not entirely hypothetical

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> writes
>Considering adding to the fleet (well, swapping the A-Class for
>something less crap)...
>
>It's still pretty efficient to run a Double Cab as a company vehicle,
>so in a straight shootout between the 110 Double Cab and the Nissan
>Navara Adventura, which do I choose?
>
>Purchase price is near enough not to matter, but favours the Nissan.
>Residuals probably cancel out the difference.
>
>Nissan is leather and full of nice toys. Defender is a Land Rover....
>Off road ability will be good enough in either.
>
>I'm likely to do 30,000 miles a year in this truck, about 75% of them
>on a motorway.



I have a 55 plate 110 CSW ,recently chipped, and it is great. The
Defenders win on ride every time. The new Nirvara is s'posed to really
fly.

Take the Nivara out for a spin and you should see what I mean. I look
after some of the older type and I just hate them. The combination of
torsion bar front and leaf sprung rear that the japs insist on using
results in a choppy ride.

Service intervals are very short as well for a high mileage user.


Also if you buy a 110CSW with the suspension upgrade (which is basically
alloy wheels) you can claim the VAT back on it as it has a payload of
1,000 kg and can be counted as a commercial vehicle. Well that's what
HMCE told me. Much more useable than a double cab.

Doing 30,000 miles a year you really want to make the right choice.

To be honest my choice was between Defender and Disco 3, The Defender
won by virtue of higher a residual and plus I have all the diagnostics
ready for it if I do choose to keep it outside of warranty.
--
Marc Draper

> Also if you buy a 110CSW with the suspension upgrade (which is
> basically alloy wheels) you can claim the VAT back on it as it has a
> payload of 1,000 kg and can be counted as a commercial vehicle. Well
> that's what HMCE told me. Much more useable than a double cab.

Not for long, have it under good authority that the law is likely to change
in April, to state that a vehicle not only has to carry the stated load but
must also have no more than 2 seats. apparently the government wants to
close the double cab loophole.

--
Graham

101 GS
101 Radio Body

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:28:14 -0000, "Graham G"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Also if you buy a 110CSW with the suspension upgrade (which is
>> basically alloy wheels) you can claim the VAT back on it as it has a
>> payload of 1,000 kg and can be counted as a commercial vehicle. Well
>> that's what HMCE told me. Much more useable than a double cab.
>
>Not for long, have it under good authority that the law is likely to change
>in April, to state that a vehicle not only has to carry the stated load but
>must also have no more than 2 seats. apparently the government wants to
>close the double cab loophole.

AIUI the double cab will change to a benefit in kind of £3000 pa, from
the current £500. So this year my tax will be £200 and next year
£1200. Current tax on a mid-range Discovery is £5359. Quite
persuasive...

The difference will fund a very nice motor for the weekend!

--
Tim Hobbs

I
>>.
>
>AIUI the double cab will change to a benefit in kind of £3000 pa, from
>the current £500. So this year my tax will be £200 and next year
>£1200. Current tax on a mid-range Discovery is £5359. Quite
>persuasive...
>
>The difference will fund a very nice motor for the weekend!
>



Yes....Unless you do a commercial conversion on a disco 3 which involves
folding flat all the seats and fitting a heavy duty dog guard ;-)

Then you can have your cake and eat it.

I am happy with a 110 CSW and a benefit in kind of 3000 next year.
--
Marc Draper

On or around Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:02:25 +0000, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>I have a 55 plate 110 CSW ,recently chipped, and it is great. The
>Defenders win on ride every time.

see, that's the point - the engine is capable of putting out notably more
power, so whyTF don't LR offer that, either as standard or as an option.
since it's so easy to do, they could offer a normal one and a high-power
option.

