Thread: 90 or 110 For Touring

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I toured extensively in the sixties in an 86 and an 88, as did most of the few who were touring in those years (or in the later sixties often FJ40s). As we moved into the late seventies, short wheelbase touring vehicles were gradually displaced by lwbs.

The reason for this? Australians started carrying more and more junk with them. When I travelled through the centre in 1963, for example, the two of us carried four jerricans of petrol, four four gallon drums of water, a small tent, about five pounds weight of cooking and eating gear, probably fifty pounds of food, two sleeping bags, no more tools than would fit in the under seat toolbox, a fan belt, radiator hoses and two half axles behind the seats, paper maps, cameras, a few small books, shovel, axe, about ten pounds of clothing each. (may have missed a couple of items)

No - table, chairs, gas cooker, refrigerator or icebox, recovery gear, beds, generator (unaffordable), gas lights(unheard of), computer (didn't exist), mobile phone (didn't exist), CD collection (didn't exist), swags, satphone (didn't exist), HF radio (unaffordable) - the list goes on. This is why long wheelbase sales in Australia have outstripped swb to the extent that the 90 was not even sold in Australia for most of the time since its introduction in 1984 - and it is not just Landrover.

All the extra gear that we can't leave home without today has to be carried. But in the 1960s the roads were far worse, and there was far less likelihood of help if you got into trouble. If we managed in a swb then, you can today - just leave most of the stuff at home, or better still, in the shop! (Having said that I admit to driving a 110 today - but that is not so much a matter of touring, but so that I can carry my grandchildren, although when I bought it almost twenty years ago there was no choice.

John

I agree with you John, to a point.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

I have done many trips over the years in Series' and 90's, now drive a 110 and there is no way if go back to a 90 for touring (I would however buy a 90 over a 110 as an 'everyday' car).

If your looking to buy a vehicle where it's primary use is touring, why would you voluntarily bring compromise into every trip?

Like it or not, a 110 is just more convenient. Stuff isn't packed on top of everything and access to your stuff is easier and there are no real disadvantages with the 110.

R
Jon

Sent using Forum Runner

I have a 110, and a shorty Series, so not quite a 90...
Look at the Uk off-road scene, and 90s dominate, from mild to wild. They are no more or less a serious 4WD than a 110 or 130 and vice versus.
All the suspension mods that people do to LWBs can be done to SWBs pretty much, the rear springs are smaller diameter than the 110/130 rears but they are the same as Rangie and Disco fronts and rears so there is plenty of range available to change spring rates to suit.
The only real mechanical difference is the length of the rear driveshaft and hence possible angles of the unis.
As I understand it, the main reason Aus is an LWB market is we cover greater distances and need to carry more gear for remote travel, whereas a greenlane in the Uk might be a few miles from the nearest service station or grocery store, and the pay-n-play sites aren't exactly remote either.
So don't think less of a 90 in terms of 4WD ability, just in interior room. And a 110 is inferior to a 130 in this regard, and all are inferior to a sixby Perentie for interior space!