miles. Thankfully it was through the flat parts of the country rather than passes here in Colorado. I could maintain the speed limit about half time, and surprisingly there was almost no trailer sway. I attribute this more to the length of my trailer.

Scott,

Thanks for the great info. Yes, I installed the a CDL kit in my Disco, it's dangerous not to have one installed - especially on failed hill climbs. I think another advantage of the TLC would be you could skinny pedal your way through because of the more robust driveline - kind of a fallout from a better driveline. The axles, diffs, and CVs on Rovers are notoriously weak. In fact, the ETC on my DII is eating away at the spider gears. Everytime I change the diff fluid I'm getting gobs and gobs of metal on the drain plug magnet. On the flip side, I've wheeled my D90 w/ 35's up Prichett Canyon, Lower Helldarado, Holy Cross and a few others without breaking the stock frontend by being really light and careful on the throttle. I upgraded the shafts in the rear, and haven't had any problems. One of the best things you can do for a Rover driveline is swap in LC 80 series 3rd members, machine the swivels and fit longfields (which I plan on doing someday).

Cool enough, the Defender 90's payload capacity is 2035 lbs with HD springs (1555 w/o) and the D110's is at a whopping 2999 lbs (always wanted to build one of those). I'm sure even a 2004 or 2005 TLC could handle 1745+ with its beefy frame and spring upgrades.

I'm looking at a clean 2000 with 102k miles right now for $19,900 with no service records (I'm sure I could knock it down some). Too bad they'll only take wholesale on trades - OUCH! I'm definetly going to be patient in the private seller's market.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I will also say that there is no advantage to the TLC traction control over the Discovery system, with the exception of reliability. The Discovery system is continuously variable and uses a very fine gear pitch to measure wheel spin. The system actually changes as the trail progresses. Initially, there is lots of wheel spin, and then the system figures out you are really playing on a trail and becomes much more responsive. Again, I have driven MANY trails with TLC 100's with traction control, and even have several videos of the two systems in action.

That one video you have of me spinning on FR42 doesn't count. I was heavy on the gas which was driver error.

 

[expeditionswest]

John,

So in your experience driving with both TLC100's and Discovery II's with the CDL, have you noticed a big performance difference in the traction control between the two?

I thought things were pretty well matched on FR42 that day, given the 3" difference in tire size...

I know my pre CDL days probably tainted your view slightly. It seemed like all the disco did was spin, grab, spin, grab...

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

That day on 42 it seemed we had very comparable rigs. You're conclusion is correct. I do remember though on that day that on every obstacle but that one, the Disco's did spin quite a bit more than the 100. On that one where I spun, I was in error. I applied too much gas approaching the hole and when I got flexed out I spun and stopped. My fault.
A good example of tightness is shown on your videos where we pull that wheel lift. Watch the Disco spinning and spinning through the holes prior to the wheel lift, then watch the 100. The pause for traction was VERY short on the 100. This was common that day. I'd grab the links from your site but it's down right now (?).

My conclusion in this thread mostly comes from my several trips with the Rover Club. You were not on any of these trips. In runs to the Gap, Chivo, Coke Ovens, etc., I've had an advantage for sure though I've also learned how amazing the Disco's are too. The main thing that gave me advantages over the Disco's was my ground clearance. I could take lines over ledges and rocks the Disco's simply couldn't.

Now, to your point about equally equipped rigs? I'd bet if I ran with a locked, and 3-inch lifted Disco with 35-inch tires then it be a war for the top spot. (Though you'd need more than 3-inch to fit 35's?) I haven't seen or ran with a Disco like this though. I'd luv too! I'd still have more clearance, though the Disco'd have one-foot less WBase and a smaller body. I think the trail/obstacle would decide on the winner. They be very close though.

Last comment: Recently at Chivo Falls, a Range Rover tried an alternate line that I had just completed in the 100 without trouble. He got hung up on the ledge and bent his rear control arm in a V-shape so badly his spring came out and his axle was kinked/turned to the side. The diameter of his rear arm looked about 1/2" or so. This is inexcusable for an "supreme off road vehicle". I was in shock when I seen the arm. It's litteraly half the size of the 100's arm. By the trails end, he had lost the other srpring and was stuck. I know this non-related to this topic. I brought it up though because it's possible that some Disco's could sucessfully do what I've done when I've been with them. Maybe they don't try because it's risky?