Late TD300 or Early TD5 Disco?????

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
K

k

Guest
Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2
years or so of production of the TD5 engine. Several people have indicated
that it's a safer bet to consider late model 300TDi engined unit than an
early TD5 . I think the changeover from 300TD to TD5 engines was around
1998.
Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now getting
into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm thinking it's time
for a change, maybe....Keith


 

"k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
> avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2
> years or so of production of the TD5 engine. Several people have indicated
> that it's a safer bet to consider late model 300TDi engined unit than an
> early TD5 . I think the changeover from 300TD to TD5 engines was around
> 1998.
> Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
> date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now
> getting
> into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm thinking it's
> time
> for a change, maybe....Keith
>
>


High mileage, it's just run in!! ;-)

Peter.


 


Peter Seddon wrote:

> >
> >

>
> High mileage, it's just run in!! ;-)
>

That is exactly what I think. It will easily do twice this amount.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.
 
On or around Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:23:37 -0000, "k"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
>avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2
>years or so of production of the TD5 engine. Several people have indicated
>that it's a safer bet to consider late model 300TDi engined unit than an
>early TD5 . I think the changeover from 300TD to TD5 engines was around
>1998.
>Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
>date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now getting
>into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm thinking it's time
>for a change, maybe....Keith
>


replace the engine with one of those 2.8 jobbies :)

Personally, I'd tend to go for a late "300", meself, as it's more
"mechanical" and therefore I understand it better and am more likely to be
able to fix it.

Given the budget to afford a series II disco, I'd be inclined to hunt either
a very good 300, or a late-model high-miler and replace things that were
worn.

if you look after 'em, they last for a good 2-300,000 miles. You might need
a gearbox, eventually, 'specially if it's an early 300.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine... War is hell"
Gen. Sherman (1820-1891) Attr. words in Address at Michigan Military
Academy, 19 June 1879.
 
k composed the following;:
> Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
> avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2
> years or so of production of the TD5 engine. Several people have indicated
> that it's a safer bet to consider late model 300TDi engined unit than an
> early TD5 . I think the changeover from 300TD to TD5 engines was around
> 1998.
> Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
> date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now
> getting into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm
> thinking it's time for a change, maybe....Keith


If you're happy with it, there are no current or foreseeable problems, I'd
stick with it. 100k is not a high mileage for these engines.

'course, it's always nice to have a new car though ... but as to which I'd
pick would depend a lot upon the budget available. I'd keep my existing 300
Tdi as a 'plaything', they've lost a lot of value recently it seems, and
really enhance it's off-road capability, and buy a newer TD5 for the
roadwork.


--
Paul ...
www.4x4prejudice.org
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 
"k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
> avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2

<snip>
> Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
> date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now

getting
> into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm thinking it's

time
> for a change, maybe....Keith
>


Keith, stick with your 300TDI unless you want fancy (fail-)all-in-one
electronics and disconnected diff lock lever. 97/98my 300tdi would be my
best pick for Disco.

Kalev


 

"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote >
> I have a 20 year old n/a that's done almost 250k with no major work
> needed.
>
>


The 20 year old has the 67hp indirect injection engine not a TDi. Besides
which, how do you really know that your vehicle has not had any major work
done? Did you buy it, not so many months ago, with a cast iron assurance
that it had never had a rebuild or major fault remedied?

Huw


 
Thanks guys - a near unanimous view that the late 300TDi is preferred to the
early TD5 . Also interested to see the comments that a 300TDi is not
considered high mileage at 100K - - I suppose my concern is more with the
durability of the transmission at that mileage rather than the engine. My
g/box is reasonably smooth and has clean oil and no obvious wear or oil
leaks, but these horror stories of terminal gearbox failure/seizure on
Discos at around 100k miles make me very nervous.....Keith


