Landcruiser vs. Land Rover Discovery
- Thread starter Grouseman
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Gumby said:He bought the LC about a year ago.
Glad I could help.
Land Cruiser hands down
Stay on the good end of the strap, Drive an 80
Stay on the good end of the strap, Drive an 80
After much debate with my sister in-law of trying to talk her into buying an 80 she went out and bought a disco, now because of her foolish decision making I am going to have to ban her from coming on future trips bush. I have better things to do with my time other than recovering the disco every half hour.
They are Volvo Axlesalia176 said:80 with MOG axles and a stock LR (tires and 2" lift don't count) ...come on now, play a "little" fair!
The question should have been: How would you look in the Land Cruiser vs Land Rover Discovery?.
Wow. Not sure if I can add anything of value here other than the fact that I recently had to make the same choice. All the research I did said that the Disco was an absolute POS as far as reliability goes - works great when it works, but that is not often.
If you HAVE to have a Rover, send me a PM and I will hook you up with a guy that imports old LR Series IIa's and III's from Downunder. Now those are built like an anvil and you can fix them with a tool-kit that will fit in your pocket. Otherwise, listen to these guys and buy a Cruiser!
If you HAVE to have a Rover, send me a PM and I will hook you up with a guy that imports old LR Series IIa's and III's from Downunder. Now those are built like an anvil and you can fix them with a tool-kit that will fit in your pocket. Otherwise, listen to these guys and buy a Cruiser!
Do you hunt grouse with British shotguns?
Do you wear Barbour jackets?
If you answer yes, you're a Landrover guy. For one reason, you like things with character. For a second, you can afford the repairs!!!
Seriously, though, I've got a couple of each. A 95 Disco, a 93 Cruiser, a 66 Series IIa, and a 99 Landcruiser. If I only cared about reliability, I would have sold the Disco ages ago. But there is more to it than that for me. It would take me all night to list all the things I've fixed on my 95 Disco with 94,000 miles, and about ten seconds to list the things I've fixed on my 93 Cruiser with 181,000 miles. If that's all that matters, the answer is clear cut.
I've also pulled out my share of Cruisers with my Disco. Probably more than have pulled me out, actually. In some conditions the Disco can out perform (smaller, shorter wheelbase, certain traction conditions, approach and departure angles, etc.) but with stock lockers and the ability to put 33s on a stock truck the 80 series cruiser wins the wheeling award. So, ignore the guys just bashing Rovers for the hell of it. Go over to Discoweb.org and ask the same question, than make your choice.
Do you wear Barbour jackets?
If you answer yes, you're a Landrover guy. For one reason, you like things with character. For a second, you can afford the repairs!!!
Seriously, though, I've got a couple of each. A 95 Disco, a 93 Cruiser, a 66 Series IIa, and a 99 Landcruiser. If I only cared about reliability, I would have sold the Disco ages ago. But there is more to it than that for me. It would take me all night to list all the things I've fixed on my 95 Disco with 94,000 miles, and about ten seconds to list the things I've fixed on my 93 Cruiser with 181,000 miles. If that's all that matters, the answer is clear cut.
I've also pulled out my share of Cruisers with my Disco. Probably more than have pulled me out, actually. In some conditions the Disco can out perform (smaller, shorter wheelbase, certain traction conditions, approach and departure angles, etc.) but with stock lockers and the ability to put 33s on a stock truck the 80 series cruiser wins the wheeling award. So, ignore the guys just bashing Rovers for the hell of it. Go over to Discoweb.org and ask the same question, than make your choice.
As an other british car guy I have wanted a Disco for a long time. When I was looking into buying my offroad toy I wanted a non-jeep suv type vehicle with solid axles, coil springs, and farily modern . I also wanted to be able to modify it so there had to be an aftermarket. I had really only to vehicle a Land Rover Disco (didn't want a RR) or a Land Crusier 80. After spending 10 months looking I went with a vehicle I knew little about the 80. The reasons why? quality there is no comparison. I know the Rovers all to well. They are cheap but there is a reason. I still look out side and wish for a disco but I remeber that I like to drive not work on my toys. The disco's have their place but their build quality kills them. I still love them but I want to get back from the woods to home so I bought my 80. It is a wonderful vehical. It is a little big on some of the trails. But I would rather be a little big and have the quality than have a disco that breaks down.
The simple thing add up. To get the CDL you put in a $65 switch not $400 of linkage and a shifter. No lift needed for 33's. Few leaks. Plus my windows and seat move every day not just some of them.
