Disco Rant Thread. :)
#1
12-16-2010, 04:23 PM
Disco Rant Thread. :)
Sorry I had to start this thread. I'm finding that the people on this board are actually fun to talk to 
So, you started a tread about the cats, O2 sensors... Which lead to comments about the Engine management... Which lead me to this rant.
What kills me is they put so much thought into this "Engine Management" yet, they couldn't put the time and money into building a motor that didn't leak like a Harley.
People never seem to bitch about the fact that 150k is a LOT of miles on a Disco... Anything over that and it's heading for the grave fast. Even the mass produced 350's 305's etc have a better track record of reliability. My 85 C-10 had 280k on the original engine and is still on the road today with yet another owner.
I mean come on... They only had 35 plus YEARS to get the motor right before they used this 215 in the Rover.
In contrast take my Mercedes engine... 250k is a good break in period. 750-1 million miles in not unheard of. There is even one out there with close to 2.5 Million miles... (Fact, Mercedes gives you a really nice badge to put in your grill to show off the miles you have driven the engine) Do a google for High Milage clubs.
Hondas, Toyotas same deal, the cars may fall apart around them, but the engines seem to last forever.
It's because of this that I want to swap engines so bad. Itching to do it. Just do not have the money to do it right this second.
So, what do you think the reasoning behind the gems was? Strictly emissions? A way to leash us to the dealer computer? Personally I think Land Rover did themselves a true disservice in this aspect.
For all the ranting I do about the Disco, you would get the feeling I hate them. But alas I don't. I really like them. I can just look at the truck and see what it "Could" have been. Imagine if you had a Disco that you felt safe to drive anywhere. I mean even out of reach of a dealer... Like the classic rovers. (You know the one's that you can take on safari etc)
So, there you have it. A thread solely to bitch about your trucks.
So, you started a tread about the cats, O2 sensors... Which lead to comments about the Engine management... Which lead me to this rant.
What kills me is they put so much thought into this "Engine Management" yet, they couldn't put the time and money into building a motor that didn't leak like a Harley.
People never seem to bitch about the fact that 150k is a LOT of miles on a Disco... Anything over that and it's heading for the grave fast. Even the mass produced 350's 305's etc have a better track record of reliability. My 85 C-10 had 280k on the original engine and is still on the road today with yet another owner.
I mean come on... They only had 35 plus YEARS to get the motor right before they used this 215 in the Rover.
In contrast take my Mercedes engine... 250k is a good break in period. 750-1 million miles in not unheard of. There is even one out there with close to 2.5 Million miles... (Fact, Mercedes gives you a really nice badge to put in your grill to show off the miles you have driven the engine) Do a google for High Milage clubs.
Hondas, Toyotas same deal, the cars may fall apart around them, but the engines seem to last forever.
It's because of this that I want to swap engines so bad. Itching to do it. Just do not have the money to do it right this second.
So, what do you think the reasoning behind the gems was? Strictly emissions? A way to leash us to the dealer computer? Personally I think Land Rover did themselves a true disservice in this aspect.
For all the ranting I do about the Disco, you would get the feeling I hate them. But alas I don't. I really like them. I can just look at the truck and see what it "Could" have been. Imagine if you had a Disco that you felt safe to drive anywhere. I mean even out of reach of a dealer... Like the classic rovers. (You know the one's that you can take on safari etc)
So, there you have it. A thread solely to bitch about your trucks.
#2
12-16-2010, 04:41 PM
#3
12-16-2010, 04:52 PM
Baja
since you dared to ask. here is the complete story. i posted part of this on a different thread.
History of the Buick 215 / Bosch engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COST OF CUTTING CORNERS
Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) V-8 motor
The Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) V-8 motor is one of the most fascinating and long-lived engines in automotive history. Originally conceived as an economy powerplant for GM mid-size cars, the "215" has been built in both the US and Great Britain, and has powered an astonishing array of vehicles, from sedans to sports cars, SUVs to racing cars. So, take a closer look at this history of this incredible engine, and check out the high-performance options available to the "215" enthusiast.
Buick 215 history
The Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) aluminum V8 was originally announced in 1960 as a potential lightweight economy engine destined for General Motors new line of compacts: Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass and Pontiac Tempest. First appearing in the 1961 model year, production ended in 1963 after over 3/4 million engines were produced. Two versions were available: Buick's model and the Olds, which featured different heads, valve train and valve covers. Pontiac used the Olds version.
The reason production ended so soon was a high rejection rate during the casting process, as GM utilized pressure casting of the Reynolds 356 aluminum alloy around steel sleeves. The assembly was then heat-treated to T-6 condition; but the heat treating caused the steel sleeves to shift and thus rejection of the entire block.
