Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Looking at getting a 1996 HSE Range Rover, i have falling in love with the comfortable driving style and great all round view and all the in-cab luxuries

Just wanting to know from anyone that may have one or know of someone that has/had one,any information regarding their mechanical quality pros and cons etc - remembering that ALL cars can have their problems and i'm not interested in 'personal preference off topic' statements (ie-buy a cruiser or patrol instead etc)

Ta

range rovers are very comfortable and have many luxuries but when somthing goes wrong they can be very costly to have repaired. the electricals are very complicated and hardto get at when a mate of my dad had a problem with the heater or sumthing and the dash had to be removes it cost alot as it takes about 3 times aslong to take out ( therfore u pay 3 times for labour) as it does in most other 4wds. my dad had a disco v8 and it was very good and relyable till it got to about 90000ks then he started having trouble with it mainly motor trouble and the abs brakes started playing up.

the disco was a very nice car beter to drive compared to the patrol he has now and handled very well went great off road and was only let down by relyabilty.

dayne

i have a friend who used to have a rover, used spend the weeknights fixing it so he could wheel again on the weekends. No slagging, but they have horrible rep for reliability. (get a daihatsu , jk)

1996 is probably too old if you want something reliable.
Since BMW took over, the Rangie got better.
Since Ford took over, the Disco got better.

As mentioned earlier, I spend 3 out of 4 weekends fixing the damn thing!

Oh yeah, and they depreciate pretty quickly.

Good cars IMO

I will buy one of those next but I am pretty mechanically minded and have maintained two rangies.

I am driving a 1991 Rangie which I have put 50,000Km on without much in the way cash outlay just basic maintence.

Previously I owned a 1976 Rangie which I put about the same number of Ks on that without any real problems.

I maintain a 1996 Rangie p38 4.0SE great car - drives well and doesn't cost the earth to run, parts are readily available.

Neither of my rangies have never bailed me up or been towed - no other car I have ever owned can claim that

The HSE 4.6 can do a headgasket if they are overheated even if it is cooked once or twice. Check to see if the heads have been off which would be a good thing - this has been done for you otherwise make sure you drive a few to get an idea of how fast they should be. The old drinking glass on the oil filler to see if it mists up badly - sign of a weak gasket



Tom

RockyF70 wrote:i have a friend who used to have a rover, used spend the weeknights fixing it so he could wheel again on the weekends. No slagging, but they have horrible rep for reliability. (get a daihatsu , jk)

Do you think they will be wheeling a 4.6 HSE Range Rover - give it a few years yet before we start cutting and lifting these babies

I do respect Hardy (on this board) who has a great looking P38

Tom

Davidh wrote:1996 is probably too old if you want something reliable.
Since BMW took over, the Rangie got better.
Since Ford took over, the Disco got better.

Better reliability maybe. Better off-road no way.

Davidh wrote:Oh yeah, and they depreciate pretty quickly.

Their values drop than a brides nighty

bogged wrote:

Davidh wrote:Oh yeah, and they depreciate pretty quickly.

Their values drop than a brides nighty

Yep they do but the HSE has done the major part of its depreciating
from $100K - $16-25K now for the next few years they will sit around that,
have noticed in the last 6-12 months more and more have been turning up under 18K have had blokes seem them advertised for 13K

Tom

Well I have been considering getting a late 90's V8 Disco at the end of the year. Haven't looked into it much but from talking to car yards they say that as soon as they get one they send it to auction. Maybe keeping one in stock. Looking at Brissie auction houses every week each place seems to be auctioning at least 3-4 Discos and 1-2 Feelanders and Range Rovers. As opposed to the 04 Corolla Seca my Wife just bought from auction. We looked for months and only turned up sedans. I guess Corollas sell themselves.

From reading forums a late 90's auto V8 seems to be okay in reliability stakes. Seems to be issues with earlier manuals and any Tdi 200-300. Then there is the ABS and other auxillary systems but I am pretty good Mr Fixit so I wouldn't be paying for any labour.

If you can get one cheap from auction due to current fue prices you could probably put it on gas to get a good package.

