SWB or LWB series...which is more popular?

[pfillery]

Very open ended I know, but what are peoples opinions? Are SWB series vehicles more sought after than LWB ones? There seem to be more people wanting to buy them than their bigger brothers and the prices seem higher for the good ones. I'm looking into a couple of prospects at the right price for buying and tidying up to resell so which would be generally accepted to be the better option? A search of ebay shows a lot of LWB and very few S3 shortys so is this to be read as a suggestion of their popularity and therefore potential value?

Assuming 2 in the same condition, which is worth more? I know it depends on the buyer but I'm after a broad opinion here.

[isuzutoo-eh]

When it comes to Series Ones, the shorties are by far more popular due to sheer quantity.

IMO for the other Series, since there are less coil sprung shorties, someone with a Defender is more likely to get a shorty plaything/resto project as it is something different to their modern long Landy.

People who actually use their Series as their tourer/weekend wagon are far more likely to go for the longs though as they are much more practical.

[LWB123]

The first Land Rover imports were mainly SWB and these sold in quantity - especially to farmers, Snowy Mountains Authority, government agencies and the Army. Outside the odd enthusiast there was not a huge private following for 4WDs.

By the time the Series 3 models were coming here the SWBs were falling out of favour relative to LWBs, which were also declining under stiff Japanese competition. The Army largely went over to LWBs, and there were not a lot of other people out there lining up for SWBs - so much so that a lot of the older Series LWBs on offer are ex-Army.

So, I guess it is basically a numbers game. Also, a lot of us who started out with SWBs on the farm in the 50s and 60s etc have a bit of a soft spot for them anyway, which makes them a popular restoration target.

Cheers,

[The ho har's]

I prefer SWB over a LWB. They look cute are a fun truck to drive and we have the more modern truck for touring etc:)

Mrs hh:angel:

[woody]

I prefer SWB over a LWB. They look cute are a fun truck to drive and we have the more modern truck for touring etc:)

Mrs hh:angel:

I'll second that

[Col.Coleman]

I prefer both.

Short for fun.
Long for work.

The shorties are great for just you and the missus cruising around on a short trip, but the long ones let you pack in all your crap and give a better ride over distance.

All depends on your usage. Hence I have nearly one of everything:D

But to pick a favourite it probably goes in this order.

86"
107"
88"
109"
130"
110"
100"
90"
80"

Not series I know

CC

[JDNSW]

Forty years ago the swb was probably more popular than the lwb. Over time, Australians' ideas of offroad travel have expanded to include a vast array of "necessary" equipment, which simply will not fit in a swb. (not just Landrover - when did you last see a new Landcruiser, Pajero or Patrol as short as a FJ40? I think they still exist, but I can't remember when I last saw one!) This has meant that fewer and fewer swbs have been sold, so the newer the vehicle you are looking at the less likely it is to be a swb.

Even for general use, not touring, the swb is less useful - for example you can only carry about half the load of firewood, and they won't even hold fence posts without their sticking out the back.

John

[Landy Smurf]

swb are more popular or sort after becasue most modern cars are lwb but a good lwb station wagon is worth abit imho

[Beckford]

I own a LWB, but want a SWB.

The LWB is the best for towing. SWB is the best for off road.

[LWB123]

A few people have mentioned the capacity of LWBs to carry bigger loads, handle distances better etc which is true enough when modern expeditioners seem to carry everything but the proverbial kitchen sink (and often that too).

However, it is interesting to reflect that most of the early long distance ventures like the Oxford-Cambridge first vehicle between London to Singapore epic was done in largely unmodified SWBs carrying all the necessary 'kit' and multiple passengers - the O-C expedition had 3 adults in each of the 2 vehicles, tools, spare wheels and the main modifications were a spotlight and bit of channel on the rear windows to sling a fly over.

Maybe were getting too soft................

[isuzurover]

The 107" and 109" S1s are probably some of the most sought after and highest priced in good condition.

However for SIIA and SIII, the LWB are far more common because AFAIK they outsold SWBs at at least a 4:1 ratio.

