90 or 110 For Touring

[tonyci]

Hi everybody

SHMBO and my good self are considering a Defender. We have owned a 110 before so are aware of their brilliance and oddities.
The question is has anybody found the 90 large enough for outback touring, clearly the 110 is, but the beast will also be used in the burbs.
Also can you throw a bike in the back of the 90 (with rear seats removed) SHMBO is into bike riding.
There will only be the two of us touring, by touring I mean central Australia, Flinders , Kimberly,s etc.
Cheers for any insights.
Tony

[Psimpson7]

Hi Tony,

If you pack sensibly the 90 will be ok for touring.

My other half and I have done extensive travelling in our 90, including the Cape, Simpson Desert, Northern Territory, High Country, Tassie etc etc as well as dozens of weekend type trips.

A bike will not fit with the wheels on.

The 110 is obviously larger, but I believe with the rear seats up in the 110 the load bed is no larger than the 90, in fact from memory it may be slightly shorter.

Rgds
Pete

[carlschmid2002]

I have a 90 and I decided the money I saved over the 110 would pay for my trailer. There is definitely a severe lack of room. My mountain bike does fit in the back but it doesn't leave any room for anything else. I would suggest a good roof rack or carrying it on the tow bar. I love my 90, but it is very tight for space. I have wind heater roof rack and an external carrier from Rijidij for fuel and water.

[chook73]

I would also suggest that the longer wheelbase would mean more comfortable touring. Ultimately it depends on how much you are prepared to leave at home. I would think that the 90 would mean a lot tighter pack and more effort involved each morning and afternoon.

[Vin Rouge]

My wife and I have a 90 with a roof top tent. We find it quite large enough for two, although there's not much spare space. If there's a downside, I'd suggest it's to do with the lack of directional stability on dirt roads. However, with a little care that's not a major problem.

On the plus side, the 90 gets a lot of attention. It's amazing how many conversations are started with a question about the 'shorty'.

Roll on the 90s, they're fun.

[tangus89]

we use a 90 for touring around africa, (pics in trip reports) my parents travel around with all their gear and a mountainbike each comfortably. I would invest in a 90 and roof basket.

[justinc]

Having seen Pete and Sams 90 on tour down here recently I would say if there are 2 of you, and you pack sensibly it will be fine, BUT I would suggest some decent size fuel capacity/ tanks, and if taking a bike then yes either on a decent roof rack or on one of Murray (Rijidij) 's rear wheel carriers.
I'm sure Murray could make a bike carrier attachment, he seems to be able to do anything with these!
Home - Rijidij Off Road (http://rijidijoffroad.bounce.com.au/#/defender-dual-rear-bar/4567122838)

JC :)

[tonyci]

thanks for all the replies. The bike issue would only be on weekend camping trips and bike rides transportation whilst at home.
Cheers.
Tony

[manic]

For a cosy twosome, the 90 is great IMO. Because you are only two you do not need seats in the back and with seats removed there is a ton of space for packing in kit - setting up a drawer system or stacking.

There is no sleeping in the back or bikes but if you are happy with bikes on a spare wheel or towbar rack and happy with roof top tent camping you can travel comfortably up front with a lot of kit in the rear and nothing but a tent/awning on the roof.

A 110 rear tub is about the same size as a 90, the extra space inside a 110 is taken up by a middle row of seats.. so if a 110 is touring with kids in the middle row they really only gain on roof space.. but then they need it if packing for the whole family!

Just the two of you, go 90.. you will be lighter, engine pulls better, fuel economy better, air con cools the space quicker, parking is easier, more fun off road!
:)

-edit: just read comment above.. yes fuel tank size is a pain for touring! So extra tank will be required.