If you do get one a Disco I is better for all out offroading. Find one with very little miles. Try to get one from 95-98. If you go with a DII(99-2004) get a 2000. They all came with the lockable transfercase and 99 was the first year so I would say away from it. Some 2001's have them but you will have to look underneath the rig to check.
I am a true non-bias guy if I had the money I would have both I still might get one. If you can only have one choose the 80.
The simple thing add up. To get the CDL you put in a $65 switch not $400 of linkage and a shifter. No lift needed for 33's. Few leaks. Plus my windows and seat move every day not just some of them.
If you do get one a Disco I is better for all out offroading. Find one with very little miles. Try to get one from 95-98. If you go with a DII(99-2004) get a 2000. They all came with the lockable transfercase and 99 was the first year so I would say away from it. Some 2001's have them but you will have to look underneath the rig to check.
I am a true non-bias guy if I had the money I would have both I still might get one. If you can only have one choose the 80.
I think that the only landRover that would be compairable to a LandCruiser would be the Defender 90 and the 110. They seem to be much more reliable then any of the other "Soccer Moms" LandRovers, and do much better off road. I thought about getting a 110 before I bought my fzj80. What turned me away from the 110 was the Price. a 1996 Diesel 110 went for about $60,000. The 80's run 6-20K verying from stock to heavly modified.
Though, if your looking to spend the dough, just go out and buy a new Hummer Alpha 1. That should get you where you want to go and back. I would buy the Hummer 1 over the Land Rover anyday. If you wanted to keep them stock and do no modifications, I would buy the Hummer Alpha 1 over the LandCruiser. But alas, I own a modified 80 searies, and wouldent trade her for anything.... Anything.
-Ron
Though, if your looking to spend the dough, just go out and buy a new Hummer Alpha 1. That should get you where you want to go and back. I would buy the Hummer 1 over the Land Rover anyday. If you wanted to keep them stock and do no modifications, I would buy the Hummer Alpha 1 over the LandCruiser. But alas, I own a modified 80 searies, and wouldent trade her for anything.... Anything.
-Ron
Project FJ80 said:
Personally I would take the opposite stance, and would take both an 80 OR a Defender over an H1 Alpha. H1 is just not as capable in most terrain as those two other trucks. Better yet, given how much the H1s cost, give me BOTH of those other trucks!
I agree Derek.
I have no opinion either way on the H1 until I wheeled with one.
It was a local trail, some pucker sections but not a difficult trail. The H1 got stuck on stuff that everyone else (mostly Jeeps) had no problem on. The H1 was stuck on stuff that wasn't even an "obstacle".
It didn't even go thru the fun stuff b/c it's so wide that it simply couldn't... well I guess it could but it would have been ugly.
I really think the H1 is made for military duty That is transport on unimproved roads, bitumen. Carrying supplies, light gunship, etc
For civilian use, it seems like overkill. Not the "good-U80 portal-massive flex-bling coilover-trail ready" kind of overkill. Overkill in ways that are disadvantagous for trail use.
I have no opinion either way on the H1 until I wheeled with one.
It was a local trail, some pucker sections but not a difficult trail. The H1 got stuck on stuff that everyone else (mostly Jeeps) had no problem on. The H1 was stuck on stuff that wasn't even an "obstacle".
It didn't even go thru the fun stuff b/c it's so wide that it simply couldn't... well I guess it could but it would have been ugly.
I really think the H1 is made for military duty That is transport on unimproved roads, bitumen. Carrying supplies, light gunship, etc
For civilian use, it seems like overkill. Not the "good-U80 portal-massive flex-bling coilover-trail ready" kind of overkill. Overkill in ways that are disadvantagous for trail use.
H1 is definatly a rig for muddy open fields and desert, not tight trails and rocks.
GM used to bring them to Telico for testing, they come back out narrower than when they went in. must be nice to wheel a company car and get paid to do it.
GM used to bring them to Telico for testing, they come back out narrower than when they went in. must be nice to wheel a company car and get paid to do it.
From Consumer reports:
Overview: The Discovery was well suited for off-road excursions, but came up short in everyday driving. The ride suffers from considerable side-to-side jostling, and fuel economy was dismal in our tests. Redesigned for 1999, the Discovery gained some cargo room, but unintuitive controls and difficult access remained. However, it boasted such advanced electronics systems as an Active Cornering Enhancement (ACE) system and a Hill Descent Control system. A more powerful 4.6-liter V8 arrived for 2003. The 2005 LR3 markedly improves on its predecessor, but overall falls short of the class leaders. It has a slow and thirsty V8, an unsettled ride, and controls that are confusing and poorly located.
