Series Land rover Chassis?

[4x4 MORE]

Hi guys I know that the Toyota Land Cruise chassis is different for the ute and SWB..

Hence why the SWB is better in the real rough stuff..:)

So I was wondering is this the same for series land rover's

Like is a series 1 80, 86 inch chassis more flexible than say the 107 ute or wagon?

And is the 88 inch series 3 chassis more flexible than the ute 109?:confused:

[Aaron IIA]

A Land Rover chassis is a box section, welded together from mild steel flat plate. It is designed not to flex.
Aaron

[JDNSW]

The advantage of swb in "real rough stuff" is the better breakover angle and that less axle articulation is usually required simply because the axles are closer together. (Actually, Series Landrovers have better articulation anyway on swb because on lwb (after Series 1) springs are set further out on the rear axle).

Actual chassis flexibility does not enter into it either with Landrovers or any other modern four wheel drive, although the Landrover chassis really is less flexible than some others (e.g. Landcruiser), even in these more flexible chassis the amount of axle articulation that is gained is negligible compared to the axle movement allowed by the springs.

John

[Aaron IIA]

If you want to experience chassis flex, try a 60cwt Blitz with no tray.
Aaron

[JDNSW]

If you want to experience chassis flex, try a 60cwt Blitz with no tray.
Aaron

Most trucks rely on the tray or other body fitted to provide a lot of the rigidity, so you would see this with almost any truck when driven with no body over rough ground. Most cars and four wheel drives with separate chassis rely on the body to provide rigidity, and find this necessary, if only so that the doors will open and shut when parked on rough ground.

Series Landrovers and their derivatives differ in the sense that nearly all their rigidity is provided by the chassis, allowing flexible body options and keeping the centre of gravity low.

John

[isuzurover]

I disagree with the entire premise of the question. Sure swb vehicles have better breakover angles and turning circles, but ime lwb vehicles are inherently better offroad. However lwb vehicles often come with overly stiff springs, which gives a false impression of swb ability.

[Gerokent]

but ime lwb vehicles are inherently better offroad. .

In the really heavy stuff?
Surely you jest!

[debruiser]

I think LWB vs SWB is a horses for courses thing.... comes down to what you want to do and where you want to go more than the actual vehicle capabilities.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think LWB vs SWB is a horses for courses thing.... comes down to what you want to do and where you want to go more than the actual vehicle capabilities.Have to agree, SWB are better at sharp turns, but can fail in situations when rear axle traction is lost before front axle traction is gained and this is where the LWB are better than SWB. It often doesn't matter about the articulation, in fact articulation without traction is no better than a suspended wheel.

There is no perfect 4WD for all situations!

[JDNSW]

......
There is no perfect 4WD for all situations!

I think that about sums it up, but the OP's question was about the subject of chassis flexing adding to offroad ability, using short vs long as the example, and the answer to that is that it is irrelevant.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think that about sums it up, but the OP's question was about the subject of chassis flexing adding to offroad ability, using short vs long as the example, and the answer to that is that it is irrelevant.

JohnBut as has also been said, in a Land Rover chassis flex is also (almost) irrelevant as there isn't a lot of flex in a Land Rover chassis. That said a 110/Defender chassis flexes a lot more than a 109" chassis mainly because of the loss of at least 3 cross members and the reduction in size of another in the 110 chassis.

[isuzurover]

In the really heavy stuff?
Surely you jest!

I am yet to see a proper definition for "really heavy" in this thread.

My definition is steep hills/washouts/holes/rocks/etc....
I know there aren't many serious hills in WA, so your definition may be different?

I have been on hills where a SWB landie has flipped over backwards, yet a 109 or 110 (even a 130) can climb it safely.

[4x4 MORE]

The advantage of swb in "real rough stuff" is the better breakover angle and that less axle articulation is usually required simply because the axles are closer together. (Actually, Series Landrovers have better articulation anyway on swb because on lwb (after Series 1) springs are set further out on the rear axle).

Actual chassis flexibility does not enter into it either with Landrovers or any other modern four wheel drive, although the Landrover chassis really is less flexible than some others (e.g. Landcruiser), even in these more flexible chassis the amount of axle articulation that is gained is negligible compared to the axle movement allowed by the springs.

John

The reason I ask Is because my Suzuki LJ ute has a stiffer chassis than the SWB LJ due to more crossmember's and bracing along the bottom middle of the chassis..


So What is the secret to the good wheel travel of the series 1, spring spacing, shackle design:confused:

So the 80 inch would have more wheel travel than the 107 inch due to shorter wheel base:confused:

[debruiser]

So the 80 inch would have more wheel travel than the 107 inch due to shorter wheel base:confused:

SWB have more rear wheel travel because the springs are mounted differently.

The SWB has the spring mounted directly under the chassis rails, whereas the LWB has the spring mounted outside the chassis rails. So with the same amount of spring flex the wheel travels further. (I tried to find pics but google wasn't cooperating tonight)

[debruiser]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/161.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/162.jpg

that's the best I can do atm.... Short then long respectively

[4x4 MORE]

Thanks mate..I wounder why the changed the location of the springs?:confused:

Just how capable are series 1 SWB's off road???..Compared to say a CJ jeep, FJ40 ect

Never driven one myself!