[mudder110]

hi my wife and i came back to cairns after 4 years traveling queensland yes queensland but we did have a campertrailer most was offroad and we worked our way around, we have a 98 300tdi the 110 wins hands down i think it depends on how long you intend to go for our next is the west after the wet for 2 years 90s are great but the lack of room and the corugations can be a pain but if you even it out it all adds up to FUN:p

[Sue]

I can fit my sons mountain bike in the back but it takes a bit of jiggling to get it in there.. and whatever you do don't slam the door on it and crack the rear door lining as my son did to make it fit.. :(

As for touring I'm in the process of setting mine up to tour next year as I'm doing the Canning Stock Route and I've found that so far fuel is a real issue with the 90's.. the existing tanks are small (55 litres but I'm never gotten more than 49 in a tank.. takes you about 500kms max).. 'long range' tanks are only about 45 and 42 litres.. you can get two of them - at $1700 each.. packing has to be well planned..

I would say that for the fuel tanks alone I would be looking at a 110 if you can.. :)

[DeanoH]

Whilst the 'shorty' will be suitable for extended touring with clever packing the 110 will offer better access and packing options with the rear seats removed and 5 door access.
More importantly the longer the wheelbase the better the ride on the rough and corrugated roads you'll encounter in your outback travels.
A 130 dual cab (or single cab if you're short) would be the 'ducks nuts' for outback touring but pretty impractical for urban driving wheras a 90 would be comparitively 'choppy' and uncomfortable on corrugated roads but great for urban driving. The 110 sits in the middle and is a good choice for load space, accessability and comfort. :)
Another benefit of the 110 vs the 90 is that a roof rack can be more easily avoided which is a definite plus.


Deano :)

[rijidij]

.........I'm sure Murray could make a bike carrier attachment.................

JC :)

Funny you should say that JC, I've done a couple of these recently :D
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/741.jpg
>> More pics here. (http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb102/rijidij/Wheel%20Carriers/Bike%20Rack/?albumview=slideshow) <<

Also done a couple of these for 90 owners wanting to squeeze some more packing space out of a shorty............
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/788.jpg
More pics here. (http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb102/rijidij/Products/Cargo%20Rack/?albumview=slideshow)


Cheers, Murray

[camel_landy]

A 90 will be great for just the pair of you but my gut feeling is that the 110 might give a slightly better ride on the corrugations. Whatever you go for, pack light. The temptation with the bigger car is to take too much. Pack what you need then take half of it out & leave it behind!!

FWIW - The only 'mods' I'd do to a 90 are:

Long range fuel tanks (get a tank fitted under the drivers seat).
Steering & diff guards.
Raised air intake.

M

[Yorkshire_Jon]

IV had a few of both in my time...

The 90 will do, but the 110 is definitely better suited to touring.

The 90 will give you compromises in many regards, extended fuel tanks, space etc. I can't think of 1 with the 110.

I currently use my overland prepped 110 as both a city car and a tourer and the only problem I have with it is height (40mm lift, roofrack & roof tent) - you'd obviously have this problem on a 90 too.

HTH
Jon

Sent using Forum Runner

[carlschmid2002]

Whilst the 'shorty' will be suitable for extended touring with clever packing the 110 will offer better access and packing options with the rear seats removed and 5 door access.
More importantly the longer the wheelbase the better the ride on the rough and corrugated roads you'll encounter in your outback travels.
A 130 dual cab (or single cab if you're short) would be the 'ducks nuts' for outback touring but pretty impractical for urban driving wheras a 90 would be comparitively 'choppy' and uncomfortable on corrugated roads but great for urban driving. The 110 sits in the middle and is a good choice for load space, accessability and comfort. :)
Another benefit of the 110 vs the 90 is that a roof rack can be more easily avoided which is a definite plus.


Deano :)

I think you would be very surprised how well the 90 rides. I have just got a 90 after driving a GU Patrol with Pedders Foam Cell Suspension for 8 years and I fell no need to change the 90. I love it. I have owned short wheel base LC 40 series in the past and that was a choppy ride. Put a bulbar on a 90 with a winch, a couple of Jerries on the back with one of Murray's carriers and I love the ride. If you don't believe me and you live near Melbourne you are welcome to try it.

[Psimpson7]

A couple of jerry cans are a lot cheaper than a long range tank. I just use cans.