Eventually, GM cured the casting maladies, but the advent of new thin-wall iron casting techniques soon rendered the aluminum motor too expensive. The General quickly adapted the V8's architecture to cast-iron, lopping off two cylinders to create the workhorse Buick V-6. And in 1965, negotiated production rights with the British Rover Cars company. Rover, seeing the motor as its salvation for an aging product line, found that sand casting the block and installing press-in sleeves, (rather than cast in place), at a later point precluded any production problems or costs, but the beginning of longevity issues. This is where the liner issues began. In the Rover mass production techniques, the outer wall of the liner design was changed from a very coarse finish to a fine polished finish, for an easy mass production press fit. The thermal bonding in the cylinder cast in place assembly process, was eliminated completely. This allowed the smooth external walls of the new liners to provide easy installation but allowed the smooth walls to thermally expand at different ratios under the laws of dissimilar materials. Head gasket life would suffer indefinitely and plague this engine throughout its new design.It was destined to never again achieve it’s once robust popularity, as when General motors took the extra time not to cut corners.
The engine went on to power the ancient P5 Rover sedan, then the modern 3500 (a transplant into the 2000 TC), and finally the legendary Range Rover. It continues to power Land Rover products today in 4.6 liter guise.
The first company to realize the 215's performance potential was the exotic Apollo GT, a Ferrari-like sports car styled in America and built in Italy . Only 88 cars were sold before the company went under. The engine also found favor among European racing teams, powering several sports-racing cars (including the original McLaren), and in Repco-modified Olds form, propelling Sir Jack Brabham to two world Formula One championships in the mid 1960s (certainly NOT your father's Oldsmobile!). In 1969, the tiny Morgan company rejuvenated its archaic 1930's-era sports car by injecting it with the Rover V8. Zero-to-60 times of around six seconds were common...
In 1970, MG (now part of the vast British Leyland empire and sister company to Rover) was looking to improve the performance of its MGB sports car. An outsider, Ken Costello, actually showed them how to do it, as he had begun small-scale production of V8-engined MGBs. MG's own version appeared in 1973, just in time for the first oil embargo, and lasted only two years. Only some 2591 cars were produced, all in "hard-top" GT form.
Original 215 configurations
The original 215 aluminum V8 appeared in the Buick Special and Skylark models, while the Old's version was offered in the Olds F-85, Cutlass, and Jetfire models as well as the Pontiac Tempest.
The Buick version used only five bolts per cylinder to mount its heads, and the heads had a combustion chamber following contemporary Buick practice. The heads were also angled "upward" to create a "flat top" look common to Buick engines of the day. Buick altered compression ratios via piston height and design. You can bolt a Buick head to an Olds block.
Olds engineers went their own route with cylinder head design, preferring a Chevy small block-like combustion chamber and an extra bolt (six in all) around each cylinder to mount the head. The valve cover was also more conventional looking. (Ken Costello built his first MGB V8 using an Olds engine picked up in Belgium !). The valve train is also different. Old used different heads with the same pistons to produce higher compression ratios. An Olds head will not work on a Buick block because of the extra head bolts. For performance applications, you'll want either 829 heads (10.25:1 C.R. for '61-'62 4 bbl auto and manual cars, '63 4 bbl manual cars), or 534 heads (10.75:1 '63 4-bbl automatics). Two bbl heads (No. 746) have low compression ratios and aren't suitable for any performance work.
Rover configurations
Managing director William Martin-Hurst purchased the rights to the Buick version of the 215, and set his engineers on improving production techniques. Rover began installing an improved version of the 215 in the ancient P5 Saloon (sedan) in 1967. The same motor was installed in the more modern P6 2000 to create the 3500 (3500 cc or 3.5 liters). It soon found its way into the new Range Rover of the 1970’s.
A 3947 cc unit (created by increasing the bore to 94 mm) appeared in 1988 in the Range Rover, and later in the 1993 Discovery. A 4.2 liter motor soon appeared as the result of a longer-stroke crankshaft. In 1995, Rover launched the 4600 cc engine, using an even longer-stroke crank and a reengineering block with cross-bolted main caps.
Components for early engines are virtually interchangeable with the 215. The 4.6 liter engine, however, is different
History of the Buick 215 / Bosch engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COST OF CUTTING CORNERS
Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) V-8 motor
The Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) V-8 motor is one of the most fascinating and long-lived engines in automotive history. Originally conceived as an economy powerplant for GM mid-size cars, the "215" has been built in both the US and Great Britain, and has powered an astonishing array of vehicles, from sedans to sports cars, SUVs to racing cars. So, take a closer look at this history of this incredible engine, and check out the high-performance options available to the "215" enthusiast.
