What is actual wheelbase of 110"?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I'm not trying to be smart.

Given that the 90 is about 94" ^ 92.9"* wheelbase and the 130 is 127". Does anyone know what is the actual wheelbase of the 110?

:TakeABow:
Diana

*see Ben's comment below!

[isuzurover]

110"

(The only one the same as the sticker)

Btw - 90's are 92.9

[VladTepes]

Did they get longer since the old 109 inch length ?

[uninformed]

and the 110 tray backs of the 80's were 120 in Oz...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Did they get longer since the old 109 inch length ?I was thinking series too! :D - I know that the SIIB is 109 3/4" and called a 110 but was wondering if the 110 Defender was something different. Particularly when I measured a modified Defender chassis with it's middle coil spring mounts at 109".

[isuzurover]

Did they get longer since the old 109 inch length ?

Yes.

The 90 and 130 are the only models with "rounded" wheelbases, although the 120 ute is often termed a 110 as it is so rare. The 120 may have inspired the 127, which later became the 130.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yes.

The 90 and 130 are the only models with "rounded" wheelbases, although the 120 ute is often termed a 110 as it is so rare. The 120 may have inspired the 127, which later became the 130.You forgot to mention the even rarer 150 (rounded up from 149")!

[uninformed]

Did they get longer since the old 109 inch length ?

yes by about 25.4mm ..... :p

hence the series lwb (after the original 107) were all 109 and when they went to the coil sprung models the got called by there wheelbase...only the 90 was called 90 as it was a nice round number...the 130's were originally called 127's after their wheelbase...
then with the new model update they called them 130's


all the coilsprung vehicles were designed on completely new chassis from the Series vehicles 90's have always been 92.9, 110s always 110 and 127/130 127 inches.....of course if you change the spring height you change the wheelbase... ;)

series swb started at 80, then went to 86 for a couple of years then stayed at 88 till the 90 came along.

lwb started at 107 and then were 109 until the end of the stage 1 series 3

the forward controls started at 109 and then went to 110...

there were a couple of rare 127 normal controls but these were bigger 4x4 trucks that LR looked at building...also a 110 big brother version of the lightweight....the normal light weight being built on a modified 88 chassis...a small batch of 100 inch coilsprung LR's were protod for swiss and other armys

the forrest rovers and snowy big wheel rovers were built on 109s

not sure about the FC larma's probably 110? I know they had there own chassis different to anything else...

FC101's were 101

RR were 100 and 108 for classic/classic lwb

thats about all I can pull out of my pea brain for the moment

Serg

[uninformed]

You forgot to mention the even rarer 150 (rounded up from 149")!

more info?

was this by LRSV? a 127 coil sprung stretched out??? for tour groups in Afica?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

more info?

was this by LRSV? a 127 coil sprung stretched out??? for tour groups in Afica?
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
(Although the above was modified from a 2 door V8 Defender)

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/02/481.jpg

[uninformed]

now youve gone and done it....:D

you have to list ALL the 6x6 variants...series, coil and RR :p

Ill let you off regarding any 4x4 with a powerd trailer IE 101 fc...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The 150 were marketed here by Land Rover Australia and some people think they were Land Rover Solihul factory jobs while others suggest they were Hotspur and Sandringham conversions. That's something I don't know.

On powered trailers, there was a privately owned Land Rover 109 1 ton prototype out here with a Scottorn Bushmaster powered trailer in 1974. Wish I knew where that one was?

[wagoo]

No one has mentioned LandRovers well known manufacturing tolerances that can vary the wheelbase plus or minus half a metre:)
wagoo.

[dullbird]

No one has mentioned LandRovers well known manufacturing tolerances that can vary the wheelbase plus or minus half a metre:)
wagoo.

:lol2:..Gold

[justinc]

No one has mentioned LandRovers well known manufacturing tolerances that can vary the wheelbase plus or minus half a metre:)
wagoo.