[Sue]

A couple of jerry cans are a lot cheaper than a long range tank. I just use cans.

Which is great if you only need a few.. I would be worried about putting the amount I need on the roof - due to the weight up so high.. have opted to fit a 240 litre tank in the back of the 90 itself.. at least it will keep the weight lower.. :)

[Psimpson7]

Understandable - i certainly wouldnt put any on the roof. The only time I have taken a lot was for the Simpson crossing. I put them inside under a flase floor on which the fridge sat.

I took 7 which gave me 200 l in total with the main tank.

The internal tank is a good idea. Will that just have a transfer pump and hose to fill the main tank?

cheers
Pete

[Turtle61]

Can't comment on other treks, but the Cape in an 88 for two was great.
No roof rack, couple of jerrys for fuel ...

[Offender90]

If your primary purpose is touring, I'd go the 110 personally. It's definitely doable in a 90 with 2 people, but a 110 will be much better suited to for the purpose IMHO. It's better on corrugations, it's not darty at speed (the 90 is due to its shorter wheelbase), carrying fuel is easier, and you'll be able to pack more comfortably.

As others have mentioned, it's not particularly difficult to live with in the city, other than overall height, which you will have with either a 90 or a 110. For parking, it's has a smaller footprint than a Commodore (300mm shorter, and 100mm narrower), and turning circle is decent.

The 90 has plenty of its own charms, is great offroad, more fun to drive, potentially better resale value down the track however if you're after a tourer, you'd be compromising with a 90 IMHO.

[rijidij]

Extra fuel carrying capacity in a 90 seems to be a priority, as mentioned several times in this thread.
Mulgo does a dual filler conversion to the original filler neck which allows you to fill one, two, or three tanks, depending on your setup, all through the original filler. I've fitted one of these which was supplied with a pair of Front Runner sill tanks.

Cheers, Murray

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/05/563.jpg

More pics of the plumbing here (http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb102/rijidij/Puma%2090%20Fuel%20Tanks/?albumview=slideshow).

[Sue]

Understandable - i certainly wouldnt put any on the roof. The only time I have taken a lot was for the Simpson crossing. I put them inside under a flase floor on which the fridge sat.

I took 7 which gave me 200 l in total with the main tank.

The internal tank is a good idea. Will that just have a transfer pump and hose to fill the main tank?

cheers
Pete

I never thought about a false floor (great idea!!).. although I am putting in drawers (or should I say Pete is putting them in for me).. The tank has it's own 12 volt pump but have been advised to look at the Mulgo filler so will check that out first. If you want to see it I can let you know when it arrives and you can have a wander down for a look if you want?.. :)

[tonyci]

Firstly let me thank you all for taking the time to respond to my question.
I think I am leaning towards a 110 , although the look and fun factor of a 90 is tough to pass up.
As touring will be this Landy's main purpose I think we will go for the extra space and longer wheel base (in attempt for a better ride over corrugations)
Cheers
Tony

[vnx205]

Series Land Rovers lend themselves well to a platform across wheel arches.

For those who can afford them or build them, drawers under that platform are very convenient. However, even simple wooden boxes under the platform make a great place to store all the heavy items which might need to be accessible without shifting all the things stacked on top of them.

However Series vehicles also lend themselves to another platform across where the top of the roof is bolted onto the sides. It makes a good spot to store all those light things like bags of clothes and sleeping bags. Not only are they immediately accessible there, but they provide sound and heat insulation.

I suppose what that amount to is that layers of storage increase storage capacity and convenience.

I guess something similar is possible with later vehicles that have abandoned leaf springs in favour of coils. :)

While you won't be desperate for storage capacity in a 110, those two platforms do make it easier to get access to more of the gear. A lot of people use the bottom one, but I think the top one is very useful too.

