200TDi vs. 300TDi

[heckflosse]

Probably been asked before but can't find it now.
What's the difference between the two Discoverys. I know there were a few changes engine wise but were they for the better?
I've heared the 200 is a better motor but the 300 is easier to work on. I've also heard the problem with the 300 was the new ECUs but the earlier ones didn't have these.

So in short would a '94 300TDi be any better or worse than a pre-'94 200TDi.

P.S. I'm looking for the better off-roader (is there any difference?), best MPG, easiest to work on and most reliable.

[TEMPL4R]

The later ones are "Fly by Wire", there is no mechanical connection between the throttle pedal and the injection pump. You cannot do much withh them.

Earlier ones are virtually the same as the 200s. I prefer the 300s, simply beacause I work on so many of them.

I've never really thought much about it, but they are the same engine pretty much, with pump and water pump, etc in different places. I don't see why one is better than the other.

I'll go and read up on it though, just in case I need to apologise later.

Chris

Chris

[Widget]

My knowledge is a bit rusty, but I went from a 200tdi to a 300tdi disco in 1994 and thought that the 300tdi was much quieter than the older version. The dash arrangement was better, it had an airbag and better headlights. The heater was better too.

The 300 engine has a revised cambelt arrangement which led to early failures which were fixed under warranty. There are lots of other detail differences like injectors, oil pump, vacuum pump etc.

As with many things Land Rover, the customers do the lion's share of product development, so my preference would be a later 300.

[Baker69]

I've had both models, I swapped my 200 for a 300 Tdi because it had a quieter and slightly more refined engine, plus a much better interior in my opinion. And as previously said a better heating system and better headlights, stereo system etc.

I had a lot of niggling electrical faults on the dashboard with the 200 Tdi plus numerous mechanical faults (nothing major) which were luckily taken care of under warranty. Blew the head gasket on the 200 a couple of days before I part-ex'ed it for the 300 Tdi. Another warranty job fortunately! Don't know what caused the gasket to go, it just went.

The only thing I can remember going wrong on the 300 Tdi was the power steering box, and the exhaust (which is a normal wear and tear item anyway). Got a really good price for the 300 Tdi when I eventually sold it.

The 200 suffered with corrosion on the wheel arches as they have aluminium wings, and both models on the inside of the car on the wheel arches of the rear passenger compartment.

I would personally go for the 300 Tdi.

[bilge rat]

ive had both still got me 300, its alot quiter more refined, me 200 seemed slightly more economical certainly had more torque but was harsher and noisier. the 300 on a 94 wont be fly be wire, check the drain hole in the front timing cover just make sure theres no cam belt debris about .the early ones suffered cambelt alignment probs although i'd think most have been sorted now, i think theres for and against with each model but i think i'd go for the 300, good luck..alan.......

[tdi300]

I never owned a 200 but always owned a 300. In my opinion the 300 is easy to work on, reliable and a workhorse. The power is unbelievable. Never owned a 200 so can not compaire.

me tumbs up for 300

10x
luds

[Baker69]

I did much prefer my 300 to the 200 but if I remember correctly the 200 seemed to have a bit more "grunt"

[heckflosse]

I've found out the 300 was fly-by-wire from 1997 in the UK.
What type of MPG does a 300 return. I was expecting a combined figure (no stop/start journeys) of around 30 - 35 on a 200TDi. I'm hoping a 300 will be only slightly under this?

[bilge rat]

I've found out the 300 was fly-by-wire from 1997 in the UK.
What type of MPG does a 300 return. I was expecting a combined figure (no stop/start journeys) of around 30 - 35 on a 200TDi. I'm hoping a 300 will be only slightly under this?

me 300 is good for 30 mpg prob a bit more on a run , me 200 now sold was slightly better on fuell about 30 to 35, both mine were manual, cant comment on autos but heard there a little less economical,,alan.........

[chiopir]

I never owned a 200 but always owned a 300. In my opinion the 300 is easy to work on, reliable and a workhorse. The power is unbelievable. Never owned a 200 so can not compaire.

me tumbs up for 300

10x
luds

I completly agree with it. 300 is much more powerfull and reliable than 200. I had a 200 few years back and I changed it for a 300 because of these reasons :)

[V8_Disco]

Hum

Buy on condition of the car its not genraly the engine thats the problem but the body work on disco 1s

I would be tempted by the 300 as 200s are getting on a bit now and are better laid out inside they are v good value at the moment,

if its for an ofroader i would concider a 3.9 on lpg

A

[Disco Blue]

me 300 is good for 30 mpg prob a bit more on a run , me 200 now sold was slightly better on fuell about 30 to 35, both mine were manual, cant comment on autos but heard there a little less economical,,alan.........


