RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys, amazing Forum you have here, I'm glad I found you.

I'm a Land Rover fan and this year I finished the restoration of a 1980 Land Rover Series 3, 2.25 Petrol. I always wanted to have a Range Rover Classic but it happens that I'm from Argentina and here these wonderful vehicles are quite rare. In fact, the very few you can see around are former embassy vehicles, or private imports. It is for sure that there are less than 100 RRC in the whole country and then, it is very difficult to find one of them for sale.

This week I found 2 RRC for sale, but there are 2 very different versions, both of them are NAS:

1) 1988 3.9 EFI, 5 speeds manual.
2) 1995 4.2 LWB Automatic (EAS replaced with Old Mann EMU coils)

Main thing to consider is that here, parts and specialized service are not available, thus, my first question is:

Are they mainly the same or 1995 4.2 is much more electronic than 1988?

I need to know wether the maitenance for 1988 is simpler and easier than the 4.2. Do they have the same ECU for EFI? Do I need a special scanner from Rover for diagostics?

If technologicaly they are more a less the same, I found the 4.2 LWB much modern and confortable than the 1988, but it seems that 1995 model has many luxury items which could be prone to fail after such a long time working. On the other hand, I suspect the LWB could have many improvements which came with time, experience and users claims.

I like luxury, but in this case reliability and low cost maintenance is my priority. Both vehicles drive great and have chassis in very sound condition.

I leave you a picture of my joy and pride, even when it's not a Rangie, it is part of the Land Rover family anyway.

Cheers!

Albert

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
G'day Albert, welcome to the forum.

First up, thanks for the smashing photo of the Series. It looks top drawer, and you should rightly be proud of your efforts.

In response to the questions about the two RRC you are looking at. Yes the 95 definitely has more electronics than the 88. However i would say the electronics are arguably better made and obviously 7 years younger.

The EFi systems are essentially the same. Obviously without seeing the two vehicles it is hard to say on many counts, i take it they both appear to be in good condition? Do they come with any service history? Like most LR products these vehicles like to be looked after.

I need to know wether the maitenance for 1988 is simpler and easier than the 4.2
Yes, but you will probably be 'maintaining' it more often.

Do they have the same ECU for EFI?
Not identical but essentially the same basic system.

Do I need a special scanner from Rover for diagostics?
No more than any other EFi car. NAS spec cars normally have one under one of the seats apparently anyway.

With the EAS removed you have bypassed one of the big maintenance issues of the later cars. I would generally say that an average 88 is easier to maintain, but an average 95 with EAS removed is probably more reliable. However so many things are dependent on condition and past usage/care.

I too would be tempted by the 95, just be aware, as you say that those luxury features can get a bit involved if they go wrong. But not many with stop you actually getting anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you for your words Rufant.

I gather more information about the two ladies, and also some pics.

Both appear to be in very good condition but 1988 3.9 has been restored to look this way.

My main concern with LWB 4.2 is the auto box and how much dependable is this box to the vehicle's electronics. I read that in some cases the stick could stay locked in the Parking position because of electric issues. On the opposite, 1988 3.9 has a manual gear box, I assume it is an LT77, which is simple, mechanical and reliable. I love auto boxes, but there are not many cars around with them, and I am afraid they are very complex and expensive to repair, on the opposite, manual boxes are easy to repair.

I could drive the 1988 3.9 and drives great and smooth, incredible ride for such an old vehicle. The only problem I found is a failure either with fuel injectors or fuel pump. They told me that the pump is new, but when you press the pedal to the metal, the engine experiences a lack of fuel.

I feel this is going to be a very hard decision. I appreciate all comments and suggestions to make up my mind.

RRC 1988 3.9 EFI



[/quote]

RRC 1995 LWB 4.2


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
They told me that the pump is new, but when you press the pedal to the metal, the engine experiences a lack of fuel.
It might not be a fuel delivery problem. Other EFi issues, airleaks or ignition problems could also give similar symptoms.

Any news on the service history of the cars?

The 88 certainly presents better. If that a new exhaust on it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
88 cause it has a 5 speed plus the lwb isnt exactly the most sought after version of the rover. no question about it... the 88...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Hi,
I had the same decision to make back in May this year, an 88 or a 95. Both were SE autos. I decided on the 88 as it had no air suspension, no air bags and no ABS.
Plus it just seemed more of a Classic Range Rover, dont know if that makes sense or not!
Whichever you choose i am sure you will be happy, best of luck with your purchase!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thank you sirs for your comments.

I obtained more details about the specs for the 88 and I have very good news and a doubt.

It is not NAS and it is not 1998 model, it is the european version and 1991 3.9 V8, meaning:
1) No catalyst
2) No Oxygen sensors
3) Borg-Warner transfer
4) Viscous coupling (I don't like this because if it fails it is very expensive to replace)

The only not matching data is that the fuel filler cap is on the old low position, as in the very first Range Rovers and from 1991 it is supposed to be on the top of the rear quarter panel. Is this possible? Do you know of some 1991s with the fuel filler on the older position? I will try to see it again and check VIN number to be sure which year is it according to Solihull.