...On the SAME vehicle, too:p


:angel::wasntme:

JC

[RVR110]

...On the SAME vehicle, too:p

:angel::wasntme:
JC

Just measured my MY2011 Defender 110 wagon with only 3,000km on the ODO:

RHS: 2797mm = 110.12 inches
LHS: 2775mm = 109.25 inches

I took each measurement several times due to the discrepancy. It appears that I have one vehicle that is both a 109 and a 110...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Just measured my MY2011 Defender 110 wagon with only 3,000km on the ODO:

RHS: 2797mm = 110.12 inches
LHS: 2775mm = 109.25 inches

I took each measurement several times due to the discrepancy. It appears that I have one vehicle that is both a 109 and a 110...Maybe it's because of the Coriolis effect? :o

I thought they fixed the jig - or was that the 2 door Rangie one? :confused:

[uninformed]

Just measured my MY2011 Defender 110 wagon with only 3,000km on the ODO:

RHS: 2797mm = 110.12 inches
LHS: 2775mm = 109.25 inches

I took each measurement several times due to the discrepancy. It appears that I have one vehicle that is both a 109 and a 110...

thats odd, rhs side springs use to be set higher/longer to allow for the fact that that side sees more load over time....Im guessing maybe they dont do that anymore and there is more weight on that side due to the T/case....in such, the springs have saged which, due to the link arrangement extend the wheelbase....

look at heavily lifted coil sprung vehicles, from the side, and often the wheels do not line up in the wheel arches...

[stig0000]

Just measured my MY2011 Defender 110 wagon with only 3,000km on the ODO:

RHS: 2797mm = 110.12 inches
LHS: 2775mm = 109.25 inches

I took each measurement several times due to the discrepancy. It appears that I have one vehicle that is both a 109 and a 110...
wouldent comeplane with that, its more better iv seen:wasntme:

oh god i hope this thread dont start a flux of customers now coming in saying there car is longer on one side then the other:o:(

[uninformed]

being that we drive on the left side and his left side is shorter.....wouldnt this be an advantage.....more left turns and all .... :D

[wagoo]

being that we drive on the left side and his left side is shorter.....wouldnt this be an advantage.....more left turns and all .... :D

As you mentioned in your previous post, spring height does alter the wheelbase dimension to a degree, mainly due to the placement and angle of the rear lower control arms. I read in a suspension design book some years ago that on a relatively softly sprung vehicle, if you angle the lower control arms up from the axle to the chassis the vehicle will be more stable in a sudden unexpected crosswind scenario, because when the body rolls, the outside control arm angle flattens and the angle of the control arm on the side facing the wind increases, thus causing the vehicle to steer into the wind slightly, as opposed to being pushed off the road.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Maybe have higher tyre pressure in the LHS to compensate! (That's just being silly.)

There is likely a good engineering reason for this, as it was a comment about the RRc back in the 1970's that one side is shorter than the other.

I'm no engineer, but if you consider a skate board as they lean the trucks underneath turn inwards. In the coil sprung Land Rovers the different wheelbase may be to compensate for the rotational effects of the engine/drivetrain and keep the vehicle heading straight ahead!

[uninformed]

I'm no engineer, but if you consider a skate board as they lean the trucks underneath turn inwards. In the coil sprung Land Rovers the different wheelbase may be to compensate for the rotational effects of the engine/drivetrain and keep the vehicle heading straight ahead!

depending on how the links are set up can change the hole "skateboard" effect....the Original RR, which is what the link design for all defenders, disco 1's and RR classics are based on, had about 0 degrees roll over steer in the front and approx 3-4 degrees roll over steer in the rear. The Rear roll center height is higher than the front. What this means is when turning in a corner the body roll will make the axles steer more "into" the corner (roll OVER steer) the rear will steer more than the front.

having a higher roll center in the rear will mean that the rear end should loose traction first when pushed to hard into a turn...

regarding the rotation of engine effect....this is not constant so I doubt it is designed that way....

one thing LR could have done to improve the rear link set up, IMO, is to push the axle end of the trailing arms (lower links) out as far as they could go.

cheers,
Serg

[rick130]

Maybe have higher tyre pressure in the LHS to compensate! (That's just being silly.)

