Bored ****eless at work, reading an article on the 100" wheelbase and how some peeps have taken RR or disco chassis and built them, using 90/110 bodyparts.. I wondered if anyone has just "simply" moved the axle back 8" inches instead?

Hypothetically Too me that would be alot quicker than a complete build? Anyone wish to enlighten me?

Basic idea of how to do it:

1 Lose backend past spring mounts. Fab new chassis section. (good idea if that rear xmember is shot)
2 Re-locate Spring mounts and shock locations
3 Move A frame (remove and use 4 link?)
4 Move rear trailing arms (remove and use 4 link?)
5 Prop to suit

(Prepared to be slated )

Not about to slate the idea but in wouldn't work for me.

I like the extra 8" (ish) you can get in the cab area and the
overall proportions of a "regular" 100 conversion. I think having
the rear wheels so far back woul spoil the balance (aesthetic).
I'd go for extending the middle.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Yeah Comon land rover spent years getting the 90 right and I recon they have done a damn good job , its a proven vehicle the world over so why dya want and go and spoil it by stretchin it

No reason why you couldn't do it that way.

The main reason for most hybrids being built from extended series and defender body parts on Rangie and disco chassis is that Old rangies and discos with rotten bodies are a cheaper source of mechanicals and chassis rather than buying a perfectly good 90 and extending it. Early 100'' hybrids were started by people who wanted coil sprung Defender style vehicles in the mid 1980s when the 90 was brand new and unaffordable to most as an offroad toy.

Regards,
Diff

No one reckons that it would make the 90 a better truck then, just aestheticslly un apeasing?

By listening to what people say/write on the Off-road scene. A majority consider the 100" to be the best all round wheelbase? For reasons like; Better for climbs, lighter, more stable at speed etc?

looking over the pond to the US, the Jeep TJ are often stretched to giv'em that extra stability and drive feel?

Yup, 100'' is considered a better allrounder, it is more stable at speeds, and should be able to climb better. Lighter? No.
Are the differences worth cutting up a perfectly good 90?(which is about 93 inches) - Probably not.

Depending on the age and condition of the 90, stretching it to 100'' will probably devalue it.

Consider also the type of offroading you do. A 90 has a slightly better turning circle and a slightly better ramp break over angle. In the nadgery bits, the 90 may have a slight advantage over the 100''.

Consider also that stretching it to 100'' will throw up all sorts of issues with regard to insurance and SVA etc.

Decision is yours!

Regards,
Diff

I can't see any reason why it isn't possible to do, as long as you reinforce the chassis properly where the spring seats mount. If you use a 110 rear tub and cut that down, you can get it looking right, and in proportion. As Diff said, it'll need to be SVA'd, but that's not a geat problem. What was the article B.T.W ?

Id though of this as well, was thinking along a similar lines more to increase the room for tyres and to push them right back so that there was a departure angle of 90 degrees, Similar to mog rover if you have seen that.

I did think about bobing the back of it but think it would be interesting to do something different , i do agree with the sva fact might be a tricky one however.

Would be nice to see a 90 running something like 38.5 boggers with almost 90 degree depature and approach angles (pushing the front axle forward) and without being lifted to stupid heights. When i get the money i would love to do it. weather i start again with a 100 inch or mod the 90.

Some plus points might be

1.Longer wheel base as discussed
2.Longer radius arms so the the axles do not "walk" under the car as much if you have long travel suspensions,(gigglepin are selling longer radius arms now)
3.Sharper departure angle.
4. Room for larger tyres.(not having to move the fuel pipe etc, Maybe not 100% sure what you could get away with)

Sure there may be more and im sure there is definetly down sides as will be pointed out no dowt.

to be honest I dont even think anyone would notice, so being referred for an SVA would be unlikely, even if you were then providing the construction is good theres no reason for it to fail. Tubular A frame and overlength trailing arms or panhard rod and radius arms

Pushing the front axle forward. Now i can see that causing some grief with the steering set-up? I am led to believe PUNY 37's are the largest you can fit on a 90 before it starts hitting outriggers? Correct me if im wrong?