[MuzzyDelta90]

It's always going to be a compromise, but I think the sheer fun and handiness of the 90 makes it a winner in my book. Most of my weekends away with the 90 will be by myself as my girl is scared of heights and wont go canyoning! But longer trips there will be 2 of us and and I have learned to travel light over the years - won't be taking hot water systems, showers, toilet is the little orange plastic shovel, don't need an excessive amount of awnings for the tent etc etc. The down side of course is fuel capacity - 60 litre tank is just too wee - not too sure about extra tanks, but where is the best place to put jerry cans? As for the ride, can't get much worse than the endless speed humps in the city - they are a right PIA - the short 90 is really bouncy on those - not much better than a lowered WRX when it comes to speed humps!

[JayBoRover]

It's always going to be a compromise, but I think the sheer fun and handiness of the 90 makes it a winner in my book. Most of my weekends away with the 90 will be by myself as my girl is scared of heights and wont go canyoning! But longer trips there will be 2 of us and and I have learned to travel light over the years - won't be taking hot water systems, showers, toilet is the little orange plastic shovel, don't need an excessive amount of awnings for the tent etc etc. The down side of course is fuel capacity - 60 litre tank is just too wee - not too sure about extra tanks, but where is the best place to put jerry cans? As for the ride, can't get much worse than the endless speed humps in the city - they are a right PIA - the short 90 is really bouncy on those - not much better than a lowered WRX when it comes to speed humps!
Don't let the standard 60 litre tank stop you. Throw a bit more money at it and viola:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/390.jpg

This was a fill-up even before the fuel light had come on. 82 litres went down the spout for the sill tanks and the rest into the main tank. Had done 883km's since previous fill-up, most of it on open road at 100kph towing a large trailer and with four people in the D90, so 14.8lts/100km is okay-ish.

I hate smelly jerry cans and having to manhandle the containers and the space they take up. I love pressing the buttons on the dash that transfer the fuel while I keep driving:cool:. I love filling all three tanks from a single filler nozzle:cool:. I highly recommend the sill tanks.

[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

[Reads90]

I did 45,000k's around Australia in a 90.

Was great fun but as it was a soft top we had to take a trailer as the 90's just don't have the room of the 110. So you do have to watch what you carry in the 90

I have a long range tank in all three of my trucks. , the 90 , 110 and the Discovery. Not a lover of having jerry cans of fuel sat on the roof or in the car.

[camel_landy]

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
Absolutely spot on...

M

[Yorkshire_Jon]

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

[MuzzyDelta90]

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.

John
I love the bit about CD Collection - how many people take a cd collection? The I-pod is an absolute godsend - it's really revolutionised portable music. However, having previously stated my minimalistic approach to touring - I still need room in the back to put a guitar. This severly compromises the 90's loading carrying capacity, but in my books it's just as essential as any other item ie food.
I love going away on hikes for 3 or 4 days where you carry everything on your back - the kitchen, bedroom, wardrobe and wine cellar. Realistically, all you need is the basics, everything else is just luxury. I had no hesitation in buying the 90 - if it doesn't fit in the back, then chances are you don't need it!

[Red90Puma]

Directional stability on Outback roads we handled by dropping the pressures to 25psi all round. solved the problem

[VladTepes]

If a 110 is better than a 90 for touring - then a 130 with a canopy is better !

[juddy]

If a 110 is better than a 90 for touring - then a 130 with a canopy is better !

well said Vlad.:D

[Rickoz]

This is a bit of a old thread & a bit of a thread jack, i guess someone who has owned both would know for sure rather than just someone repeating chinese whispers from the net. So What is the truth on this one.
The "Current 90s" have a smaller Fuel tanks & have smaller Springs & doesn't like Modding the suspension too much without dramas does this make the 90 a lesser 4WD & bit of a wannabe 4x4 compared to the 110s & 130s (so the 90 is a buy it & use as is) or this not really the case & the 90 is as capable STD or Modding the articulation setup, using it in the real world of 4WDing compared to a 110/130?

(Sand Driving is not 4WDing IMO)

This is not a mine is better than the ?? but a serious question as i've been reading this site for a while now & i'm still learning about LRDs

[isuzutoo-eh]

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!