The average bloke in the street or more likely on the farm doesn't see why
when he's just spent the thick end of 20K on a new motor that he then has to
take it to a third party type, pay an extra couple of hundred quid or more
and invalidate the warranty to make it go as well as the chap next door's
Nissan.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:02:25 +0000, Marc Draper
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >I have a 55 plate 110 CSW ,recently chipped, and it is great. The
> >Defenders win on ride every time.
>
> see, that's the point - the engine is capable of putting out notably more
> power, so whyTF don't LR offer that, either as standard or as an option.
> since it's so easy to do, they could offer a normal one and a high-power
> option.

It's got a lot to with the full life-cycle, sure can get loads more
power now, but what happens to the engine's life expectancy? There's
also emissions regulations around the world, some countries tax on
engine power etc etc.

>
> The average bloke in the street or more likely on the farm doesn't see why
> when he's just spent the thick end of 20K on a new motor that he then has to
> take it to a third party type, pay an extra couple of hundred quid or more
> and invalidate the warranty to make it go as well as the chap next door's
> Nissan.

If the chap wants Nissan performance, then he should have bought a Nissan.
Defenders are built as tools to do a job (off-road), not "life-style"
accessories. If on-road performance is the main criteria for purchase
rather than off-road ability, then Defender is the wrong vehicle - and
long may that remain so (though they are going to have a job convincing
anyone round here that Transit engines are a good idea, even Transit
owners don't rate them, never mind putting it in off-road vehicle).

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

>The average bloke in the street or more likely on the farm doesn't see why
>when he's just spent the thick end of 20K on a new motor that he then has to
>take it to a third party type, pay an extra couple of hundred quid or more
>and invalidate the warranty to make it go as well as the chap next door's
>Nissan.


I agree totally Austin.

Re warranty: with my bit of kit LR will never know it has been done.

Some main dealers are getting them chipped prior to sale.
--
Marc Draper

>If the chap wants Nissan performance, then he should have bought a Nissan.
>Defenders are built as tools to do a job (off-road), not "life-style"
>accessories. If on-road performance is the main criteria for purchase
>rather than off-road ability, then Defender is the wrong vehicle - and
>long may that remain so (though they are going to have a job convincing
>anyone round here that Transit engines are a good idea, even Transit
>owners don't rate them, never mind putting it in off-road vehicle).


Not sure I agree totally Richard.

My Defender was bought to do a number of jobs and as a result of
chipping does those jobs so much better. I don't give a stuff about top
speed but the towing ability is important and is much better as a result
of the extra torque. I rarely have to take it out of fifth gear on the
motorways even with a Disco II on the trailer.

As discussed on another thread putting all that Nissan performance
through a part time 4X4 system is questionable to say the least.

I wait with interest to see what the transit lump is like and hope it is
better than the DI they used to fit. But I am glad I bought a Td5.

--
Marc Draper

On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:33:33 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>If the chap wants Nissan performance, then he should have bought a Nissan.
>Defenders are built as tools to do a job (off-road),

and they also make much of being able to tow heavy trailers, and frankly,
they don't cut it compared with some of the opposition which use bigger
engines with more power and or torque. The number of people who do serious
off-road is small compared with those who want to haul livestock trailers,
say. I've tried towing around 3 tons with the TDi disco, and frankly, it
sucks. The gearing's too high, especially first, making it difficult to
pull off from rest on a slope, unless you use low transfer.


>not "life-style"
>accessories. If on-road performance is the main criteria for purchase
>rather than off-road ability, then Defender is the wrong vehicle - and
>long may that remain so

