4x4 Buying Recommendations

in what ways does it outperform the Rovers?
Im not trying to be a vehicle nazi, just curious what you base your
opinion on?
I tried to base my opinions on stock vehicles, however if you get into
"minimal modifications" on any of these rovers, I dont think the jeeps
would be able to compete on any level. The Jeeps that I have seen
modified to a point where they can compete with the Rovers are so far
built up that they arent really road/freeway worthy. Which is another
reason that the Rover shines, a bit of lift and some lockers and you
would be hard pressed to stop it off road, and it still has great
manners on road. Its not a street rod by any means but the speed and
cornering should be left to cars....

Not trying to start a fight or anything but a TJ with a budget boost lift
and 32X11.50's can go more places than the rover can.. I have a couple
buddies with range rovers and land rovers and they cant make it up some
obsticles where we go and cant go on some of the trails because they are
larger.. the steep stair steps are easier for the tjs also I have seen...


"Corey Shuman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> in what ways does it outperform the Rovers?
> Im not trying to be a vehicle nazi, just curious what you base your
> opinion on?
> I tried to base my opinions on stock vehicles, however if you get into
> "minimal modifications" on any of these rovers, I dont think the jeeps
> would be able to compete on any level. The Jeeps that I have seen
> modified to a point where they can compete with the Rovers are so far
> built up that they arent really road/freeway worthy. Which is another
> reason that the Rover shines, a bit of lift and some lockers and you
> would be hard pressed to stop it off road, and it still has great
> manners on road. Its not a street rod by any means but the speed and
> cornering should be left to cars....
>

They both have their places and the LR is an extremely capable if
overpriced 4x4.

Watching a grown man cry when he opened the door and water 1' deep came
pouring out of his $80,000.00 4x4 after he followed me through a deep
mud puddle was kinda funny though, in a sad sort of way.....

I posted a few shots in the past of us pulling the Land Rovers out of
the mud puddles they try to follow us through over on
alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4. They have no retention, but I found
this archive of the group:

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/group...autos.4x4.html

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Corey Shuman wrote:
>
> in what ways does it outperform the Rovers?
> Im not trying to be a vehicle nazi, just curious what you base your
> opinion on?
> I tried to base my opinions on stock vehicles, however if you get into
> "minimal modifications" on any of these rovers, I dont think the jeeps
> would be able to compete on any level. The Jeeps that I have seen
> modified to a point where they can compete with the Rovers are so far
> built up that they arent really road/freeway worthy. Which is another
> reason that the Rover shines, a bit of lift and some lockers and you
> would be hard pressed to stop it off road, and it still has great
> manners on road. Its not a street rod by any means but the speed and
> cornering should be left to cars....

I agree that they both have their place, believe me nothing is more
frustrating than the person who spends a ton of money on an SUV for it
to be never driven off road. However.. those pics appear to be of a
bone stock Disco II with street tires. So I think that the driver is
more of the issue here. There are tons of pics on Discoweb.org of
Discoveries that have minimal to extreme mods which would not be
getting stuck in that type of puddle. As to the wheelbase they are
pretty close. A Discovery being 100" and a Defender being 92.9, as
opposed to the TJ 93.4" and the GC at 105.9". I think that the approach
and departure angle are where the Jeep may have a slight advantage, at
least over the Discovery. The TJ approach/departure being 41.8/31.3
respectively as to the Discovery 34.3/29.8 however that is a stock
measurement. the addition of and aftermarket bumper, such as the arb or
the SG will bring your approach angle over 50 degrees which is far
better than you get with the stock jeep.
I have some pics of my own Discovery up on www.goldrushexpeditions.com
, it is used as an expedition vehicle and performs very well. and yes..
if you look there is even a pic of the rover pulling out a Jeep
too...To each his own but I wouldnt rule it out when looking for a good
used vehicle.

very nice rig!

"Corey Shuman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I agree that they both have their place, believe me nothing is more
> frustrating than the person who spends a ton of money on an SUV for it
> to be never driven off road. However.. those pics appear to be of a
> bone stock Disco II with street tires. So I think that the driver is
> more of the issue here. There are tons of pics on Discoweb.org of
> Discoveries that have minimal to extreme mods which would not be
> getting stuck in that type of puddle. As to the wheelbase they are
> pretty close. A Discovery being 100" and a Defender being 92.9, as
> opposed to the TJ 93.4" and the GC at 105.9". I think that the approach
> and departure angle are where the Jeep may have a slight advantage, at
> least over the Discovery. The TJ approach/departure being 41.8/31.3
> respectively as to the Discovery 34.3/29.8 however that is a stock
> measurement. the addition of and aftermarket bumper, such as the arb or
> the SG will bring your approach angle over 50 degrees which is far
> better than you get with the stock jeep.
> I have some pics of my own Discovery up on www.goldrushexpeditions.com
> , it is used as an expedition vehicle and performs very well. and yes..
> if you look there is even a pic of the rover pulling out a Jeep
> too...To each his own but I wouldnt rule it out when looking for a good
> used vehicle.
>

Those are 'Disco's' and you are right about the stock tires. But look
where they are stuck! They do get way back in there, even just bone
stock. If they had bigger tires under there, they would have the
clearance to follow easy in most places, but that snow stuck would have
bogged anything with less than 35" tires on it. Serious mud under that
snow....

