I am in the market for a new suv to replace the z71 tahoe. I am no stranger to poor mpg. I am between a 2002-2003 Merc ml500 ( i currently have a clk430) but would prefer a 2003- 2004 Disco. I am a little worried about the reliabilty of the disco having never owned one. Are 2003-2004 ok? also is their a difference between the two year.

 

Well stay away from the 2003, there are a few out there with bad oil pumps.
The 2004 is the best year thus far. The 2003 and the 2004 are the same truck.
You MUST use premium gas, but you are used to that.
You will have to get the front driveshaft rebuilt.
Do a search on the forum for the "3 amigos" and "front driveshaft"
Land Rovers are very reliable trucks, they just get a bad rap.
My DI just turned 176,000 miles today.

 

get a 04'

i love mine

 

03's are fin out of the vin range, and genrally ok if there over 75k miles. or if they have a extended warentey till 100k there ok to.

my 2003 discovery has 98,000 miles, I've had to replace the head gaskets, and replace the radiator. $-4000 less then a F-150, and so far only $2300 in repairs (they were covered by warenty).

you must use 91+ octane,

and must change oil every 3k miles.

 

The main down side of the 03, other then the oil pump issues on some, is that if you want to do some serious wheeling, the 03 does not have a locking t/case, hence not as much off road traction as the 04.

 

Get the mercedes.

 

Ok, I don't care what anybody says. The M-Class is a car. Period.

 

merc SUV's are for ladies

 

Yes- don't forget the time Jason Bourne and an old Russian taxi kicked the crap out of that guy in one.


Friend, you never really know if you and a Rover will be a good match until you try it. Of all the vehicles out there right now, I know a Rover is the best fit for me. It's a sports car, tank, and luxury sedan all mixed into one sexy package.

I want to put a black stripe the width of the back window & upper safari window around the whole back of the thing.