[JDNSW]

The springs at the rear of the long wheelbase were moved out to reduce body roll, as the longer wheelbases were found to be carrying higher loads more often. The improves wheel travel on Series Landrovers compared to some competitors is largely a matter of using long, relatively soft springs, and having a lot of shock absorber length. Setting the springs closer to the centre on the swb also helps, and short wheelbase and relatively narrow track helps in the sense that with all the wheels close together, the whole vehicle can follow the irregularities, although as pointed out above wide track and long wheelbase also have advantages. It all depends on the circumstances.

As to the offroad capabilities of the Series 1 compared to the various comparable models - it depends a lot on which offroad and which model you are comparing it to. All short wheelbase Series 1 are less powerful than the FJ40 or the Jeep CJ, but are also lighter, and, compared to the FJ40 (I don't know enough about the Jeep) have lower centre of gravity, lower low range, and four instead of three speed gearbox. How these play out depends on the terrain.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Body roll, the wider the springs are apart the less the upper body rolls around on the springs.

The 88" Land Rovers were superior to the original 3 speed FJ and comparable to the4 speed FJ40, but both marques had benefits and deficiencies.

There are a lot more Land Rover 88" still running around the place than there are FJ40 because the bodies haven't rusted away as much.

My brother used to have a business replacing the broken rivets on suspension brackets of the F40 series models, particularly the long wheelbase models until the 70 series with welded chassis came along.

So which is better?

[4x4 MORE]

Body roll, the wider the springs are apart the less the upper body rolls around on the springs.

The 88" Land Rovers were superior to the original 3 speed FJ and comparable to the4 speed FJ40, but both marques had benefits and deficiencies.

There are a lot more Land Rover 88" still running around the place than there are FJ40 because the bodies haven't rusted away as much.

My brother used to have a business replacing the broken rivets on suspension brackets of the F40 series models, particularly the long wheelbase models until the 70 series with welded chassis came along.

So which is better?

That's true

[4x4 MORE]

The springs at the rear of the long wheelbase were moved out to reduce body roll, as the longer wheelbases were found to be carrying higher loads more often. The improves wheel travel on Series Landrovers compared to some competitors is largely a matter of using long, relatively soft springs, and having a lot of shock absorber length. Setting the springs closer to the centre on the swb also helps, and short wheelbase and relatively narrow track helps in the sense that with all the wheels close together, the whole vehicle can follow the irregularities, although as pointed out above wide track and long wheelbase also have advantages. It all depends on the circumstances.

As to the offroad capabilities of the Series 1 compared to the various comparable models - it depends a lot on which offroad and which model you are comparing it to. All short wheelbase Series 1 are less powerful than the FJ40 or the Jeep CJ, but are also lighter, and, compared to the FJ40 (I don't know enough about the Jeep) have lower centre of gravity, lower low range, and four instead of three speed gearbox. How these play out depends on the terrain.

John

Interesting:)

[4x4 MORE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T-O4q7w0s8
I mean are they really that limited:confused:

Or it it just the lack of good tyres?

[Timj]

I mean are they really that limited:confused:

Or it it just the lack of good tyres?

umm... not quite sure what you are talking about. They are standard vehicles, no lockers or traction aids on what look like highway style tyres. They are driving on slippery ground which tests those areas particularly. And they all managed to get through the obstacles with a little bit of extra momentum.

However if you do a little work to a series by softening springs and putting lockers and decent tyres on they are quite surprising where they can go. My Game (78 SWB ) got further up a travel ramp than a brand new 90 a little while ago.

Cheers,

TimJ.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

What I will say is that stock standard series Land Rover 88s were far superior to stock standard Suzuki LJs like in your avatar.

I remember one moderate track with a washout across the track that any full size 4WD didn't blink at had a Suzuki cross axled with no traction on either suspended wheel.

[JDNSW]

It all depends on the conditions faced - the Suzuki will outperform the Landrover 88 where ground bearing strength is the critical factor, for example, or where the narrower width allows it to go between trees that stop the Landrover, short of a chainsaw.

But in almost all cases in real life, the skill of the driver can outweigh the vehicle capabilities, and in many cases, as suggested in earlier posts, tyres can be the key factor.

John

[4x4 MORE]

It all depends on the conditions faced - the Suzuki will outperform the Landrover 88 where ground bearing strength is the critical factor, for example, or where the narrower width allows it to go between trees that stop the Landrover, short of a chainsaw.

But in almost all cases in real life, the skill of the driver can outweigh the vehicle capabilities, and in many cases, as suggested in earlier posts, tyres can be the key factor.

John

Cheers..also did't series 1's also come with bar tread type tires from the factory

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/88.jpg

[101RRS]

Cheers..also did't series 1's also come with bar tread type tires from the factory

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/88.jpg


Hmm does the series 1 in the brochure you posted have bar treads?? Nothing wrong with bar treads as long as they are not being used on wet bitumen.