but more power won't compromise off-road ability, provided it delivered in a
controlled manner, of course - and will improve the ability to lug heavy
trailers on fields and the like. LR have for ages underpowered especially
the diesels - the TDi is the first one with a decent amount of power, and
that's only adequate for some of the things people want them to do. They
missed a perfect chance, IMHO, to "catch up" when designing the TD5 - having
seen TD5 pistons they look uncommonly like TDi ones, so whyTF didn't they
just use the TDi pistons, and design the (then) proposed family of 4-, 5-
and 6-cylinder engines around the dimensions of the TDi cylinders. You'd
then have had a new, improved 4-cylinder with the new fuelling system and
the same 2.5l capacity (which might have gone nicely in the freelander), a
5-cylinder at about 3.1l, which would have gone well in the disco II and
defender, or you could have offered a choice of 4 or 5-cylinder, and a
6-cylinder of 3.75l which would have been an excellent lump for the
rangerover; would have made a decent fist of competing with the likes of the
Landcruiser amazon (4.2 turbo). The BMW 6 is all very well, but the choice
of the 2.5 version for the P38 RR was ridiculous, the engine has to work way
to hard and as a result it doesn't even come out economical to make up for
the relatively low performance.

As it is, the TD5 was initially disappointing and although the programming
has been fixed it didn't do anything for the engine's reputation, and the
very fact that so many people offer a chipping service is evidence of the
desire for more grunt.

As a solo machine, mostly-unladen, the TDi disco we have here is not at all
bad - just fitted GT+4 tyres and had the opportunity to give it a bit of
stick on the wiggly A roads the other day, and provided you keep it on the
sweet spot between about 2500 and 3500 rpm it goes quite rapidly. Fully
laden it's not so fast but OK, but start towing more than about a ton behind
and it's decidedly lacking in grunt for climbing hills.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net 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)

In message <[email protected]>
Marc Draper <[email protected]> wrote:

> >If the chap wants Nissan performance, then he should have bought a Nissan.
> >Defenders are built as tools to do a job (off-road), not "life-style"
> >accessories. If on-road performance is the main criteria for purchase
> >rather than off-road ability, then Defender is the wrong vehicle - and
> >long may that remain so (though they are going to have a job convincing
> >anyone round here that Transit engines are a good idea, even Transit
> >owners don't rate them, never mind putting it in off-road vehicle).
>
>
> Not sure I agree totally Richard.
>
> My Defender was bought to do a number of jobs and as a result of
> chipping does those jobs so much better. I don't give a stuff about top
> speed but the towing ability is important and is much better as a result
> of the extra torque. I rarely have to take it out of fifth gear on the
> motorways even with a Disco II on the trailer.
>
> As discussed on another thread putting all that Nissan performance
> through a part time 4X4 system is questionable to say the least.
>
> I wait with interest to see what the transit lump is like and hope it is
> better than the DI they used to fit. But I am glad I bought a Td5.
>

That sort of underlines LR's quandry - everything's a compromise. I
used to do an awful lot of towing when we broke vehicles and found
the 200Tdi to be fine, but a number of customers (farmers mostly)
who now have Td5's would happily go back to 200/300Tdi given the
choice - the Td5 only raises the max torque revs a bit, but it's a
huge leap when it comes to moving off on hills (something we have
rather a lot of here) - that's despite the Td5 having higher
max torque. IT's died down a bit now, but there was a lot of moaning
about that for the first few years.

To confuse things further, one of the delights of the 200Tdi for
off-road driving is the ability to stop on steep slippery descents
by simply truning the engine off, and starting again to move off -
no brakes required at all.
I've not had the oportunity to try that in a Td5, but it certainly
feels like it may not work so well - the Td5 feels more inclined to
run-away (a bit, but enough).

Horses for courses though!

Richard


--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:25 +0000, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I wait with interest to see what the transit lump is like and hope it is
>better than the DI they used to fit. But I am glad I bought a Td5.

the new tranny has impressive figures, for the 2.4 duratorq. I have a Di in
the minibus, and apart from being a bit underpowered (it's a big vehicle)
it's a good motor. The TDi one produced about 100hp and was reasonably
torquey.

The 2.4 duratorq in top spec does 137 hp and quite a lot of torque, although
what it's actually like to drive I don't know.