Anyway, I think this is the vehicle, because according to the specs mentioned above, it is really easier and cheaper to maintain.

I would prefer the auto box and the extra power of the 4.2 but I am sure that if anything goes wrong with the NAS LWB, it will be much more difficult and expensive to be solved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
rufant said:
Any news on the service history of the cars?

The 88 certainly presents better. If that a new exhaust on it?
No service history, The vehicle has been abandoned for several years in a farm. This guy bought it to restored it, but now that restoration is almost ready, he has to sell. All he told is that windscreen is new, 2 fuel injectors are new and they cleaned the other ones. Fuel pump, leads and distributor cap are new also. Same for the steering box. They also replace the dashboard and the driving wheel with second hand ones.

And yes, the exhaust is brand new. He imported it from England. Amazing, but true. I think he had to pay a fortune for that import.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
DangerMouse67 said:
Hi,
I had the same decision to make back in May this year, an 88 or a 95. Both were SE autos. I decided on the 88 as it had no air suspension, no air bags and no ABS.
Plus it just seemed more of a Classic Range Rover, dont know if that makes sense or not!
Whichever you choose i am sure you will be happy, best of luck with your purchase!
Certainly, it does make a lot of sense, I absolutly agree with this.

The only reason I want to meditate about this decision is that I want to buy the best possible, and the 95 has only one owner who bought it brand new in the US while living there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Albrein said:
Thank you sirs for your comments.

I obtained more details about the specs for the 88 and I have very good news and a doubt.

It is not NAS and it is not 1998 model, it is the european version and 1991 3.9 V8, meaning:
1) No catalyst
2) No Oxygen sensors
3) Borg-Warner transfer
4) Viscous coupling (I don't like this because if it fails it is very expensive to replace)

The only not matching data is that the fuel filler cap is on the old low position, as in the very first Range Rovers and from 1991 it is supposed to be on the top of the rear quarter panel. Is this possible? Do you know of some 1991s with the fuel filler on the older position? I will try to see it again and check VIN number to be sure which year is it according to Solihull.

Anyway, I think this is the vehicle, because according to the specs mentioned above, it is really easier and cheaper to maintain.

I would prefer the auto box and the extra power of the 4.2 but I am sure that if anything goes wrong with the NAS LWB, it will be much more difficult and expensive to be solved.
I have the "rest of the world" spec 1991 (there is no European spec as such) with the 5 speed manual. If I could choose again, I'd probably go for the automatic, simply because there are more of them available. Manual Range Rovers are rare, even in Europe. The LT77 is, contrary what you may think, not a very simple gearbox at all. It even has an oil pump and oil cooler and takes Automatic Transmission Fluid for lubrication. I would definitely check if the VIN number checks out with 1991 manufacturing year, because I'm pretty sure they should all have the raised fuel intake as mine has. You can check the VIN at http://www.clifton.nl/index.html?calvin.html

HTH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
All right, I have the VIN, and it is a 1990 model, registered in 1991.

VIN is SALLHAMM8GA452350, then everything is correct, 3.9 EFI V8, 5 speed manual, 1990.

Main problem is still something with the fuel injection, or fuel pressure regulator. What else they could check?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
rqsall said:
I have the "rest of the world" spec 1991 (there is no European spec as such) with the 5 speed manual. If I could choose again, I'd probably go for the automatic, simply because there are more of them available. Manual Range Rovers are rare, even in Europe. The LT77 is, contrary what you may think, not a very simple gearbox at all. It even has an oil pump and oil cooler and takes Automatic Transmission Fluid for lubrication. I would definitely check if the VIN number checks out with 1991 manufacturing year, because I'm pretty sure they should all have the raised fuel intake as mine has. You can check the VIN at http://www.clifton.nl/index.html?calvin.html
HTH
You are right, manual Range Rovers are very rare, nevertheless, Range Rovers are extremely rare here in Argentina. I supposed that a manual box would be easier to fix than an automatic one and also cheaper. Here, automatic cars are rare also.

Regarding LT77, is it a robust gear box?, is it the same box than in Defenders 110 300 Tdi and Discoveries 300 Tdi ? (These are the only models from Land Rover officially available here and then many parts are in stock) Also, I know some Defender owners, and they always tell how good is the transmision and the gear box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Regarding LT77, is it a robust gear box?, is it the same box than in Defenders 110 300 Tdi and Discoveries 300 Tdi ? (These are the only models from Land Rover officially available here and then many parts are in stock) Also, I know some Defender owners, and they always tell how good is the transmision and the gear box.
As far as I can tell, the LT77 is no more robust than the ZF automatic is, possibly less. It does have specific weaknesses (mainshaft wear, because the oil can't get to it). In general I think you can say it is robust enough not to worry about it in general... the same goes for the ZF automatic however as far as I can tell. The LT77 is indeed also used in the discoveries and defenders, however, the diesel version is not interchangable with the V8 version due to the input shaft being shorter for the diesels. They can be adapted to fit a V8 reasonably easy, by putting the proper input shaft in.