RaginRover wrote:Yep they do but the HSE has done the major part of its depreciating from $100K - $16-25K now for the next few years they will sit around that,

yea true, but thats some depreciating..

Utemad wrote:Well I have been considering getting a late 90's V8 Disco at the end of the year. Haven't looked into it much but from talking to car yards they say that as soon as they get one they send it to auction. Maybe keeping one in stock. Looking at Brissie auction houses every week each place seems to be auctioning at least 3-4 Discos and 1-2 Feelanders and Range Rovers. As opposed to the 04 Corolla Seca my Wife just bought from auction. We looked for months and only turned up sedans. I guess Corollas sell themselves.

From reading forums a late 90's auto V8 seems to be okay in reliability stakes. Seems to be issues with earlier manuals and any Tdi 200-300. Then there is the ABS and other auxillary systems but I am pretty good Mr Fixit so I wouldn't be paying for any labour.

If you can get one cheap from auction due to current fue prices you could probably put it on gas to get a good package.

The 3.9 Disco is an easy convert to LPG the timing is still mechanical advance and the injectors can just be turned off with relays and the ECU doesn't care and will still do idle control with the ICA.


I have two LPG tanks and a cradle that replace the fuel tank in a disco and I even have an aux fuel tank somewhere, I will be getting rid of them soon and going for a larger inboard tank - I am currently using 1 as a in tank in the cargo area but I am going to get my old 70L one re-tested and put it in for more range.

Tom

RaginRover wrote:The 3.9 Disco is an easy convert to LPG the timing is still mechanical advance and the injectors can just be turned off with relays and the ECU doesn't care and will still do idle control with the ICA.

Cool

only mechanical pro/con i can say is that they suck fuel like nothing else for an unequally expected result.
i think this is a pertinent issue give today's climate

Thor wrote:only mechanical pro/con i can say is that they suck fuel like nothing else for an unequally expected result.
i think this is a pertinent issue give today's climate

The '96 RangeRover I look after uses 16L/100K around town and 12.5L/100K on the highway - as good as anything in a petrol 4x4 that weighs nearly 3 tonne.

Leaves my 1991 for dead at 20L and 16L respectively


Tom

RaginRover wrote:The '96 RangeRover I look after uses 16L/100K around town and 12.5L/100K on the highway - as good as anything in a petrol 4x4 that weighs nearly 3 tonne.

Leaves my 1991 for dead at 20L and 16L respectively

Does the 4.6 get significantly better fuel consumption than the 3.9 or is this difference due to other reasons?

The range rover he is talking about is a 4.0L,so it leads me to believe there wouldn't be a huge increase in the amount of fuel it would use compared to a 4.6L but i could be wrong....is there a unreasonable difference that would create a big downfall of the vehicle?

Already i'm getting less than those figures stated in the current rangie So any improvement would be better

Here's the link to redbook for that car:

http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch ... y=LAND96HB

In the specs, you will note that even they quote 22L/100klm around town. And generally, those figures come from the manufacturer and tend to be on the conservative or "best case" side of things (ie, I think Nissan quote the 4.8 at around 17L/100klms, and I get more tlike 19-20).

Just my thoughts on the whole fuel thing.

In terms of the car itself - don't actually know anyone who's got one so I can't say either way.

gu4800 wrote:Here's the link to redbook for that car:

http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch ... y=LAND96HB

In the specs, you will note that even they quote 22L/100klm around town. And generally, those figures come from the manufacturer and tend to be on the conservative or "best case" side of things (ie, I think Nissan quote the 4.8 at around 17L/100klms, and I get more tlike 19-20).

Just my thoughts on the whole fuel thing.

In terms of the car itself - don't actually know anyone who's got one so I can't say either way.

The car will calculate a running average on its own, I just head around to the old man's place and hit the button - it was 16.9 L/100K this morning

Tom

-Mandy- wrote:The range rover he is talking about is a 4.0L,so it leads me to believe there wouldn't be a huge increase in the amount of fuel it would use compared to a 4.6L but i could be wrong....is there a unreasonable difference that would create a big downfall of the vehicle?