There is likely a good engineering reason for this, as it was a comment about the RRc back in the 1970's that one side is shorter than the other.

I'm no engineer, but if you consider a skate board as they lean the trucks underneath turn inwards. In the coil sprung Land Rovers the different wheelbase may be to compensate for the rotational effects of the engine/drivetrain and keep the vehicle heading straight ahead!

Nope, no good engineering reason AFAIK, just bad/loose tolerances :twisted:

Unlike an oval we turn left and right in the real world :D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Nope, no good engineering reason AFAIK, just bad/loose tolerances :twisted:

Unlike an oval we turn left and right in the real world :DMay well be loose tolerances but 0.88" seems a lot of tolerance!

Yes I know that we turn both left and right in the real world, however if we were travelling on a perfectly flat and straight road, would not the fact that the engine is rotating cause increased downward pressure on one side and reduced downward pressure on the other. The gyroscopic effect definately affects aircraft, as was found in WWI with the Stopwith Camel.

In our Land Rovers, the downward pressure on the LHS would cause the suspension on that side to depress a little therefore lengthening the wheelbase and vice a versa the RHS shortening the wheelbase slightly with a resulting effect that you steer straight ahead and not ever-so-slightly right.

Just to highlight the issue, who hasn't been watching one of our coil sprung Land Rovers, particularly the V8 RRc, when someone revvs the engine with the vehicle stationary, there is a noticable body roll. What must it be like when travelling at 100 clicks?

There must be some engineers or physicists on this forum? :)

[wagoo]

There is very little inertia at cruising speed, so torque roll forces would be negligable.
Engine revolves in an anti clockwise direction, so any engine torque roll forces, which can be considerable and multiplied by the gearbox transfercase ratios in low gear climbing a steep offcamber gradient will apply a downward force to the right hand side (equal and opposite reaction). I have used this torque roll to advantage at times to keep the vehicle from rolling over on steep ugly climbs by attacking the gradient at a slightly oblique angle with the vehicle leaning slightly to the left. This technique however only works until wheelspin occurrs, whereby torque roll ceases. It's subtle but traction is also improved slightly compared to attacking the grade square on because torque roll is less likely to unload the left hand side wheels.
Wagoo.

[rick130]

Actually, lengthening the wheel base on the LHS does reduce the tendency for a beam axle vehicle to pull to the left on a cambered road. (driving on the left)

Super Pro do this with some clever bushes for the front LH radius arms.
Personally I'd stagger the castor (slightly more on the LHS) but that's a lot harder to achieve.

[Tombie]

Actually, lengthening the wheel base on the LHS does reduce the tendency for a beam axle vehicle to pull to the left on a cambered road. (driving on the left)

Super Pro do this with some clever bushes for the front LH radius arms.
Personally I'd stagger the castor (slightly more on the LHS) but that's a lot harder to achieve.

And was part of ford and holdens chassis and suspension design a while back.
Seen (and had) several vehicles with longer lhs wheelbase.

[JDNSW]

May well be loose tolerances but 0.88" seems a lot of tolerance!

Yes I know that we turn both left and right in the real world, however if we were travelling on a perfectly flat and straight road, would not the fact that the engine is rotating cause increased downward pressure on one side and reduced downward pressure on the other. The gyroscopic effect definately affects aircraft, as was found in WWI with the Stopwith Camel.

The gyroscopic effect only exists when the vehicle or engine is accelerated (including turns). In the case of the Sopwith Camel (and other aircraft as well, but exacerbated by the camel's short length and the high power and high rotating mass of the rotary engine). This was noticeable with my Cessna 180, which exhibited a strong tendency to turn left if the throttle was opened or the tail lifted suddenly at low speed, and it had about the same power as the Camel, but much lower rotating mass and a much longer lever arm for the vertical fin. I would have hated to have flown a Camel!

In our Land Rovers, the downward pressure on the LHS would cause the suspension on that side to depress a little therefore lengthening the wheelbase and vice a versa the RHS shortening the wheelbase slightly with a resulting effect that you steer straight ahead and not ever-so-slightly right.

