Really want a Disco II
- Thread starter pint
- Start date
Snagger
Explorer
I don't know about the US, but in the UK there is a very large market for remapped engine ECUs or plug-in units to increase performance. It's a really bad idea - the TD5's turbo waste gate is controlled by the ECU, so it's not just the fuel injection that is modified. These performance increases can seriously degrade engine longevity by massively over-boosting the engine. I'd steer well away from anything that has had one of these remapped ECUs - head and manifold warping are very common, and can be severe enough that the manifolds shear their bolts at the no.1 and 5 ports.
The oil pump issue was confined to early engines, so any engine still in service was either never affected or was rectified under recall early on.
The TD5 Discovery II is a pretty sturdy and reliable piece of kit and is very effective as a family or expedition vehicle. When I did my Alpine trip, two of the accompanying vehicles were DIIs and both coped well with containing all the kit required for complete families. However, one of them was seven seat model with rear air suspension and ACE. It ripped an airspring from top to bottom on a roundabout and had to crawl to that day's camp on its rear bump stops. It was unable to participate in any of the off roading for the next four days as none of the LR dealers in the region would order in the spares in time. The trip leaders had seen about 7 or 8 EAS failures on expeditions over the previous 5 years, bit said they had never seen a coil or leaf spring failure. Best to go for the fully coil sprung 5-seater.
As for year, I don't think there's much difference between them, technically, apart from the very early (first year or so) not having a lockable centre diff and relying entirely on ETC. The centre diff itself is as per other LT230s, it's just the lever and linkage that was removed by LR to save cost, but that was reintroduced when customers complained - the ETC can't cope too well alone and wears the brakes rapidly. A retrofit is possible. The 2003 model had the face lift, which I think makes it the best looking of all the Discoverys.
The oil pump issue was confined to early engines, so any engine still in service was either never affected or was rectified under recall early on.
The TD5 Discovery II is a pretty sturdy and reliable piece of kit and is very effective as a family or expedition vehicle. When I did my Alpine trip, two of the accompanying vehicles were DIIs and both coped well with containing all the kit required for complete families. However, one of them was seven seat model with rear air suspension and ACE. It ripped an airspring from top to bottom on a roundabout and had to crawl to that day's camp on its rear bump stops. It was unable to participate in any of the off roading for the next four days as none of the LR dealers in the region would order in the spares in time. The trip leaders had seen about 7 or 8 EAS failures on expeditions over the previous 5 years, bit said they had never seen a coil or leaf spring failure. Best to go for the fully coil sprung 5-seater.
As for year, I don't think there's much difference between them, technically, apart from the very early (first year or so) not having a lockable centre diff and relying entirely on ETC. The centre diff itself is as per other LT230s, it's just the lever and linkage that was removed by LR to save cost, but that was reintroduced when customers complained - the ETC can't cope too well alone and wears the brakes rapidly. A retrofit is possible. The 2003 model had the face lift, which I think makes it the best looking of all the Discoverys.
jbaggy
FlyFish Zealot
Decided to jump in finally for my first post to offer you my experience.
I bought an 04 Discovery S (no sunroofs) with 56,000 miles, one owner, with all records, for 9k out here in California. The previous owner kept it in immaculate shape and I have never had any of the dreaded rover issues (gaskets, oil pump, "three amigos" ABS, drive shaft, etc).
It now has just about 90,000 miles on it, still running strong. I liked the 04 model because it offered the center diff lock of course and I found more 04 models in the Bay Area that were lightly used than others.
Whichever year range you go for, I urge you to take it to the trails in stock form and see how capable it is right outta the box. I have done some insane Northern California trails in my Disco stock (it does have AT tires and ARB sliders) such as Snake Lake, Gold Lake, Slickrock, Deer Valley, Bear Valley, all of Hollister OHV, Mono County, and parts of the Rubicon, with minimal trouble.
However, my subscription to Overland Journal has my "to-do" list for both my Disco and Tacoma growing steadily.....beware of the Journal's power...:drool:
Thats my .02. Good luck with whatever you get and have fun!
I bought an 04 Discovery S (no sunroofs) with 56,000 miles, one owner, with all records, for 9k out here in California. The previous owner kept it in immaculate shape and I have never had any of the dreaded rover issues (gaskets, oil pump, "three amigos" ABS, drive shaft, etc).
It now has just about 90,000 miles on it, still running strong. I liked the 04 model because it offered the center diff lock of course and I found more 04 models in the Bay Area that were lightly used than others.
Whichever year range you go for, I urge you to take it to the trails in stock form and see how capable it is right outta the box. I have done some insane Northern California trails in my Disco stock (it does have AT tires and ARB sliders) such as Snake Lake, Gold Lake, Slickrock, Deer Valley, Bear Valley, all of Hollister OHV, Mono County, and parts of the Rubicon, with minimal trouble.
However, my subscription to Overland Journal has my "to-do" list for both my Disco and Tacoma growing steadily.....beware of the Journal's power...:drool:
Thats my .02. Good luck with whatever you get and have fun!
Attachments
RabidRover
Observer
Sound advise ... seems like we are in the same boat. I just got my subscription last week.
Storz
Explorer
Agreed 100%
pint
Adventurer
Definitely would be stock until I understand what it "needs." My 100 series LC was very capable right out of the box. I would expect the same from a Disco. Prob do OME lift, tires and rock sliders after a while, but not much else until required. First and foremost would be catching up on PM and general maintenance. I am over the top with maintenance items. I think that's a good thing???
LtFuzz
Explorer
Speaking for older D1s here, but the OME will really wake up the handling/tracking of a tired stock setup as long as you keep the lift reasonable. A steering stabilizer helps, too. I love how my D1 handles with 3" of OME lift.
I don't really like the stance of a Disco running larger than a 31.5-32" tire, but to each his own.
FYI, I'm one of the lucky few to puncture a fuel tank during the course of pretty mild wheeling (Canyonlands). Nothing crazy, and an easy trail-fix, but a gas tank skid from Columbia Overland is near the top of my list.
LtFuzz
Explorer
The medium OMEs are pretty mild lift -- 1.5" or so. That's what I wanted originally, but the HD stance looks too good for me to hassle with changing it.
Check out the link in my sig line (6.2) to see how a ~3" lift looks. It's very civilized and handles great in town and at interstate speeds. Might give you an idea of how high to go if you find that to be too high.
RabidRover
Observer
I have had good luck with the Rovertym 2" springs and OME shocks. Truck handles better than stock and that much more capable on the trail.
Chazz Layne
Administrator
I went the same route (and on many of the same trails) for the first 5-6 years before finally lifting. In the end, the decision to lift ultimately happened because I needed more weight handling from the suspension, and because it was the best-bang-for-the-buck when the SLS system died.
If I had it to do over again I would still have the exact same components installed I do now, but I'd have done sliders before the lift (and have one less dent).