Already i'm getting less than those figures stated in the current rangie So any improvement would be better

The difference is that the p38 4.0 and 4.6 is electronically controlled engine timing vs the 1991 Rangie 3.9 uses mechanical advance.

On the early P38s there were no oxygen sensors so the injectors runs flat out the whole time (so do the early rangies) the later p38s had 02 sensors (I am not sure what year they were introduced - the old boy's 4.0SE '96 doesn't have them ) but the cat converters that I bought for it recently does have the threads welded into the left and right header for o2 sensors.

I think that would make it more like 16 around town the entire time, when I drive it I get 17-18 out of it but I do only drive in peak hour on the freeway every day to and from work - probably why mine is so high too.

Tom

The fuel doesn't really worry me that much because when it comes down to it, if the car needs petrol, you gotta buy it anyway.

Yeh of course just like everyone else i hate going to a petrol station and seeing the price, then remembering that i'm driving a V8 , basically the way i see it is, filling up our rangie is just like pouring the 'liquid gold' down the drain,but i live with it,as do many many other ppl.
Still have to get to and from work everyday so theres nothing i can do about it and theres no point complaining.
We will be towing alot so i expect to use a little more than average anyway.

-Mandy- wrote: We will be towing alot so i expect to use a little more than average anyway.

They tow really well, 3500Kg max IIRC and the airbag suspension works really well, I know of another that tows horse floats etc and they go like a champ

Tom

I have been told that the airbags (when not p*ssing the owners off due to probs) are a great advantage while towing increasing the safety and comfort of the ride.
Like i said in my first post, i test drove and was so impressed with comfort.
I know range rovers are comfortable anyway (we have an 88 rangie ),but for more in cab luxury, they are outstanding.

-Mandy- wrote:I have been told that the airbags (when not p*ssing the owners off due to probs) are a great advantage while towing increasing the safety and comfort of the ride.
Like i said in my first post, i test drove and was so impressed with comfort.
I know range rovers are comfortable anyway (we have an 88 rangie ),but for more in cab luxury, they are outstanding.

The air bag system can be maintained for not a whole lot of money, the vavle block and ecu are the only expensive bits, the rest of the fittings you can buy from parker or pritek - all push lock connectors and nylon line. The "Air bag man" in brisbane can do airbags for bugger all $150 each or less last time I checked. You need to replace two at once with his units as they are slightly different sizes.

Tom

Cool, that is some handy info, will keep him in mind

My only fear of getting this car is to have Rodney drive it everyday to Haultech,so it doesn't suffer the abuse of 'CARPARK MAYHEM' at my work ,He is a grub when he finishes work (Sam should concrete the floor ) and if not then,he is grubby before he leaves to go to work cos he will work on the zook or buggie in the morning

Even the pulsar has been grubby before by having diesel,grease and oil on the seat.
Or even the time he left the windows down all day out there and those little birds where flying in and out of the car

22L/100k i get 10-11/100 and get annoyed thinking thats alot...... reading that just made me lurve my car heaps more now

RockyF70 wrote:22L/100k i get 10-11/100 and get annoyed thinking thats alot...... reading that just made me lurve my car heaps more now

Our pulsar gets around 8L/100km
But it doesn't have a transfer case

-Mandy- wrote:

RockyF70 wrote:22L/100k i get 10-11/100 and get annoyed thinking thats alot...... reading that just made me lurve my car heaps more now

Our pulsar gets around 8L/100km
But it doesn't have a transfer case

bloke I worked with at Siemens had a Matiz, it got 5/100.. thats the main reason behind wanting a cheap shitter runabout car for me.

I'd love to get a cheap little sh!tter to drive to work, but having 3 rego's + trailer rego is enough on the pocket already
The buggie seems to be the best value for money, no rego , but 40L for a day trip at ormeau is pretty scary

I was watching the German news last night on SBS and they were interviewing a car sales lady. She was saying how difficult it was to sell a big diesel wagon these days. I don't know the make of car she was showing but it was about the size of an Audi A6. They went on to say that some of the worst offending vehicles on German roads used up to 11L/100km I thought my 12L/100km was pretty good