The one gent in the blue one in the dark photos got hauled into the back
of the Dealer when he was there for a tune up and he though he was in
**** or something and the whole back shop gave him a standing ovation
for all the mud they found under it. LOL!

I still send out regular invites to a couple LR folks to join us on our
Jeep runs. They show up lots too. We have bone stock Jeeps on our runs
too, our Cherokee is bone stock so giving a tug here and there is
expected by all....

In the place we used to wheel where those shots are from, the LR factory
team used to bring folks in to learn how to drive their rigs.
Unfortunatly non off roaders ruined the area due to major construction
waste dumping and stolen car dumping. It got closed down. :-(

I am in Canada and even used those things cost a fortune. I was trying
to find an old one when I went 4x4 shopping and couldn't touch anything
I saw with the money I had to spend. If it runs it is worth more than
$5000.00 period no matter the shape or milage.

I looked at yours. It looks like it will run nice!

I sill like my CJ7 or any old CJ best out of 'all' types of 4x4's. I
love the 'classic' face and shape and the ease of repair. Mine is the
white one in those photos, she goes really nice and is a daily driver.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Corey Shuman wrote:
>
> I agree that they both have their place, believe me nothing is more
> frustrating than the person who spends a ton of money on an SUV for it
> to be never driven off road. However.. those pics appear to be of a
> bone stock Disco II with street tires. So I think that the driver is
> more of the issue here. There are tons of pics on Discoweb.org of
> Discoveries that have minimal to extreme mods which would not be
> getting stuck in that type of puddle. As to the wheelbase they are
> pretty close. A Discovery being 100" and a Defender being 92.9, as
> opposed to the TJ 93.4" and the GC at 105.9". I think that the approach
> and departure angle are where the Jeep may have a slight advantage, at
> least over the Discovery. The TJ approach/departure being 41.8/31.3
> respectively as to the Discovery 34.3/29.8 however that is a stock
> measurement. the addition of and aftermarket bumper, such as the arb or
> the SG will bring your approach angle over 50 degrees which is far
> better than you get with the stock jeep.
> I have some pics of my own Discovery up on www.goldrushexpeditions.com
> , it is used as an expedition vehicle and performs very well. and yes..
> if you look there is even a pic of the rover pulling out a Jeep
> too...To each his own but I wouldnt rule it out when looking for a good
> used vehicle.

Corey Shuman wrote:
> All this info and no one mentioned Land Rovers?? You can pick up a
> nice early 90s Range Rover or mid-late 90s Discovery for 4-5k. They
> are far more capable off and on road than any Jeep. Leather, heated
> seats, center locking diff...They are great and at the price they are
> a steal. As to buying on Ebay... I have bought my last 4 cars on
> Ebay. The only thing I can say is that you have to fly out to pick
> them up, that way you get no surprises. Better to waste the $$ on
> airfare than on a lemon. But 99% of the people are very honest and
> represent their vehicles very fairly. And at a signifigant discount.

The break down all the time. Reliability is the worst on Land Rovers.

"Dan J.S." > wrote in message
...
> Corey Shuman wrote:
> > All this info and no one mentioned Land Rovers?? You can pick up a
> > nice early 90s Range Rover or mid-late 90s Discovery for 4-5k. They
> > are far more capable off and on road than any Jeep. Leather, heated
> > seats, center locking diff...They are great and at the price they are
> > a steal. As to buying on Ebay... I have bought my last 4 cars on
> > Ebay. The only thing I can say is that you have to fly out to pick
> > them up, that way you get no surprises. Better to waste the $$ on
> > airfare than on a lemon. But 99% of the people are very honest and
> > represent their vehicles very fairly. And at a signifigant discount.
>
> The break down all the time. Reliability is the worst on Land Rovers.
>
>

I must be lucky then. I just traded my 95 Cherokee in for a 2nd 98
Discovery. The Cherokee had everything (torque converter, transfer case,
transmission, etc....) but the engine replaced before 100K miles and I took
damn good care of it! My old Discovery has had nothing replaced and its
going on 110K and gets driven harder then the Cherokee and is cared for the
same. Just got the 2nd one Discovery, identicle year, make, etc... with only
56K for $11500. Discovery's are soo easy to work on that I to do all the
maintenance on mine as well.

I posted a few shots in the past of us pulling the Land Rovers out of
the mud puddles they try to follow us through over on
alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4. They have no retention, but I found
this archive of the group:

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/group...autos.4x4.html

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's



Those were great! Thanks! Now I know why I never see those POS on the trails!

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...-I-drive-a-4x4