Buick 215 history
The Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) aluminum V8 was originally announced in 1960 as a potential lightweight economy engine destined for General Motors new line of compacts: Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass and Pontiac Tempest. First appearing in the 1961 model year, production ended in 1963 after over 3/4 million engines were produced. Two versions were available: Buick's model and the Olds, which featured different heads, valve train and valve covers. Pontiac used the Olds version.
The reason production ended so soon was a high rejection rate during the casting process, as GM utilized pressure casting of the Reynolds 356 aluminum alloy around steel sleeves. The assembly was then heat-treated to T-6 condition; but the heat treating caused the steel sleeves to shift and thus rejection of the entire block.
Eventually, GM cured the casting maladies, but the advent of new thin-wall iron casting techniques soon rendered the aluminum motor too expensive. The General quickly adapted the V8's architecture to cast-iron, lopping off two cylinders to create the workhorse Buick V-6. And in 1965, negotiated production rights with the British Rover Cars company. Rover, seeing the motor as its salvation for an aging product line, found that sand casting the block and installing press-in sleeves, (rather than cast in place), at a later point precluded any production problems or costs, but the beginning of longevity issues. This is where the liner issues began. In the Rover mass production techniques, the outer wall of the liner design was changed from a very coarse finish to a fine polished finish, for an easy mass production press fit. The thermal bonding in the cylinder cast in place assembly process, was eliminated completely. This allowed the smooth external walls of the new liners to provide easy installation but allowed the smooth walls to thermally expand at different ratios under the laws of dissimilar materials. Head gasket life would suffer indefinitely and plague this engine throughout its new design.It was destined to never again achieve it’s once robust popularity, as when General motors took the extra time not to cut corners.
The engine went on to power the ancient P5 Rover sedan, then the modern 3500 (a transplant into the 2000 TC), and finally the legendary Range Rover. It continues to power Land Rover products today in 4.6 liter guise.
The first company to realize the 215's performance potential was the exotic Apollo GT, a Ferrari-like sports car styled in America and built in Italy . Only 88 cars were sold before the company went under. The engine also found favor among European racing teams, powering several sports-racing cars (including the original McLaren), and in Repco-modified Olds form, propelling Sir Jack Brabham to two world Formula One championships in the mid 1960s (certainly NOT your father's Oldsmobile!). In 1969, the tiny Morgan company rejuvenated its archaic 1930's-era sports car by injecting it with the Rover V8. Zero-to-60 times of around six seconds were common...
In 1970, MG (now part of the vast British Leyland empire and sister company to Rover) was looking to improve the performance of its MGB sports car. An outsider, Ken Costello, actually showed them how to do it, as he had begun small-scale production of V8-engined MGBs. MG's own version appeared in 1973, just in time for the first oil embargo, and lasted only two years. Only some 2591 cars were produced, all in "hard-top" GT form.
Original 215 configurations
The original 215 aluminum V8 appeared in the Buick Special and Skylark models, while the Old's version was offered in the Olds F-85, Cutlass, and Jetfire models as well as the Pontiac Tempest.
The Buick version used only five bolts per cylinder to mount its heads, and the heads had a combustion chamber following contemporary Buick practice. The heads were also angled "upward" to create a "flat top" look common to Buick engines of the day. Buick altered compression ratios via piston height and design. You can bolt a Buick head to an Olds block.
Olds engineers went their own route with cylinder head design, preferring a Chevy small block-like combustion chamber and an extra bolt (six in all) around each cylinder to mount the head. The valve cover was also more conventional looking. (Ken Costello built his first MGB V8 using an Olds engine picked up in Belgium !). The valve train is also different. Old used different heads with the same pistons to produce higher compression ratios. An Olds head will not work on a Buick block because of the extra head bolts. For performance applications, you'll want either 829 heads (10.25:1 C.R. for '61-'62 4 bbl auto and manual cars, '63 4 bbl manual cars), or 534 heads (10.75:1 '63 4-bbl automatics). Two bbl heads (No. 746) have low compression ratios and aren't suitable for any performance work.
Rover configurations
Managing director William Martin-Hurst purchased the rights to the Buick version of the 215, and set his engineers on improving production techniques. Rover began installing an improved version of the 215 in the ancient P5 Saloon (sedan) in 1967. The same motor was installed in the more modern P6 2000 to create the 3500 (3500 cc or 3.5 liters). It soon found its way into the new Range Rover of the 1970’s.
A 3947 cc unit (created by increasing the bore to 94 mm) appeared in 1988 in the Range Rover, and later in the 1993 Discovery. A 4.2 liter motor soon appeared as the result of a longer-stroke crankshaft. In 1995, Rover launched the 4600 cc engine, using an even longer-stroke crank and a reengineering block with cross-bolted main caps.
