Thread: Disco vs Rangie Fuel Consumption.

Yes that's correct

On a trip to the Simpson, in convoy with 10 Rangies and Discos, my 77 3.5 4 speed did better economy than any Disco.
It was only by a little bit AFAIK, and I got about 13.7L per 100KM average.
I think the best Disco 3.9 was 14 so there is very little in it.
Regards Philip A

They all have there pro's & cons
They are all reliable .. Thats how they got to be 14 to 20 years on the road

Fuel ... If you want economy , try a diesel

Disco's are good ... You just need to set it up for your purpose .. and know your car's habits

Check out some of the disco threads

Mike

Originally Posted by Adon

G'day.

I have a couple of questions about range rovers(1980-1990) and discovereys(to 1994) what vehicle out of the 2 gets more kilometers to the litre? I'm want one of these to be my first 4WD as my dad has had a good amount of land rovers over the years and he currently has a 85 COUNTY with the motor bored out to 3.9lt and its on gas but still isn't that good on fuel.. I'm guessing because of the work done on the motor.

No LR V8 is going to get good fuel economy. Expect 20L/100kms on petrol and you won't be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Adon

Also i've been told Discovereys aren't as reliable as defenders, range rovers and the other landys. Is this right?

Thanks, Adon.

That's a pretty vague statement. Pre 99 Discovery and 95 RR the Disco and RR were nearly twins mechanically.

Not wanting to be too invasive or anything but you sound pretty young. If I was looking for my first car at the moment I could think of better things to do than pouring my paycheque into the petrol tank every week with a V8 Rover.

Since you have limited the Discos to pre 1994 - I'd be looking for a rangie. The pre-face lift Discos had a pretty spartan interior and most had a duck-egg blue dash <peuk!>. I'd suggest a rangie with the 4spd auto around '86-90'. The 1990 model had the 3.9, which is fine as long as they are not overheated. The earlier 3.5's have less power but are slightly more robust.

Happy hunting!

I wouldn't say they are unreliable just be careful which one you buy.Get someone that know's them to have a look if possable.A V8 rover wont be economical but if you go this way i believe gas is your friend.I have a 91 disco(pre update)and am very happy with it.see here http://www.aulro.com/afvb/members-ri...-bush-pig.html

Cheers Brett

Originally Posted by mike 90 RR

... Fuel ... If you want economy , try a diesel

... Mike

Adon

These days, one must preface what fuel economy you are talking about. At nearly $1.90/ litre diesel isn't very economical on your wallet even if you are getting 14 /litres/100 km my 4.6 EFI 4 speed Auto RRc gets around 17-19 litres/100 Km on LPG and at $0.63.9/litre my wallet is miles ahead of the diesels.

The very early 1970 - 1974 RRc were low on trim, no power steering or A/c and relatively light compared to later models, with very little pollution control so were very good on fuel economy. After '74, they started to up trim and ADR 27c pollution control sucked the life out of the fuel economy. For PhillipAs 77 to get 13 Litre/100 K the pollution control must have been disabled or it was a unique car. Into the 1980's the fuel consumption was a little better than the late 1970's but the improved sound deadening, better trim and 4 doors reduced some of that.

I like the late model Rangies, 1985 onwards, particularly the 1989 and 90 but before the air suspension which can be expensive when they give trouble.

A poorly maintained or thrashed car whatever model will be unreliable.

Diana

You will find there is no difference in L/100 Rangie V Disco or that age with same running gear. 3.5 efis are under powered but can get around 15/100.
3.9 efi go a bit better but have been known to to 16to 17/100 on gas can use 20 to 25/100. So depends if you like the camel hump roof If you go Disco or Rangie