The "old" Di such as mine has a good spread of torque, inasmuch as it has
any, and pulls well within its limitations. But it'd be underpowered (at
about 80 hp) in a defender.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net 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)

Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:25 +0000, Marc Draper
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>I wait with interest to see what the transit lump is like and hope it is
>>better than the DI they used to fit. But I am glad I bought a Td5.
>
> the new tranny has impressive figures, for the 2.4 duratorq. I have a Di
> in the minibus, and apart from being a bit underpowered (it's a big
> vehicle)
> it's a good motor. The TDi one produced about 100hp and was reasonably
> torquey.
>
> The 2.4 duratorq in top spec does 137 hp and quite a lot of torque,
> although what it's actually like to drive I don't know.

Having driven the more recent Trannies a fair bit recently they don't seem
to have that much torque - bags of whizz, but no low down grunt - honestly
felt closer to a petrol engine than a diesel - managed to stall it a good
few times in first before I figured out I was actually driving a petrol
engine that just happened to take the wrong fuel.

Here's hoping that's just a symptom of the ones I've been driving rather
than a fundamental issue with the engine.

P.

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:33:33 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >If the chap wants Nissan performance, then he should have bought a Nissan.
> >Defenders are built as tools to do a job (off-road),
>
> and they also make much of being able to tow heavy trailers, and frankly,
> they don't cut it compared with some of the opposition which use bigger
> engines with more power and or torque. The number of people who do serious
> off-road is small compared with those who want to haul livestock trailers,
> say. I've tried towing around 3 tons with the TDi disco, and frankly, it
> sucks. The gearing's too high, especially first, making it difficult to
> pull off from rest on a slope, unless you use low transfer.
>

I don't know about your area, but round here the there is a tight
synergy between those who want to go off road (I've no idea what
the over-used phrase "serious off-road" is supposed to mean) and
tow grossly overloaded trailers - they are mostly called farmers/
forestry/MEB etc.

I used to tow at least three tons regularly with my 200 Tdi 110
and 200Tdi 90 - no probelms (the 90 was better at getting going,
the 110 at keeping going). The overall gearing of a Discovery I
is a little higher, but then those of our customers who do that
sort of work have a Defender - the tool for the job.

>
> >not "life-style"
> >accessories. If on-road performance is the main criteria for purchase
> >rather than off-road ability, then Defender is the wrong vehicle - and
> >long may that remain so
>
> but more power won't compromise off-road ability, provided it delivered in a
> controlled manner, of course - and will improve the ability to lug heavy
> trailers on fields and the like. LR have for ages underpowered especially
> the diesels - the TDi is the first one with a decent amount of power, and
> that's only adequate for some of the things people want them to do. They
> missed a perfect chance, IMHO, to "catch up" when designing the TD5 - having
> seen TD5 pistons they look uncommonly like TDi ones, so whyTF didn't they
> just use the TDi pistons, and design the (then) proposed family of 4-, 5-
> and 6-cylinder engines around the dimensions of the TDi cylinders. You'd
> then have had a new, improved 4-cylinder with the new fuelling system and
> the same 2.5l capacity (which might have gone nicely in the freelander), a
> 5-cylinder at about 3.1l, which would have gone well in the disco II and
> defender, or you could have offered a choice of 4 or 5-cylinder, and a
> 6-cylinder of 3.75l which would have been an excellent lump for the
> rangerover; would have made a decent fist of competing with the likes of the
> Landcruiser amazon (4.2 turbo). The BMW 6 is all very well, but the choice
> of the 2.5 version for the P38 RR was ridiculous, the engine has to work way
> to hard and as a result it doesn't even come out economical to make up for
> the relatively low performance.

In the original plan you mention the 5-cylinder *is* the Td5, it's
the 4 and 6-cylinder version that never happened. From what I was told
by the Diesels Team Leader (he had a desk facing mine) during my time
at Rover, all the engines were to be 2.5L. There was a long list
of sound commercial reasons for the size being chosen.
The Freelander was not included in that engine strategy, it was
always going to have "car" engines as it was very definately seen
as being in the "life-style" market, where road performance is
everything (RAV-4 etc).
The Honda CRV gives clues to likely engine choices had Honda not left,
as it was born (remakably quickly, but not too surprising bearing
in mind how many Honda Engineers worked on CB40) out of Honda's need
for 4x4 car having been booted out of Rover (Honda were going to
re-badge the Freelander, as per Discovery I, except Freelander was
to be built in Japan).