"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:23:37 -0000, "k" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi ....I've heard/read various comments that early TD5 Discos are better
> >avoided because of various mechanical concerns that emeged in the first 2
> >years or so of production of the TD5 engine. Several people have

indicated
> >that it's a safer bet to consider late model 300TDi engined unit than an
> >early TD5 . I think the changeover from 300TD to TD5 engines was around
> >1998.
> >Any views on that proposition? I currently run a 10 year old TD300 and to
> >date it's been really reliable and great to drive. However, it's now

getting
> >into the high mileage category at over 100K miles and I'm thinking it's

time
> >for a change, maybe....Keith
> >

>
> personally I'd go for a 300tdi, less electronics and a late 300tdi is
> a proven system with all problems sorted. an early td5 is not.
>
> 100k miles on a well maintained 300tdi is nicely worn in and will be
> good for the same again at least.
>
> I have a 20 year old n/a that's done almost 250k with no major work
> needed.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
> --
> _________________________________________
> 1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
> (3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
> www.4x4info.info
> www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
> www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
> _________________________________________
>
>
>
> ................................................................
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

> -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
>



 
On or around Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:36:56 -0000, "k"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Thanks guys - a near unanimous view that the late 300TDi is preferred to the
>early TD5 . Also interested to see the comments that a 300TDi is not
>considered high mileage at 100K - - I suppose my concern is more with the
>durability of the transmission at that mileage rather than the engine. My
>g/box is reasonably smooth and has clean oil and no obvious wear or oil
>leaks, but these horror stories of terminal gearbox failure/seizure on
>Discos at around 100k miles make me very nervous.....Keith


auto or manual?

if manual, what year?

If an early R380 (pre about 97, but don't quote me), has it got the
cross-drilled gear?


anyroadup, you're looking at summat around 800 notes for a recon box, new
T-box gear and fitting. Or that's what I've just paid for an LT77 anyway.
Recon had a new ouput shaft for definite, also a new nylon bush on the
selector shaft and what looked like a new input shaft. I didn't investigate
further.

fitted new cross-drilled gear, and it's back on the road. T-box whines just
the same as before, 5th gear is slightly noisy as is the main box when in
neutral, but it all goes properly. There's still a bit of clunk on changing
gear, but there's quite a bit of play in the front end, which might be CV
joints.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
 

"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:47:45 -0000, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote >
>>> I have a 20 year old n/a that's done almost 250k with no major work
>>> needed.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>The 20 year old has the 67hp indirect injection engine not a TDi. Besides
>>which, how do you really know that your vehicle has not had any major work
>>done? Did you buy it, not so many months ago, with a cast iron assurance
>>that it had never had a rebuild or major fault remedied?
>>
>>Huw

>
> A few folk have had a poke around and from that and it's performance
> they say it appears original.
> but of course one can never be sure of such things.
>


You can't tell without actually knowing for certain its history. For all you
and I know it could be on its fifteenth scrap sourced engine ;-(

Only kidding :). Still, the above does hold true. It is unlikely never to
have had some fault in that mileage. Mine has 'only' 130,000 on it but has
had the head gasket replaced once and the injector pump lever bush is now
badly worn and it spews a bit of diesel out there from time to time. I do
not expect it to reach 200k miles without incident though. Apart from
anything else, if it ever does reach 200k, it will be 35 years old in all
probability.

Huw


 

"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:10:21 -0000, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:47:45 -0000, "Huw"
>>> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote >
>>>>> I have a 20 year old n/a that's done almost 250k with no major work
>>>>> needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The 20 year old has the 67hp indirect injection engine not a TDi.
>>>>Besides
>>>>which, how do you really know that your vehicle has not had any major
>>>>work
>>>>done? Did you buy it, not so many months ago, with a cast iron assurance
>>>>that it had never had a rebuild or major fault remedied?
>>>>
>>>>Huw
>>>
>>> A few folk have had a poke around and from that and it's performance
>>> they say it appears original.
>>> but of course one can never be sure of such things.
>>>

>>
>>You can't tell without actually knowing for certain its history. For all
>>you
>>and I know it could be on its fifteenth scrap sourced engine ;-(
>>
>>Only kidding :). Still, the above does hold true. It is unlikely never to
>>have had some fault in that mileage. Mine has 'only' 130,000 on it but has
>>had the head gasket replaced once and the injector pump lever bush is now
>>badly worn and it spews a bit of diesel out there from time to time. I do
>>not expect it to reach 200k miles without incident though. Apart from
>>anything else, if it ever does reach 200k, it will be 35 years old in all
>>probability.
>>
>>Huw
>>

>
> I know it's had a new sump, probably after damage off-roading. and I
> did the water pump recently, injectors, heater plugs, alternator etc.
> none of which I view as major parts, question of definition I suppose.


If you have done all those in your short tenure, then imagine what previous
owners might have replaced or repaired.




