90" Stage one Moral dilemma

I think one of the major issues with a 88/90 stage 1 will be the drive shafts. With the standard V8 and standard LT95 they will be very short and will have issues with excessive angles.

The 101FC has a 101" wheelbase and has these issues as designed and built by Land Rover and they use a shorter bell housing on the LT95.

So before you cutting a stage 1 chassis I would get a normal series 3 swb chassis and do a trial fit. If fact - it would probably be easier to take a series 3 swb and put in the V8/gearbox and diffs etc.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

I think one of the major issues with a 88/90 stage 1 will be the drive shafts. With the standard V8 and standard LT95 they will be very short and will have issues with excessive angles.

The 101FC has a 101" wheelbase and has these issues as designed and built by Land Rover and they use a shorter bell housing on the LT95.

So before you cutting a stage 1 chassis I would get a normal series 3 swb chassis and do a trial fit. If fact - it would probably be easier to take a series 3 swb and put in the V8/gearbox and diffs etc.

Garry

---

How far back is the engine in a 101 compared to a Stage 1? There are plenty of 100" hybrids around with V8+LT95. I also have an AULRO mag with an 80" hybrid with V8+LT95, though that one needed a 101 bellhousing.

I am not sure (however the front drive shaft is 77cm from diff flange to tfr case flange) - certainly if the engine and gearbox could be a bit lower in the chassis the drive shafts would be less of an issue but then the chassis X members are in the way. In a 101 the rear drive shaft is about the same length as the front but a much steeper angle so on a 90" would have to be quite short.

I am not saying it cannot be done but I would hate to see a Stage 1 cut up only to find it does not work - hence the suggestion to get a 88" chassis and do a test run.

Garry

Good Stage Ones are getting a bit thin on the ground and it would be a shame to cut one up when you could build an 88" version with parts. A good start would be a complete but very rusty donor.

I've got a magazine somewhere with an article about a guy in England who bought an 88" Stage I and found that it was a factory prototype. Apparently it went really well but for some reason the front end would lift off the ground when accelerating hard from a standing start. He thought that might have been why Land-Rover only made the 109" version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davo

I've got a magazine somewhere with an article about a guy in England who bought an 88" Stage I and found that it was a factory prototype. Apparently it went really well but for some reason the front end would lift off the ground when accelerating hard from a standing start. He thought that might have been why Land-Rover only made the 109" version.

---

Davo, can you find that article? On the Stage 1 forum we have a guy who has recently bought an 88" Stage 1 and we have been trying to determine if it was also a prototype. The folks at Gaydon are a little perplexed at the moment.

Sure will. I'm on that forum as well. It might take a while as my magazines are in a "vertical filing" format but I'll look today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psimpson7

I'm going to disagree with Ben here, and say IME a 90 is a lot more capable in most situations than a 110.

Also just so you know in case you dont the wheelbase of a 90 is 92.9"

Rgds
Pete

---

There could be a lot of debate over this one. AFAIK there weren't any SIII/Stage 1 88" built in Australia although it is possible to do/was done.

As to which is better off road, the 88" has better ramp-over angle, departure angle and smaller turning circle so in those aspects are better than the equivalent SIII/Stage 1 109", the 109" is more comfortable ride, more directionally stable (you can get crossed up very quickly in an 88") a better tow platform (in length not necessarily power) better carrying gear for longer trips and the longer wheelbase allows you to cross obstacles where a short wheelbase is a disadvantage. So it all depends on need.

IMHO, if you are convinced you want a short wheelbase leaf sprung vehicle then modify an SIII 88" (2 1/4) by replicating or canibalising the front cross member and chassis brackets from a Stage 1 109" otherwise go for a coil sprung 90. Far simpler.

Thanks everyone. The arguments for and against are leaning me a little towards against. I drive long distances for work 340ks one way at the moment, be about 600ks when I move back to Toowoomba. I am still thinking of getting a more practical/economical road car and using the land rover more as a farm ute down south. It’s good for heavy loads, towing stuff and makes an excellent motorised wheel barrow on boggy construction sites. If I made it shorter it would not be as practical for any of these. However I know where I could couple of stuffed 88” S 2s at the right price. I think a stripped out 88/90”chassis with a bulk head and many hours with a measuring tape might be the go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick-Kelly

Got any more piccys, the ute looks great. Love the winch bumper as well. It suits the overall look.

---

Thanks Mick, I made the bottom half then welded the top half of a a military bull bar I had laying around on, here’s a couple more pics, I have posted a few here and there if you wanted to have a bit of a search.

I like the look of your Stage 1. The winch bumper is not dissimilar to my own :)

Do you have parabolics? The height looks good on it.

just a little question, if you really want an 88" with V8 power why not drop the V8 into an 88" using the original Series 'box ??

there's many done over here in Britain, i don't know all the ins and outs of the conversion but i do know you need to make your own (or buy) the mounts that bolt to the engine, oil filter needs relocating (remote filter), spigot bush adaptor, possible flywheel redrilling to accept the Series pressure plate depending on which Rover V8 flywheel you use and maybe (can't remember) a bellhousing to flywheel housing adaptor..

exhaust manifolds present a problem as i think they clash with the chassis, but this has already been worked out over here...

you'll also need to modify the passenger (lefthand) footwell to allow access to the rear plug on that side..

the final thing to look at is the water pump as some Rover engines had a longer pump or deeper timing case making it a struggle to get some engines in behind the radiator..

if you do a search of a few of the British Landrover forums you should/will find 99% of the answers to this conversion along with pictures of step by step mods...

i've only put this idea forwards as it's something i'm tempted to do one day if i collect the bits together (after i finish the projects i've already got) it's not something i can advise on, not having tackled it myself i've only built the one 88" (200tdi powered with 3.54 diffs, overdrive and parabolics)

pictures in reverse on P/bucket (latest repair to initial purchase)
Zebedee pictures by NiteMare_08 - Photobucket