Components for early engines are virtually interchangeable with the 215. The 4.6 liter engine, however, is different
#6
12-16-2010, 05:34 PM
Here is my 2 cents...I have seen MANY GM motors or any motor fail before 100K miles...ITS ALL ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE..the problem with ours is taht usually some rich idiot who doesnt care to maintain the car properly neglects the little things and it turns into a big problem. My ford engine in 2002 mustang let go at 22K miles due to a bad design in the oil passages.
Head gaskets come and go on all motors not just ours, is it more so..yes..but its all about keeping the coolant fresh. Many want to go 5+ years on a coolant..why? antifreeze is so darn cheap, just do it every year before winter. DONT USE DEXCOOL
In rovers defense...I have seen many many rovers go beyond 300K miles, it requires maintaince..and longetivity is ALL ABOUT MAINTAINCE
We can also conver to use carburetors if needed or switch over to edelbrocks fuel injection system with a carbed intake mani
Head gaskets come and go on all motors not just ours, is it more so..yes..but its all about keeping the coolant fresh. Many want to go 5+ years on a coolant..why? antifreeze is so darn cheap, just do it every year before winter. DONT USE DEXCOOL
In rovers defense...I have seen many many rovers go beyond 300K miles, it requires maintaince..and longetivity is ALL ABOUT MAINTAINCE
We can also conver to use carburetors if needed
or switch over to edelbrocks fuel injection system with a carbed intake mani
Last edited by thehun; 12-16-2010 at 05:36 PM.
#7
12-16-2010, 06:52 PM
Here is my 2 cents...I have seen MANY GM motors or any motor fail before 100K miles...ITS ALL ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE..the problem with ours is taht usually some rich idiot who doesnt care to maintain the car properly neglects the little things and it turns into a big problem. My ford engine in 2002 mustang let go at 22K miles due to a bad design in the oil passages.
Head gaskets come and go on all motors not just ours, is it more so..yes..but its all about keeping the coolant fresh. Many want to go 5+ years on a coolant..why? antifreeze is so darn cheap, just do it every year before winter. DONT USE DEXCOOL
In rovers defense...I have seen many many rovers go beyond 300K miles, it requires maintaince..and longetivity is ALL ABOUT MAINTAINCE
We can also conver to use carburetors if needed or switch over to edelbrocks fuel injection system with a carbed intake mani
Head gaskets come and go on all motors not just ours, is it more so..yes..but its all about keeping the coolant fresh. Many want to go 5+ years on a coolant..why? antifreeze is so darn cheap, just do it every year before winter. DONT USE DEXCOOL
In rovers defense...I have seen many many rovers go beyond 300K miles, it requires maintaince..and longetivity is ALL ABOUT MAINTAINCE
We can also conver to use carburetors if needed
or switch over to edelbrocks fuel injection system with a carbed intake maniHey, that sounds interesting. Post more info about converting it to a edelbrock system.
#8
12-16-2010, 06:59 PM
Other rant topics...
Crappy window moldings.
Poor sunroof design.
Poor headliner design.
Crappy stereo.
Poor dash design leading to curling.
Subpar soldering on control boxes, (Like the Window ECU etc)
(The ABS system)
I totally agree on the cup holders. I use the ones that you can put into the vents, a 4 pack of them cost 2 bucks at walmart.
Crappy window moldings.
Poor sunroof design.
Poor headliner design.
Crappy stereo.
Poor dash design leading to curling.
Subpar soldering on control boxes, (Like the Window ECU etc)
(The ABS system)
I totally agree on the cup holders. I use the ones that you can put into the vents, a 4 pack of them cost 2 bucks at walmart.
#9
12-16-2010, 07:56 PM
Camel Trophy
I guess I am one of the weird one's that would not hesitate to drive anywhere in my truck. I bought it, changed some fluids, did a basic tune up and drove to Chicago for a weekend trip. (700 miles each way) I have made that trip 5 times now. Since I have gotten it, I have put an average of 20K a year on it. I am peeking at 200K and she runs better than when I got her. Sure I have countless hours under the hood, but really only have about $1K in parts into her. For a beat up 13 year old truck, that isn't bad in my opinion.
Sorry to rub it in, but I am an overjoyed Disco owner.
Sorry to rub it in, but I am an overjoyed Disco owner.
#10
12-16-2010, 08:15 PM
I guess I am one of the weird one's that would not hesitate to drive anywhere in my truck. I bought it, changed some fluids, did a basic tune up and drove to Chicago for a weekend trip. (700 miles each way) I have made that trip 5 times now. Since I have gotten it, I have put an average of 20K a year on it. I am peeking at 200K and she runs better than when I got her. Sure I have countless hours under the hood, but really only have about $1K in parts into her. For a beat up 13 year old truck, that isn't bad in my opinion.
Sorry to rub it in, but I am an overjoyed Disco owner.
Sorry to rub it in, but I am an overjoyed Disco owner.
Another rant of mine is the lack of a cocoa dispenser...