Just to highlight the issue, who hasn't been watching one of our coil sprung Land Rovers, particularly the V8 RRc, when someone revvs the engine with the vehicle stationary, there is a noticable body roll. What must it be like when travelling at 100 clicks?

This effect is the result of the inertial force on the vehicle resulting from accelerating the rotating mass of the engine. At a steady 100kph, as there is no acceleration, there is no force.

There must be some engineers or physicists on this forum? :)

The engine rotating produces no downward force on either side. There will be a force when the engine is accelerated or decelerated, but not at steady speeds, and because the vehicle is relatively heavy and low powered, this effect will be very small compared to other forces acting on the suspension. The situation will be very different with drag racers which have very high power weight ratio and are as light as possible, and in use are continually accelerating.

It is much more noticeable on aircraft, which, even on the ground, are much less constrained in movement than road vehicles.

John

[wagoo]

Actually, lengthening the wheel base on the LHS does reduce the tendency for a beam axle vehicle to pull to the left on a cambered road. (driving on the left)
Personally I'd stagger the castor (slightly more on the LHS) but that's a lot harder to achieve.

If a Landrover has a natural tendency to wander to the RHS of the road and everything including wheel alignment is in good order, then swivel balls with slotted bolt holes, originally developed to correct castor angle on vehicles with lifted suspensions can also be used to compensate for road camber that is designed into Australian roads.
When I built my Dana/Salisbury front axle assy way back when, I gave the RHS(drivers side) 4 degrees castor and the left side the standard 3 degrees.
Did i do it ar$e about?:( The truck tracked pretty well though, particularly once I removed both Detroit Lockers. But that comment is probably more relevant to the Detroit locker thread elsewhere:)
Wagoo.

[vnx205]

About 40 years ago (or maybe more), I read a road test of some sort of Jeep imported from America. The road tester complained bitterly that the Jeep was almost impossible to keep on the road because although it was RHD, it was set up to cope with the camber of the road when driven on the right hand side of the road.

I'm not sure whether this is related in any way to the topic that this thread has drifted onto or whether it is just an interesting piece of trivia. I'm hoping someone will explain if it is relevant. :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

About 40 years ago (or maybe more), I read a road test of some sort of Jeep imported from America. The road tester complained bitterly that the Jeep was almost impossible to keep on the road because although it was RHD, it was set up to cope with the camber of the road when driven on the right hand side of the road.
... Mack and Kenworth trucks had similar problems, the front beam axles were set for LHD operation and on RHD cambered Australian roads they used to scrub out tyres on one side. There was a roaring trade done by a truck alignment centre at Narrellan NSW where they used to bend the axle to correct the camber.

Not sure it would account for RVR110's MY11 Defender (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130-defender-county/120509-what-actual-wheelbase-110-a-2.html#post1403593)which is 109 1/4" wheelbase on the LHS and 110 1/8" wheelbase on the RHS though. (addit: It may be a stupid question but were the wheels straight ahead, not turned slightly left? Perhaps an average of measurements with the wheels turned each way are needed.)

Were still waiting for the Land Rover Engineer to explain the issue for us! :D

[wagoo]

Not sure it would account for RVR110's MY11 Defender (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130-defender-county/120509-what-actual-wheelbase-110-a-2.html#post1403593)which is 109 1/4" wheelbase on the LHS and 110 1/8" wheelbase on the RHS though.

Were still waiting for the Land Rover Engineer to explain the issue for us! :D

Oh goody is a LandRover engineer coming on here to answer our criticisms of his handiwork?He'll need a tough hide to withstand all the brickbats that I would like to throw at him.:)
wagoo.

[uninformed]

Oh goody is a LandRover engineer coming on here to answer our critisisms of his handiwork?He'll need a tough hide to withstand all the brickbats that I would like to throw at him.:)
wagoo.

between you and me I doubt he will live long enough to answer them all :D

[rick130]

If a Landrover has a natural tendency to wander to the RHS of the road and everything including wheel alignment is in good order, then swivel balls with slotted bolt holes, originally developed to correct castor angle on vehicles with lifted suspensions can also be used to compensate for road camber that is designed into Australian roads.
When I built my Dana/Salisbury front axle assy way back when, I gave the RHS(drivers side) 4 degrees castor and the left side the standard 3 degrees.
Did i do it ar$e about?:( The truck tracked pretty well though, particularly once I removed both Detroit Lockers. But that comment is probably more relevant to the Detroit locker thread elsewhere:)
Wagoo.