For more information: http://www.ashcroft-transmissions.co.uk/part_1.html

HTH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
if you go with the automatic ABS truck you will have problems like the rest of us... heres an idea. go with the older tougher easier truck that you wont be afraid of breaking. wheel the crap out of it and if you do break something parts wont cost you a fortune. trust me the luxury part of rover is a big large pile of frog poop. i wish i had a pre ABS rover with a 5 speed...
most of us are trying to find an 88 and swap all the parts to our later model vehicles. why go backwards? buy the 88 and enjoy the truck. my opinion has been heard so i will stop bashing 90+ rovers since i have one lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
From what I understand, the 1990 that you are considering has a fuel delivery problem. If the only thing you are worrying about is the autobox, I'd go for the 1995 which, as I understand it, has no problems currently. The gearbox, whether it is an LT77 or R380 manual or a ZF autobox is the least of your worries, both are relatively trouble free compared to the rest of the car.

If I am not mistaken, the 1995 also has the potential head gasket problem fixed and the better oil pump setup as well as having the cross bolted crankshaft. Not precisely sure on this though.

The ABS can be disabled, it will brake like any non-ABS range rover. Plus you'll have the stronger 24 spline half shafts/diff.

My opinion has been hear too now ;-) I realize I'm not making it easier for you, so it's a matter of what you want to do with it. If you want to go off-roading, go with the '90. If a luxury long distance traveler is your goal, go with the '95.

I have a 5-speed manual, and I'm not impressed by its suitability for the V8. Your friends probably have the diesels, it may be that that is a better combination than with the V8. Drive both of them and find out what you like best, then go with that.

Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Well, it's not only the autobox, indeed. With 1995 I worry about the ABS, electric seats, EGR, check engine lights, oxygen sensors, airbags, etc. I've seen cables and relais everywhere.

I could feel the 4.2 engine is more powerfull and also that 1995 is better insulated, but, with the air springs replaced with coil springs, its suspension feels harder than the older 1990 3.9 EFI. I suppose this is because 1990 has softer coil springs and the Boge self leveling device.

In the case of 1990, the head gasket has been replaced recently, when they put it back to run.

How do you disable the ABS? You just remove the sensors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Albrein said:
Well, it's not only the autobox, indeed. With 1995 I worry about the ABS, electric seats, EGR, check engine lights, oxygen sensors, airbags, etc. I've seen cables and relais everywhere.
Those are genuine issues, and if you're not comfortable about them, then go for the '90, although it's not devoid of the 'check engine' light either.

Albrein said:
In the case of 1990, the head gasket has been replaced recently, when they put it back to run.
should be ok then.

Albrein said:
How do you disable the ABS? You just remove the sensors?
Let me rephrase that, even if the electronic part of ABS is not working, either broken sensors or what not, the car will still brake as if it never had ABS. Having said that, I don't have it, and I sure am glad about it ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I may be daft but it sounds like you have your mind made up and waiting for someone to confirm it. Tell us how you like the 90 and send some pics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Well, I called 1990 3.9 owner and asked him to call me once the EFI problem is fixed.

If it would be possible, I'd choose a 1991 auto, but unfortunately, to find 2 different RRC to choose, is quite unusual here.

In favor of the 1995:
1) Only one owner.
2) Interior looks like new. (tan leather)
3) The autobox.
Cons:
1) Everything electric.
2) Don't like the Disco style dashboard.

In favor of the 1990:
1) The simplest version of 3.9 EFI (Rest of the world)
2) I like the old fashioned Classic dasboard
Cons:
1) Much time abandoned and now partialy restored
2) Interior is not in perfect condition. (cloth)
3) Manual gearbox


1995 LWB looks and feel really better from the inside, but I feel that if anything goes wrong, it would be expensive and complicated to fix.

1990 feels tougher and simpler, but a brilliant Classic yet. If they can fix it properly, this is my call.

I am waiting the owner to call and say that the EFI has been fixed properly, then, after a good road test, if I feel confident, I'll buy it.

Thank you for your help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Hi, I would go for the -90 model, its also simpler to maintain and repairing. I guess there are some pre -94 Discos in Argentina? In those you have the manual gearbox wich is in the -90 RR BUT with manual difflock ( no viscous) So if you happend to come over some of those in the scrapyard you can use the gearboxes ( bolt on). And if the EFI troubles you, rip it of and put a Edelbrock 500 carburetter with Offenhauser inlet manifold on and maintain the power from the EFI :)
Good luck with your purchased anyway
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top