My '94 300 (126,000 miles) gets around 30/35 on open road and around 27/30 with the caravan. Don't use it in town but would expect around 25/28 perhaps. This is my first Land Rover so can't compare with other models.

[thebiglad]

We own both a Tdi 200 manual and a Tdi 300 auto so I feel able to draw some comparisons.

1. The 200 is imo much easier to work on, has a manual inj pump so can be "improved" very easily and cheaply. It gives on average 36mpg and is gutsy and always feels powerful enough.

It has rust in the inner front wings, sills, rear wheel arches and did have a rusty boot floor 'til I changed it.

It always feels like it will get you through. The interior is poorly designed and the heater controls are very poor.

2. The 300 ('98 with EDC) is noticeably more powerful, better road car, more comfortable and quieter. It can cruise at 70-80mph all day but will dent mpg if you do. I reckon to get on average 35mpg, driven steadily.

The autobox is a bit crude first to second but smooth after than. It has front and rear anti-rollbars (will come off very soon) which makes the car feel fidgety on smaller roads and makes the suspension a bit noisy.

Both are good vehicles but the rust on the 200 is a real killer.

Buy on condition rather than model/age - look very carefully for rust on a Disco, that's it's biggest threat.

Hope that helps

Dave

[bananahead]

wierd thing... ive owned two 300's and driven two 200's and whenever i get into a 200 it just feels more "solid", only way i can describe.... I still prefer the 300, there arent the same light surrounds on the front and the interior is better in my opinion.

My 98 300 is not edc btw. As said, go on condition :)

[littlelegs]

I started off with a K reg 200TDI with 65000 miles on the clock and a recon engine (cam belt I think), got to 183000 when it put a conrod and piston through the crankcase. Had a head gasket go at No 4, common problem, fitted a new rad and clutch. Second gear was noisey to engage and engine was harsh but always started, rolled a bit on corners, had a bit of wheel wobble sometimes and headlights were useless. Alternator belt was a pain to keep adjusted and frequently slipped. Had a rusty rear floorpan. Interior was nice with twin sun roofs and a good radio system but drivers seat broke (three door).

Missed it when it stopped but then got a three door N reg 300TDI with 60000 miles and it was so much better, smooth and quiet, no rolling, good headlights, felt like a new car to drive and seemed more powerful and responsive and still starts well. Purposely avoided the EDC models. Now done 142000 and fitted new rad and rear shocks, removed EGR and needed new sill for MOT, gets hard use with plenty of towing etc. so body is a bit scratched about now and has a bit of corrosion low down behind doors. A bit more basic than the 200 but overall I much prefer it with similar 32MPG.

[thebiglad]

wierd thing... ive owned two 300's and driven two 200's and whenever i get into a 200 it just feels more "solid", only way i can describe.... I still prefer the 300, there arent the same light surrounds on the front and the interior is better in my opinion.

My 98 300 is not edc btw. As said, go on condition :)

I'm assuming that means it's a manual gearbox then is it??

Cheers
Dave

[Dave 2000]

I own a 200 and have driven other 200/300 and worked on both models. The 200 has a more solid feel (even tractorish) and the non anti roll bar version gives better off road articulation. The 300 is quieter and more refined on the motorway at speed but less capable (IMHO) off road. Around town the later R380 gearbox of the 300 is also smoother to use than the 200 (LT77) but less tolerant of poor servicing.

Reliability wise there is little to choose between the two and head gasket failures are a common problem with both vehicles, again poor maintenance is normaly the cause, the early 300's had cam belt alignment problems but they are probably all sorted now. There are many more parts on a 300 engine (around 65 at the last count) so in theory there is more to go wrong. The EGR system is a pain as is the rubber donut on the rear propshaft. Sunroofs are also a pain on both models.

The inside of the 300 is better designed but some of the electrics can be a problem (alarm/central locking come to mind), this comes from the simple fact of 'if you have not got it, it cannot go wrong' and the 200 has less leccies!

My car is used off road almost daily (I live in Spain) and often disappear into the 'campo' knowing that I am not going to get sidelined by an electronic gremlin so 200 (or very early 300) will be fine.

The 200 is very easy to work on for example try getting the dash out off a 300 tdi in 15 minutes, another 5 and the heater unit is out, mine even leaves the airconditioning pressurised and untouched.

If you can afford garage prices and rarely go off road get as late a 300 as you can afford, if you want to do most of your own work (and avoid the electronics) then an early 200 or 300 will fit the bill.

In a nutshell:

200 cheap/easy to work on for the home mechanic but a rough diamond.

300 a little more expensive but easyish to work on along with more refinement.

regards

Dave