[JDNSW]

It varied over the ten years they were in production, but other tyres were always an option - and most Series Landrovers today, or indeed over the last few decades, have had tyres that are at least partly optimised for wet bitumen.

John

[4x4 MORE]

I did't realize rover changed tyres over the Series 1's life span:o

[JDNSW]

I did't realize rover changed tyres over the Series 1's life span:o

Not only that, but tyres also varied between markets - for example, with tariff savings to be made by increasing Australian content of those sold in Australia, most Series 1 delivered in Australia did not have the tyres specified in the handbook printed in England, as these were not necessarily made in Australia. And there were always options.

In 1948 bar treads were most common as these had been the standard Jeep tyres during the war. But by 1958, while there were still some fitted with these, other types (and sizes) had become common. And as I commented earlier, very few today have original tyre types. At the time I bought my first Series 1 in 1962, I don't think I had ever even seen one with either bar tread tyres or the standard 6.00x16 size. And that was only four years after they were being sold.

John

[S3ute]

Hello from Brisbane.

All of our (i.e. the extended family) S1s (80", 86", 88") came new fitted with 6.00 X 16" bar treads. The last one we still had running around the farm was only ever shod with bar treads until it was sold in 1979.

At the time I thought that was all they ever had.

I also had an idea that a lot of the military 88"s around Singleton had 7.50 X 16" bar treads as standard fitment. Might be poor memory there.

Cheers,

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The original tyre on the UK produced 1948 Land Rover right through to 1950 were Dunlop Track Grip T28. (see image) They were in fact moulded by Dunlop in Australia and were still being made in Malaysia in recent years.

http://www.dunloptyres.com.my//wwwroot/upload/image/product/T28.full.jpg

Australian content rules meant that most Aussie Rovers were fitted with 6.00 16 Olympic bar treads. In the 86" and later the Grenville books often mention Dun bar and Oly APL (all purpose lug) these were special orders by S2 we get Dun RTM (road track major) and Hardie Bar. RTM and APL were the standard equipment tyre for most of S2a and SIII.

The standard size fitting on SWB remained 6.00 16 although some entries in the Grenville books mention 6.50 16 and 107/109 S1 frequently had 7.00 16.

R8667212 is listed as 7.00 tyres the next tyre mention is 36660438 again 7.00 with a few more 1953 having 7.00.

7.50 16 tyres require a 5.5" rim which were not available till about 1957. Military Land Rovers S2/S2a in Australia all had 5.5" rims with 7.50 16 tyres.

[JDNSW]

All the Series 1s I drove in a vacation job in 1959 had 7.00x16 Road-Trak. The Series 1 I bought in 1962 had the same.

John

[S3ute]

Hello from Brisbane.

All of our (i.e. the extended family) S1s (80", 86", 88") came new fitted with 6.00 X 16" bar treads. The last one we still had running around the farm was only ever shod with bar treads until it was sold in 1979.

At the time I thought that was all they ever had.

I also had an idea that a lot of the military 88"s around Singleton had 7.50 X 16" bar treads as standard fitment. Might be poor memory there.

Cheers,

Thinking further,

I bought a low mileage1968 88" from CSIRO in Canberra back in 1975 and it also had 6.00 X 16" bar tread tyres fitted when I picked it up. I was led to believe they were still the original tyres that came on delivery.

On the other hand our 1972 109" came fitted with either 7.50 X 16" Roadtrack Majors or Hi-Milers.

Cheers,

[JDNSW]

Thinking further,

I bought a low mileage1968 88" from CSIRO in Canberra back in 1975 and it also had 6.00 X 16" bar tread tyres fitted when I picked it up. I was led to believe they were still the original tyres that came on delivery.

On the other hand our 1972 109" came fitted with either 7.50 X 16" Roadtrack Majors or Hi-Milers.

Cheers,

By the mid sixties, my experience (mostly if not all 109s) was that new ones had RTMs. But I don't think this applied to Series 1s. It looks as if the consensus is that most Series 1s came with 6.00 x 16 bar treads, but there were options even right from the start.

By the mid sixties there were getting to be enough sealed roads that drivers were becoming aware of the shortcomings of bar treads on wet bitumen. That said, I was fitting new bar treads to my 2a as late as about 2000 (now Steeltreks).

John

John

[4x4 MORE]

Not only that, but tyres also varied between markets - for example, with tariff savings to be made by increasing Australian content of those sold in Australia, most Series 1 delivered in Australia did not have the tyres specified in the handbook printed in England, as these were not necessarily made in Australia. And there were always options.

In 1948 bar treads were most common as these had been the standard Jeep tyres during the war. But by 1958, while there were still some fitted with these, other types (and sizes) had become common. And as I commented earlier, very few today have original tyre types. At the time I bought my first Series 1 in 1962, I don't think I had ever even seen one with either bar tread tyres or the standard 6.00x16 size. And that was only four years after they were being sold.

John

cheers mate:)