Discovery I Talk about the Land Rover Discovery Series I within.

My experience with 32" tires and stock gearing

Old Mar 26, 2011 | 11:23 PM
  #21  
Spencerfitch's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 8
From: Gramercy, La
Default

riightt..

i still average 16mpg with 255/85

no mog loss here!!
 
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2011 | 07:40 AM
  #22  
Rover Buggy's Avatar
5th Gear
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Default

I now have 265/70R16 BFG ATs with stock gears on my '98 with full body, tools, spare parts, etc. I noticed I am no longer able to spin all four tires on dry pavement like I could when I had 255/65R16's (previous owner's choice), oddly enough it corrected my speedometer. So just 1.5 inch overall diameter made a difference, but not unsatisfactorily performance overall. My '96 has 35/12.50R15 and before I chopped the body off I had to change it to 4.11's now that it is tubed and much lighter its a bit of an animal. So I would have to say weight could have a little to do with it. This is just my experience.
 
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2011 | 07:51 AM
  #23  
Rover Buggy's Avatar
5th Gear
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Default

Oh ya I forgot to say that anticrist's signature is profound

"Four wheel drive allows you to get stuck in places even more inaccessible."

but neglected to add bigger tires to the equation.
 
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2011 | 01:39 PM
  #24  
antichrist's Avatar
Baja
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,232
Likes: 52
From: Georgia, USA
Default

Bigger tires do, chains do, lockers do...
 
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2011 | 12:25 PM
  #25  
AKdisco's Avatar
Mudding
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Rover Buggy
I now have 265/70R16 BFG ATs with stock gears on my '98 with full body, tools, spare parts, etc. I noticed I am no longer able to spin all four tires on dry pavement like I could when I had 255/65R16's (previous owner's choice), oddly enough it corrected my speedometer. So just 1.5 inch overall diameter made a difference, but not unsatisfactorily performance overall. My '96 has 35/12.50R15 and before I chopped the body off I had to change it to 4.11's now that it is tubed and much lighter its a bit of an animal. So I would have to say weight could have a little to do with it. This is just my experience.
What do you mean "spin all four tires when on dry pavement like I used to do"?. Are you saying that your rover had enough power to launch on dry pavement and actually spin all four tires?. ummmmmm That would take Major HP and lockers front and rear to "spin all 4 tires". I dont see a rover doing this feat. And if for some reason your rovr did I forsee U joints, hubs, and axle shafts going BOOM under this power.
 
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2011 | 05:54 PM
  #26  
Spike555's Avatar
Team Owner
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,212
Likes: 98
From: Grand Rapids MI
Default

Originally Posted by AKdisco
This isnt me saying "I can **** farther than you" but really?. I Love my Disco and they are impressive off-road and I will defend a Land Rover to the end, but do you really think your disco on 32's and 5" of lift or even a Disco on 35's could follow me in my blazer...1 tons, 42" swampers, Locked front and rear, Granny geared tranny, 350Hp??. I do not care how fanantical of a LR owner you are AND I RESPECT that but the answer is NO YOU WILL NOT, ask me how I know.






Its not the size of your tool its how you use it.
 
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2011 | 10:35 AM
  #27  
AKdisco's Avatar
Mudding
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Spike555
Its not the size of your tool its how you use it.

LOL, well I'm one of the lucky ones then(well says my wife.......and her sister LOL) because I got a BIG tool AND know how to use it.
 
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2019 | 11:48 PM
  #28  
Rover Rene's Avatar
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by AKdisco
THIS is the downfall of LandRover IMO. I have built Chevy trucks (1/2 ton even) that you can toss on a 6" lift and 35's and KEEP stock axles and gearing and just go go go. You barely notice the difference in power, the axles hold up just fine etc etc. With a Rover(although not designed to be ran with big tires) you can barely hop up tire size without risking breakage in the axles. It seems they could just be built tougher. Hel* even a STOCK little OL early 80's Toyota 1/4 ton pick up axle can run 35-37" tires all day with no problems, I've done it!. I jusy dont see why LR builds an axle that cant even run 32-33's without breaking. Land Cruisers are around the same platform as Land Rover but they can run 37's without fear, I just dont get it??. You would think that land rover would forsee that a truck designed for expeditions, extreme 4x4 situations, etc etc would make stronger components. So what if they over built the axles and the truck never sees bigger than 33" tires?, no harm in OVER building.. However you would also think that an OFF ROAD designed rig such as the LR would attract people who want to make it even MORE capable off road.......IE BIGGER TIRES.
Useful information thank you 🙏
 
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2019 | 02:23 PM
  #29  
Crunkgringo's Avatar
Mudding
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 139
Likes: 13
From: Sierra Nevada, CA
Default

Originally Posted by AKdisco
What do you mean "spin all four tires when on dry pavement like I used to do"?. Are you saying that your rover had enough power to launch on dry pavement and actually spin all four tires?. ummmmmm That would take Major HP and lockers front and rear to "spin all 4 tires". I dont see a rover doing this feat. And if for some reason your rovr did I forsee U joints, hubs, and axle shafts going BOOM under this power.
Off topic but a funny story, just before Christmas my Dad and I are going to the local store in my little town. There on the side of this little two lane road is a big-rig stuck with the landing gear of the loaded trailer on a manhole. He stopped in the wrong place to pee and his drive tires where spinning in mud. I asked the guy if he was loaded and if he thought I could pull him off of the hump. He basically said please try cause he was screwed if he had to call for recovery. So I hooked up to the back of his trailer with my Disco 1 and slapped it in 4low-lock. I pulled slow and I literally was hoping with all my tires spinning and chirping on asphalt without the truck or trailer budging. They way I got it out was to use the weight of our beloved trucks to yank it a couple of times like a 5k pound slide hammer. I got him loose and he was gone. Northern California should thank me for getting their prime orders to them on time that week.
So I thought for sure I was going to blow at least a U-joint out the bottom of my Disco, alas I did not and even got him back on his way. Rather be lucky than good any day.
 
Reply
Old Mar 20, 2025 | 11:17 PM
  #30  
MyOldCars's Avatar
Drifting
Joined: Sep 2024
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jafir
So I have a question... I know that SOME of the defenders came with 32" tires. The 110 came with Salisbury axle, but I'm pretty sure the 90 came with the same basic axle as the D1. So the question is, if the 90 can run 32s without upgrade, why does the disco need it?Do the 90s come with 4 pinion diffs? Is it just that the 90 is lighter?
I iknow it's been 14 years and all, but I just googled old Defender diff ratios vs. diff ratios on the Disco 2 - they seem to be the same. Furthermore, both trucks use the same LT230 transfer case. Both at one time came with the same 4.0 engines (circa 1999). Defender had 31.5" tires stock, while Dico 2 had just over 29" tires, which is kind of silly.
As far as MPG loss, it really shouldn't be happening while cruising on the highway, once you've reached a certain speed, fuel consumption should be pretty much the same? While offroading though, it probably will be more.
Need to test this out.
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.