Thread: 90" Stage one Moral dilemma

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.

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.

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.

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.