IME LWB landies are generally more practical and much more capable offroad (SWB have a better ramp-over/departure angle and turning circle, but the LWB wins in real world conditions). Anyone who has driven a SWB landie down a steep greasy hill on the east coast will know what I am talking about.

For a collector's toy or runabout that does not need to carry loads or do difficult offroading, then a SWB is more practical as it is easier to manouvre and uses less fuel.

[series3]

Hey Isuzurover,

I'll play devil's advocate here. I own a SWB but still feel like the jury is out in terms of what (if any) have a distinct advantage offroad. I certainly don't think a LWB would be 'much' better offroad.

I haven't experienced troubles going down steep angles in my car, but I don't really have any real LWB experience to compare. How steep are we talking? Is it more a case of both doing it, but a LWB doing it with a more relaxed sphincter?

I know this doesn't apply to yours, but LWB has much stiffer rear springs which don't articulate really well. Here, (stock for stock) a SWB wins. Also, a lower weight has plenty of advantages offroad. But then, a LWB will be able to straddle some problems that a SWB will be stuck in.

I feel like it is really hard to make strict comparisons, but it seems like a SWB will do what a LWB can't because of the specific wheel placement in ruts in each situation, and vica-versa. It may be more pronounced for a SWB because they are less common on offroad trips.

Sam

[isuzurover]

Hey Isuzurover,

I'll play devil's advocate here. I own a SWB but still feel like the jury is out in terms of what (if any) have a distinct advantage offroad. I certainly don't think a LWB would be 'much' better offroad.

I haven't experienced troubles going down steep angles in my car, but I don't really have any real LWB experience to compare. How steep are we talking? Is it more a case of both doing it, but a LWB doing it with a more relaxed sphincter?

I know this doesn't apply to yours, but LWB has much stiffer rear springs which don't articulate really well. Here, (stock for stock) a SWB wins. Also, a lower weight has plenty of advantages offroad. But then, a LWB will be able to straddle some problems that a SWB will be stuck in.

I feel like it is really hard to make strict comparisons, but it seems like a SWB will do what a LWB can't because of the specific wheel placement in ruts in each situation, and vica-versa. It may be more pronounced for a SWB because they are less common on offroad trips.

Sam

Hope this doesn't come across as harsh Sam, but if you haven't experienced the problems with a 88" (or shorter) offroad then you haven't been driving very difficult terrain (or at least not steep+muddy).

A few examples: I have seen/experienced several SWB landies which have spun around 90o or 180o while going down steep (muddy) slopes. Most recently, a member of GCLRO at an outing at Levuka needed to have a strap connected from his S3 SWB to a landie travelling behind him so he could go down slopes safely without spinning around. The slopes were not especially steep, and the S3 had mud terrains and a rear locker.

The most serious incident - Ian (forget his last name) from LROCB many years back in a twin-locked soft top SIIA almost rolled backwards on a steep slope. Luckily he was on the base of a hill so was saved from rolling back completely by his aftermarket spare wheel carrier. (there is video floating round of this incident - unfortunately in VHS format only).

There are also videos floating round on youtube of an 80" ibex coiller rolling over forwards while going down a slope that would be no problem for a 109".

The 5" longer wheelbase of a 90" defender seems to make a big difference, however almost all serious/competition 4x4s are 100" or longer in wheelbase.

I agree that in standard form, a 109" is generally severely restricted by stiff springs, whereas an 88" has quite supple springs as standard.

EDIT: This is one of the problems I am talking about - have a look at 0:14
Steep hill decent with Defender in Freizetpark Mammut May 2009 - YouTube
An 88" wheelbase on the same track would probably have flipped.

EDIT2: Here is the ibex vid I mentioned - 80" WB I believe.
Tumblebex at 2003 Ibex Fest - YouTube
This hill would have posed no problem for a LWB.

[Landy Smurf]

a lwb wouldnt have gotten through the trees

[isuzurover]

a lwb wouldnt have gotten through the trees

Many a time have I put one of the rock sliders on my 109" up against a tree and pivoted the vehicle on that to turn it.

I could probably count the number of times I have been seriously disadvantaged offroad by the 109" WB on one hand. I did consider shortening the WB to ~105" and chopping off the rear overhang once upon a time though.