> My engine is certainly getting tired, I've driven several 110 2.5
> n/a's and this is definatly a bit of a slug.


Funnily enough, mine goes as well as it ever did. Not fast but faster by far
than a series 3 2.25.
Frankly I am amazed it has lasted this long considering the type of use this
one is subjected to.

As an aside, my brother, the main driver of the 110, shut our two dogs in
the cab for five minutes yesterday while pumping the tyres [the elder bitch
does not like the compressor] and the young Kelpie took a liking to the
drivers backrest, chewing all the foam and spitting it out in dice sized
chunks. You would be amazed at how much legroom this has liberated. Good
dog!

Huw


 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:36:56 -0000, "k"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Thanks guys - a near unanimous view that the late 300TDi is preferred to

the
> >early TD5 . Also interested to see the comments that a 300TDi is not
> >considered high mileage at 100K - - I suppose my concern is more with the
> >durability of the transmission at that mileage rather than the engine. My
> >g/box is reasonably smooth and has clean oil and no obvious wear or oil
> >leaks, but these horror stories of terminal gearbox failure/seizure on
> >Discos at around 100k miles make me very nervous.....Keith

>
> auto or manual?
>
> if manual, what year?
>
> If an early R380 (pre about 97, but don't quote me), has it got the
> cross-drilled gear?
>
>
> anyroadup, you're looking at summat around 800 notes for a recon box, new
> T-box gear and fitting. Or that's what I've just paid for an LT77 anyway.
> Recon had a new ouput shaft for definite, also a new nylon bush on the
> selector shaft and what looked like a new input shaft. I didn't

investigate
> further.
>
> fitted new cross-drilled gear, and it's back on the road. T-box whines

just
> the same as before, 5th gear is slightly noisy as is the main box when in
> neutral, but it all goes properly. There's still a bit of clunk on

changing
> gear, but there's quite a bit of play in the front end, which might be CV
> joints.
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
> Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
> Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)


Thanks for these further points Austin... Yes, it's a manual, in a November
96 (NReg) Disco. I'm afraid I don't know whether the infamous cross drilled
layshaft has been modded into the box since it was built or even if its
already 'in theclear' on that assembly date. I asked my local garage (now
not bothering about the main LandRover dealership servicing, since it's
passed it's 100K) to check the box carefully for any signs of wear or
potential problems during the 100K service and MOT prep. They advised that
the oil was clean, pink and clear and no leaks present, and no unusual
noises or odd behaviour, so they just screwed the filler cap back on and
concluded the oil didn't even need changing.
At £800 for a recon box/transfer and fitting it's probably not terminal, but
just seriously painful, so if it did fail dramatically, I'd be able to cover
the repairs (if I didn't eat or drink for a couple of months!). Like yours,
mine also clunks on gear change both ways between 1st and 2nd occasionally,
when I rush the change, but no whines or vibration (yet). I suspect that
it's more to do with prop/transmission wear than anything in the main box.
Presumably these gearbox failures don't just suddenly arise without any
warning and there will be some preliminary symptoms and noises before the
'big bang'? I'm pretty careful and considerate when driving the 'old dog',
both on tar and occasional off road/rough tracks and light towing etc. So
far it was the best £4K I spent, nearly a year and 9K miles ago and
certainly no regrets
It's really strange how much of a kick I get driving this old Disco compared
to any other cars I've had over the past years. Had an S1 80" for several
years back in the early 70's and enjoyed that too, but this disco has such a
solid feel to it and its safe, comfortable and reasonably economic too at
just over 30 mpg. Only worries on the immediate horizon are the corrosion on
the front inside wings and the need to get underneath with a steam cleaner
and do a waxoyl job on the chassis etc

Keith


 
On or around Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:16:54 -0000, "k"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Thanks for these further points Austin... Yes, it's a manual, in a November
>96 (NReg) Disco. I'm afraid I don't know whether the infamous cross drilled
>layshaft has been modded into the box since it was built or even if its
>already 'in theclear' on that assembly date.


probably not fitted by the factory at that date.

You check it by unbolting the PTO cover on the back end of the transfer box,
and then, having jacked one wheel, have someone turn the wheel back and
forward; look at the T-box input gear on its shaft, you don't want to see
the gear moving around the shaft.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1
 
Back
Top