>
> As it is, the TD5 was initially disappointing and although the programming
> has been fixed it didn't do anything for the engine's reputation, and the
> very fact that so many people offer a chipping service is evidence of the
> desire for more grunt.

But not from the "industrial" users - I can't think of a single customer
or friend who has chipped their "work" vehicle, though I can think
a number of have chipped their "life-style" vehicles.

>
> As a solo machine, mostly-unladen, the TDi disco we have here is not at all
> bad - just fitted GT+4 tyres and had the opportunity to give it a bit of
> stick on the wiggly A roads the other day, and provided you keep it on the
> sweet spot between about 2500 and 3500 rpm it goes quite rapidly. Fully
> laden it's not so fast but OK, but start towing more than about a ton behind
> and it's decidedly lacking in grunt for climbing hills.
>

I can't speak of detailed experience with towing with a Discovery I
(I've done some and not noticed any particular problem apart from the
rear suspension being a bit soft if the trailer was not exactly
balanced), but from following them round on market days there doesn't
seem to be a major problem. Our customers with caravans are for
the most part very happy - if I remember right the Discovery I won
"Best Tow Car" from the Caravan Club for about 5 years on the trot -
it can't be that bad!

What I/they have noticed though is that, particularly 300Tdi's, is that
getting the fuelling right is vital - just turning up the pump can
actually reduce performance markedly. One customer was cursing and
swearing about his motor until he had it done right. He's now delighted
with the car, and moans every time he comes in about the "expert" who
caused him to drive round for 2 years in a gutless motor.

Richard



--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:25:46 +0000, "Paul S. Brown"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:25 +0000, Marc Draper
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>I wait with interest to see what the transit lump is like and hope it is
>>>better than the DI they used to fit. But I am glad I bought a Td5.
>>
>> the new tranny has impressive figures, for the 2.4 duratorq. I have a Di
>> in the minibus, and apart from being a bit underpowered (it's a big
>> vehicle)
>> it's a good motor. The TDi one produced about 100hp and was reasonably
>> torquey.
>>
>> The 2.4 duratorq in top spec does 137 hp and quite a lot of torque,
>> although what it's actually like to drive I don't know.
>
>Having driven the more recent Trannies a fair bit recently they don't seem
>to have that much torque - bags of whizz, but no low down grunt - honestly
>felt closer to a petrol engine than a diesel - managed to stall it a good
>few times in first before I figured out I was actually driving a petrol
>engine that just happened to take the wrong fuel.
>
>Here's hoping that's just a symptom of the ones I've been driving rather
>than a fundamental issue with the engine.

there are several engine variants, mind. There's a 2-litre one and a 2.4,
and they both IIRC come in different power outputs. The only one with
decent-sounding output is the highest of the 2.4 ones, the next one down is
OK but notably less torque.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net 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)

On or around Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:39:41 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>In the original plan you mention the 5-cylinder *is* the Td5, it's

yebbut, they could still have made it bigger...

>the 4 and 6-cylinder version that never happened. From what I was told
>by the Diesels Team Leader (he had a desk facing mine) during my time
>at Rover, all the engines were to be 2.5L. There was a long list
>of sound commercial reasons for the size being chosen.

however, from what I read, the engines (4, 5 and 6-cyl) were to share
pistons and liners and so forth, thereby saving money in the manufacturing
process. It'd have given a 2-litre 4 and a 3-litre 6, the smaller one was
AIUI supposed to get to the freelander but it ended up with a BMW engine
badged as TD4, ditto the Range Rover TD6.