Don't get me wrong, 80-88" vehicles are great fun, but inherently less safe for serious offroading.

[JDNSW]

A few people have mentioned the capacity of LWBs to carry bigger loads, handle distances better etc which is true enough when modern expeditioners seem to carry everything but the proverbial kitchen sink (and often that too).

However, it is interesting to reflect that most of the early long distance ventures like the Oxford-Cambridge first vehicle between London to Singapore epic was done in largely unmodified SWBs carrying all the necessary 'kit' and multiple passengers - the O-C expedition had 3 adults in each of the 2 vehicles, tools, spare wheels and the main modifications were a spotlight and bit of channel on the rear windows to sling a fly over.

Maybe were getting too soft................

Very true (all of the above). My first major treks offroad were in my Series 1 in the early 1960s (well, most of it was on roads, but a lot of them would not be recognised as roads today - including deep wading, for example). The only extra equipment was a capstan winch, seat belts, a well equipped tool box, and several jerricans of fuel and water. Camping equipment consisted of a simple swag, a billy, matches, tea, and a few tins.

John

[isuzurover]

Very true (all of the above). My first major treks offroad were in my Series 1 in the early 1960s (well, most of it was on roads, but a lot of them would not be recognised as roads today - including deep wading, for example). The only extra equipment was a capstan winch, seat belts, a well equipped tool box, and several jerricans of fuel and water. Camping equipment consisted of a simple swag, a billy, matches, tea, and a few tins.

John

I still remember reading about all the early explorers (on foot/horseback) in the great dividing range area of QLD/NSW. All they ever used to take with them was flour, sugar, tea and a billy!

[isuzutoo-eh]

I still remember reading about all the early explorers (on foot/horseback) in the great dividing range area of QLD/NSW. All they ever used to take with them was flour, sugar, tea and a billy!

...along with a bullock team, two dozen sheep, a goat, umpteen pack horses carrying the cases of floral specimens...
Of course they lost most of it on the first river crossing and ate the rest before the second river...

[isuzurover]

...along with a bullock team, two dozen sheep, a goat, umpteen pack horses carrying the cases of floral specimens...
Of course they lost most of it on the first river crossing and ate the rest before the second river...

Not the likes of Romeo Lahey and Bernard O'Reilly. Though I suppose they probably may not be classed as explorers.

[series3]

Hope this doesn't come across as harsh Sam, but if you haven't experienced the problems with a 88" (or shorter) offroad then you haven't been driving very difficult terrain (or at least not steep+muddy).

A few examples: I have seen/experienced several SWB landies which have spun around 90o or 180o while going down steep (muddy) slopes. Most recently, a member of GCLRO at an outing at Levuka needed to have a strap connected from his S3 SWB to a landie travelling behind him so he could go down slopes safely without spinning around. The slopes were not especially steep, and the S3 had mud terrains and a rear locker.

The most serious incident - Ian (forget his last name) from LROCB many years back in a twin-locked soft top SIIA almost rolled backwards on a steep slope. Luckily he was on the base of a hill so was saved from rolling back completely by his aftermarket spare wheel carrier. (there is video floating round of this incident - unfortunately in VHS format only).

There are also videos floating round on youtube of an 80" ibex coiller rolling over forwards while going down a slope that would be no problem for a 109".

The 5" longer wheelbase of a 90" defender seems to make a big difference, however almost all serious/competition 4x4s are 100" or longer in wheelbase.

I agree that in standard form, a 109" is generally severely restricted by stiff springs, whereas an 88" has quite supple springs as standard.

EDIT: This is one of the problems I am talking about - have a look at 0:14
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1f6JN9BRY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1f6JN9BRY)
An 88" wheelbase on the same track would probably have flipped.

EDIT2: Here is the ibex vid I mentioned - 80" WB I believe.
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4p9pB91vUA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4p9pB91vUA)
This hill would have posed no problem for a LWB.

Very fair point! I should have added a disclaimer about my relative inexperience. I haven't been traversing such steep angles in my steed. I wonder if the carb would hold up on those angles... A bit of a worry for a series is the lack of rollover protection as well.

Comp cars in aus are mostly 100" through sheer convenience? What about in other countries?

Sam