Safety equipment: Dual front air bags and ABS standard. Side and head protection air bags standard from 2005. Safety-belt pretensioners standard from 1999.
Note: This model may have a recall associated with it.
1=poor, 5= excelent blank was an asterick which did not transfer. I am not sure what it means but can't be good.
The chart realligned it's self after I spent 10 minutes makeing it line up
98 * 02 * figure out which number goes where. 99 is mostly bad.
THe 80 series LC is too old and is not listed. I am certain it fared much better.
My 94 runs almost perfect cost much less than the price you most assuredly will pay for a mediocre Discovery and will continue to run for years to come.
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Engine 1 1 1 1 5 5
Cooling 1 1 1 5 3 4
Transmission 3 2 1 3 5 4
Drive System 1 1 1 2 3 3
Fuel 2 2 3 1 5 1
Ignitiion 2 1 3 5 3 5
Electrical 1 1 3 1 1 1
AC 3 2 4 2 5 4
Suspension 2 3 1 3 4 2
Brakes 1 1 1 1 1 5
Exhaust 1 1 3 5 5 5
Paint/Trim/Rust 3 1 5 1 1 5
Body Integrity 2 2 1 1 1 3
Power equipment 1 2 3 1 1 3
Body hardware 1 1 2 1 1 3
Used Car Verdicts 1 1 1 1 1 1
New Car Prediction Much worse than average 1
Overview: The Discovery was well suited for off-road excursions, but came up short in everyday driving. The ride suffers from considerable side-to-side jostling, and fuel economy was dismal in our tests. Redesigned for 1999, the Discovery gained some cargo room, but unintuitive controls and difficult access remained. However, it boasted such advanced electronics systems as an Active Cornering Enhancement (ACE) system and a Hill Descent Control system. A more powerful 4.6-liter V8 arrived for 2003. The 2005 LR3 markedly improves on its predecessor, but overall falls short of the class leaders. It has a slow and thirsty V8, an unsettled ride, and controls that are confusing and poorly located.
Safety equipment: Dual front air bags and ABS standard. Side and head protection air bags standard from 2005. Safety-belt pretensioners standard from 1999.
Note: This model may have a recall associated with it.
1=poor, 5= excelent blank was an asterick which did not transfer. I am not sure what it means but can't be good.
The chart realligned it's self after I spent 10 minutes makeing it line up
98 * 02 * figure out which number goes where. 99 is mostly bad. THe 80 series LC is too old and is not listed. I am certain it fared much better.
My 94 runs almost perfect cost much less than the price you most assuredly will pay for a mediocre Discovery and will continue to run for years to come.
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Engine 1 1 1 1 5 5
Cooling 1 1 1 5 3 4
Transmission 3 2 1 3 5 4
Drive System 1 1 1 2 3 3
Fuel 2 2 3 1 5 1
Ignitiion 2 1 3 5 3 5
Electrical 1 1 3 1 1 1
AC 3 2 4 2 5 4
Suspension 2 3 1 3 4 2
Brakes 1 1 1 1 1 5
Exhaust 1 1 3 5 5 5
Paint/Trim/Rust 3 1 5 1 1 5
Body Integrity 2 2 1 1 1 3
Power equipment 1 2 3 1 1 3
Body hardware 1 1 2 1 1 3
Used Car Verdicts 1 1 1 1 1 1
New Car Prediction Much worse than average 1
Last edited:
Thanks. It moved everything right when I c&p'd it so I literally spent 10 minutes "fixing" it then it appeared like it is in my post fun with the internet! lol
Here it is as I adjusted it:
Holy thread resurrection!!!! I just looked at the date of the op 2004!!!
Here it is as I adjusted it:
Holy thread resurrection!!!! I just looked at the date of the op 2004!!!
Last edited:
I say get a D110 or get a 60 series Land Cruiser! But I'm biased...
http://www.bigsky-adventures.com/landy/photos/photo12.jpg
http://www.bigsky-adventures.com/landy/photos/photo12.jpg
- Thread starter
- #80
Update Fellows,
Well I purchased an 1996 (80) with lockers back in June of last year, and put 20K on it in a year on hunting, vacation, expedition, etc trips. I LOVE MY DAMN CRUISER.....
SS
Well I purchased an 1996 (80) with lockers back in June of last year, and put 20K on it in a year on hunting, vacation, expedition, etc trips. I LOVE MY DAMN CRUISER.....
SS