Whats better 1988 Range Rover or the 1998 d1
i have a d1 but found a range rover for 1500 nice shape
just seeing what you guys say

 

The Range Rover will have ten years more dry rot on everything rubber, the list goes on. Hard to compare just based on years, becuase of variations in owner provided service, etc.

 

well sorry i mean which would make the better offroader are they both the same as far as drive train axles diff,s stuff like that or they the same base and just diff, bodys

 

There's just something cool about the older RRC's. But Discos are more commonly used for offroad rigs. Mechanically, they're pretty similar, so just a matter of personal preference really.

 

The Disco 1 will win hands down in this competition.

You may have a Borg Warner transfer case in the Range Rover classic not the lockable LT230 found in the Disco.

The axles will be the weak 10 spline and not the upgraded 24 spline used in the disco 1.

 

welp i think im staying with the diso i just lucked up and got a 2" complete lift off cragslist for 200 that looks dam new
The guy put it on drove it 6 months it wasnt enough so he got a 4" sold me the 2"


its a Bilstein 2" lift well the the shocks are the spring are to i guessing there blue ARE THESES OK LIFTS i mean for $200 shipped i cant really pass it up

WOOOT

 

If I were to choose, I'd go for the Disco 1. There's so many things that you can do to it + it makes for great off roading vehicles. It really depends on what you want to do with it though and the kind of condition that it's in when you get it.

 

It looks like you already made up your mind with regard to what vehicle to go with but I thought I'd correct a thing or two and add a few other differences between stock DI's and older Classics when it comes to off road ability.

First, 1987 and 1988 RRC's had LT230's not unlike those found on DI's. They were earlier versions but essentially the same as those found in DI's through 1998.

Early RRC's did not have ABS so a problem that tends to plague Disco's regardless of whether they are Series I or II is absent.

Early RRC's did not have sway bars so they had greater articulation than DI's that were equipped with them front and rear.

Drawbacks were, as mentioned, 10 spline axles along with rudimentary EFI systems that did not have the ability to read codes to help diagnosis. The 13CU Lucas system found in '87 and '88's was not very sophisticated or very good for that matter. The 3.5L only put out about 150 hp in a vehicle that weighed around 4400 pounds. Plus gearing on the 4hp22 ZF didn't help to give any sporting sense to this underpowered beast. Then again, people still love the original Series Rovers from 1948-1983 for off road use and they never put out anywhere near 100 hp even in the Stage I's that were equipped with a carburetted version of the 3.5L.

 

Paul thank you for the post.

Did all of the RRCs in those years have an LT230?

 

1987 and 1988 RRC's had the LT230. I think either 1986 or 1987 saw the improvement from LT230R to LT230T. The letter stood for the type of bearing, roller or taper found in the case. Other than that they were similar to the LT230 found in the DI. The E brake linkage was more rudimentary that the one found in the DI and a PITA to remove.

The main reason the RRC gave up the LT230 was the need to add distinction to the model what with the introduction of the Disco in 1990 MY. To maintain the upscale quality of the RRC the Borg Warner was added. Being chain driven it was quieter and smoother than the LT230. Plus, just like with the DII and the loss of the CDL, Rover obviously thought the upscale Range Rover customer had more important things to do than to bother with such pedestrian activities as managing the center locking differential.