Yep, I'd just use slotted swivels to achieve it and IMO the greater castor needs to be on the LHS wheel.
It's what i was going to do anyway but I'm just too lazy :angel:

(castor increases the steering's self centreing action, as well as increasing camber in turns, ie. the more the wheel turns negative camber increases. We used to use up to 9* on race cars, if a driver could cope with the weight of the steering ;) )

Interestingly Patrols have the same problem and the fix is an eccentric castor bush in the LHS top swivel bearing to bring camber back to about 0* (they run positive camber :rolleyes: ) and increase the castor.
It helped our Patrol immensely and also pretty much eliminated front tyre scuffing.
I reckon it needs a touch more but I always came from the school of thought if a little is a good a bucket load is better :lol2:

[rick130]

Oh goody is a LandRover engineer coming on here to answer our criticisms of his handiwork?He'll need a tough hide to withstand all the brickbats that I would like to throw at him.:)
wagoo.

A bloke came on here a few years back asking for feedback.

It was ascertained he was genuine so we all joined in.

We all threw so much crap at him, in the nicest possible way, concerning all our perceived engineering shortcomings I don't think the poor fella came back :lol2:

[barney]

the wheel base of the 110 is longer than the old 109's. i saw a 200tdi that had been made into a truck cab like mine, but he'd used a series 3 body, you could see the rear wheels were not central in the rear guards, looked a bit dicky!

[JDNSW]

the wheel base of the 110 is longer than the old 109's. i saw a 200tdi that had been made into a truck cab like mine, but he'd used a series 3 body, you could see the rear wheels were not central in the rear guards, looked a bit dicky!

Not only is the wheelbase longer, but both front and rear axles are further back compared to the Series Landrovers.

John

[isuzurover]

the wheel base of the 110 is longer than the old 109's. i saw a 200tdi that had been made into a truck cab like mine, but he'd used a series 3 body, you could see the rear wheels were not central in the rear guards, looked a bit dicky!

Series II/III landies have the rear wheel too far forward in the rear guard. I have always thought they should either have a 1" longer wheelbase, or the rear guard cutout moved forward.

[spudboy]

Whoa!! Just went out to measure my 2007 110, and it is way longer on the drivers side:

Drivers side: 110.5"
Passenger side: 109.0"

That is 1.5" difference :eek:

Edit: Sitting on a level concrete pad, wheels straight ahead...

[isuzurover]

Whoa!! Just went out to measure my 2007 110, and it is way longer on the drivers side:

Drivers side: 110.5"
Passenger side: 109.0"

That is 1.5" difference :eek:

Edit: Sitting on a level concrete pad, wheels straight ahead...

Can you measure the distance between the chassis brackets for the radius arm and trailing arm on both sides? That will tell you if the difference is in the chassis or elsewhere.

[wagoo]

Whoa!! Just went out to measure my 2007 110, and it is way longer on the drivers side:

Drivers side: 110.5"
Passenger side: 109.0"

That is 1.5" difference :eek:

Edit: Sitting on a level concrete pad, wheels straight ahead...

That's a large discrepency.Not half a metre but still bad:mad:
Are you sure someone hasn't fitted a rear trailing arm chassis bush on the wrong side of thechassis bracket? I've also seen spacer washers fitted between the bushings and control arms that can make a big difference to the wheelbase measurement out at the wheel.Advise to measure between axle housings rather than at the wheels as even the slightest amount of steering lock will show a big difference from one side to the other..
Wagoo.

[spudboy]

Well tomorrow it is going in for a warranty job on the vacuum pump (leaks a bit of oil) so I will mention it to them and see what they say.

I was expecting 2 or 3 mm, but 1.5" is nearly 40mm, which I reckon is too much.

