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

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

Originally Posted by 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

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
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1f6JN9BRY"]Steep hill decent with Defender in Freizetpark Mammut May 2009 - YouTube[/ame]
An 88" wheelbase on the same track would probably have flipped.

EDIT2: Here is the ibex vid I mentioned - 80" WB I believe.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4p9pB91vUA"]Tumblebex at 2003 Ibex Fest - YouTube[/ame]
This hill would have posed no problem for a LWB.

a lwb wouldnt have gotten through the trees

Originally Posted by schmierer LR at singleton

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.

Originally Posted by 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................

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

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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!

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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...

Originally Posted by isuzutoo-eh

...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.