>The Freelander was not included in that engine strategy, it was
>always going to have "car" engines as it was very definately seen
>as being in the "life-style" market, where road performance is
>everything (RAV-4 etc).
>The Honda CRV gives clues to likely engine choices had Honda not left,
>as it was born (remakably quickly, but not too surprising bearing
>in mind how many Honda Engineers worked on CB40) out of Honda's need
>for 4x4 car having been booted out of Rover (Honda were going to
>re-badge the Freelander, as per Discovery I, except Freelander was
>to be built in Japan).
>
>>
>> As it is, the TD5 was initially disappointing and although the programming
>> has been fixed it didn't do anything for the engine's reputation, and the
>> very fact that so many people offer a chipping service is evidence of the
>> desire for more grunt.
>
>But not from the "industrial" users - I can't think of a single customer
>or friend who has chipped their "work" vehicle, though I can think
>a number of have chipped their "life-style" vehicles.
>
>>
>> As a solo machine, mostly-unladen, the TDi disco we have here is not at all
>> bad - just fitted GT+4 tyres and had the opportunity to give it a bit of
>> stick on the wiggly A roads the other day, and provided you keep it on the
>> sweet spot between about 2500 and 3500 rpm it goes quite rapidly. Fully
>> laden it's not so fast but OK, but start towing more than about a ton behind
>> and it's decidedly lacking in grunt for climbing hills.
>>
>
>I can't speak of detailed experience with towing with a Discovery I
>(I've done some and not noticed any particular problem apart from the
>rear suspension being a bit soft if the trailer was not exactly
>balanced), but from following them round on market days there doesn't
>seem to be a major problem. Our customers with caravans are for
>the most part very happy - if I remember right the Discovery I won
>"Best Tow Car" from the Caravan Club for about 5 years on the trot -
>it can't be that bad!
>
>What I/they have noticed though is that, particularly 300Tdi's, is that
>getting the fuelling right is vital - just turning up the pump can
>actually reduce performance markedly. One customer was cursing and
>swearing about his motor until he had it done right. He's now delighted
>with the car, and moans every time he comes in about the "expert" who
>caused him to drive round for 2 years in a gutless motor.

they seem to come from the factory set with the fuelling a bit low. On the
one here I've tweaked it up a touch and also advanced the pump timing a bit,
both of which things helped in the pre-boost stage, at low revs. Initially,
it was quite possible to stall it when pulling off in first if you were a
touch careless - it now pulls off fine and actually goes pretty well, making
only slight smoke at high revs and full boot. Which is about what I reckon
it should. I've never touched the boost.

I agreee about turning up fuel, it's got to be done right - I see some
diesels belching black smoke; which is plain inefficient, as well as being
rude and illegal.

There was an opinion bandied around about the TD5 that the smaller cylinder
capacity was related to the lack of low-end torque; dunno how true that is.
If the stroke is shorter, it might be.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net 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)

>But not from the "industrial" users - I can't think of a single customer
>or friend who has chipped their "work" vehicle, though I can think
>a number of have chipped their "life-style" vehicles.



Unless they are "owner drivers" they wont due to a company accountant
doing their job. The job will still get done without the chip but it is
so much better with it.



>I can't speak of detailed experience with towing with a Discovery I
>(I've done some and not noticed any particular problem apart from the
>rear suspension being a bit soft if the trailer was not exactly
>balanced), but from following them round on market days there doesn't
>seem to be a major problem. Our customers with caravans are for
>the most part very happy - if I remember right the Discovery I won
>"Best Tow Car" from the Caravan Club for about 5 years on the trot -
>it can't be that bad!


My 300tdi Disco was an excellent tow vehicle but as Austin has already
mentioned it was a little over geared. The stability was good providing
the suspension was kept up to speed, but that is the same for any
vehicle.

At the moment I have the choice of 2x 200tdi 90's, 3x 300Tdi 90's and a
Disco II td5 but the best for towing is the 110 td5 without a doubt.
Much more stable than the others and just enough torque to make it a
breeze.
--
Marc Draper