When the rain stops I will go out an re-measure a few other points as suggested.

[spudboy]

I just measured the distance between the chassis brackets, where the trailing arms attach to the rear axle, and the equivalent "hockey sticks" brackets to the front axle, and they are both the same at 162mm. So at least the chassis is the same left and right.....

[isuzurover]

I just measured the distance between the chassis brackets, where the trailing arms attach to the rear axle, and the equivalent "hockey sticks" brackets to the front axle, and they are both the same at 162mm. So at least the chassis is the same left and right.....

looks like the chassis jig is not to blame then.

Be interesting to see what the axle tube distances are. Could this be the reason puma diffs keep failing?

[RVR110]

...Not sure it would account for RVR110's MY11 Defender (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130-defender-county/120509-what-actual-wheelbase-110-a-2.html#post1403593)which is 109 1/4" wheelbase on the LHS and 110 1/8" wheelbase on the RHS though. (addit: It may be a stupid question but were the wheels straight ahead, not turned slightly left? Perhaps an average of measurements with the wheels turned each way are needed.)...

I was careful to ensure that the front wheels were straight and the 110 was on a level concrete slab when I took the measurements.


Whoa!! Just went out to measure my 2007 110, and it is way longer on the drivers side:

Drivers side: 110.5"
Passenger side: 109.0"

That is 1.5" difference :eek:

Edit: Sitting on a level concrete pad, wheels straight ahead...

Glad it's not just me - and at least the same side is short! Methinks that when I get time I'll drive around Australia anti-clockwise... It might be easier that way :p

[isuzurover]

I was careful to ensure that the front wheels were straight and the 110 was on a level concrete slab when I took the measurements.

Can you also measure the axle-axle distances and rad arm-trailing arm mount distances underneath?

[jerryd]

So can a Defender be re-bodied as a Series III and have all the mod cons but retain the Series III look ??? :confused:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

So can a Defender be re-bodied as a Series III and have all the mod cons but retain the Series III look ??? :confused:No because the Defender radiator sits forward of the SIII front crossmember/grill panel.

You can however fit a defender firewall and windscreen to a SIII.

[isuzurover]

So can a Defender be re-bodied as a Series III and have all the mod cons but retain the Series III look ??? :confused:

200tdi yes. All others yes if you move the series grille forward and extend the bonnet.

HOWEVER, you need to conform to the ADRs of the year the defender chassis was built.

Personally, I would like to put a puma body (or at least front seats, dash and bonnet) in my county.

[JDNSW]

So can a Defender be re-bodied as a Series III and have all the mod cons but retain the Series III look ??? :confused:

As others have noted, there are several problems with this, legal, and the position of the radiator panel (although this is the same as on the S3 Stage 1). Not mentioned is that panel work would be needed to change the wheel arch position because both axles are further back, although this would be disguised by the fitting of the wheel arch extensions. Which in turn raises the point that the track is wider on the Defender compared to the S3, so it is impossible to retain the S3 appearance and the wider track. And it is not clear how you could easily reduce the track on a Defender, and this would certainly be illegal anyway.

Despite this, there are many body bits that are either interchangeable (sometimes with minor mods or as assemblies) or the same between Series 2/2a/3 and 90/110/Defender. These include things like all doors, hinges, etc.

John

[wagoo]

[QUOTE=vnx205;1404874

I'm not sure whether this is related in any way to the topic that this thread has drifted onto or whether it is just an interesting piece of trivia. I'm hoping someone will explain if it is relevant. :)[/QUOTE]

We certainly have drifted a long way off topic:wasntme:
Wagoo.

[isuzurover]

Not mentioned is that panel work would be needed to change the wheel arch position because both axles are further back,


Which in turn raises the point that the track is wider on the Defender compared to the S3, so it is impossible to retain the S3 appearance and the wider track. And it is not clear how you could easily reduce the track on a Defender, and this would certainly be illegal anyway.


On that note, some of the US rover restorers have built SIIs/IIAs/IIIs on defender chassis with series rims and no wheel arch flares. The wheels fit fine within the guards.