Anyone used the 4 link Exel calculator (Pirate4x4) for gettin ya set-up right?

Yea i think 37's are the largest u can get on with out a silly amount of lift or modding the bulkhead.
I think pushing the axle would not be to hard if u did i while doing 3 link for example.
Not sure about the steering box problem suppose it depends how far you shift it forwards.

I

Just use it as an excuse to mod the hydraulic steering

just get a disco/rang rolling chassis.MUCH easier/cheaper.d90 front end and away you go.

We do this a fair bit.

W use our extended radius arms and longer tubular 'A' frames.
Cut the chassis at the high point at the rear extend, and fit new spring seats.

As jez says, no one notices.
The improvement....? Staggering, much more stable offroad platform.
Downside... Steering lock is not as great

Hope that helps

Jim

Could you not do the same to a 110, it would be a cheaper donor than a 90, although it means moving the rear crossmember and putting up with seven inch coils and the lack of spring choice that that entails

I've been thinking about shortening the 110, its a bit beyond my skills and time constraints, but I know a man who can

If using a 110 as the base vehicle it wouldn't be a huge job to change the chassis spring seats for the smaller size to allow a wider range of spring choice, and the axle spring seats just bolt on/off.

This is something I've been thinking of doing for quite a while but I've shelved it at the moment to as I want to get the vehicle finished. My thought was to cut just at the spring mounts, move the axle back and use longer radius arms and A-frame. Springs would be coilovers to make the job easier and give a better result. I'd also thought about moving the front radius arm mounts back by about 6" to help the front end walk better. If I ever trayback I'll deffinatly do this but I may well just start on a new vehicle as the 90 should be more than up to the job for the next few years once I've finished the current mods.

If you were to remove the Radius arms and go for a "Long arm" 4 link set-up? Could see that making improved stability, or not?

Yeah, longer arms are better as the axle is less inclinded to binding (if designed right) and will move in a larger radius arc so you'll get less bump steer.

the vehicle really needs all those mods just to sit in a workshop?

I built an awdc class one trialler with a nearly 90 degree approach angle on 7.50's (i know its not a road vehicle, but someone cleverer than me could improve my idea).

I just used parts i had lying round the place, nothing major.

the set up went:
Home made column of golf steering uj's, directly onto a rangie PAS box, mounted in a 90 degree, anticlockwise rotation (basically hung by the 4 chassis bolts, the output shaft horizontal and the drop arm hanging vertical), on the engine side of the bulkhead, with a standard series steering arm running along the drivers side chassis rail (as it normally does) to a series steering relay mounted just forward of the axle centre line, inside the chassis rail, and then a steering arm down onto the rangie axle.
The radiator was in the back, and everything forward of the relay was removed, and i had a 6mm steel plate to protect the front of the engine

The system was a bit agricultural, but it worked very well. I ran the setup for just over 2 years and never had any trouble with it, i was expecting the PAS box to give problems 'cuz it was the wrong way up, but it didnt even leak!

i know im draging up the past but im in the process of doing this

http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopi...20&start=20

what are people opinions on what to do with the A frame? remake or extend?

Surely the easiest way would be to take the rear butt and propshaft off, cut the chassis in half just in front of the A frame cross member, and then roll it back 7", and fill in the gap. If you were cunning, you might even be able to find a prop that is about the right length, possibly a 110" with R380 prop (engine and box further back and Salisbury axle with long nose (or tweak your wheel base to suit). If not, it's pretty easy to shorten a prop and get it pretty well balanced at home, easpecially if you have a DTI/lathe . Lengthen the brake pipe and wiring and it's virtually job done.

That way, you are not buggering around with lengthening A frames and radius arms, which will be of far greater concern to the SVA man, you're not putting spring mounts on un-reinforced sections of chassis, or having to think about re-positioning shock mounts etc. If you can find an old 90" chassis (of which there must be loads floating around on this board), you could even have the correct profile section to fill in the gap. With internal plates, plug welded to all sections of the join, and good quality butt welds, you could actually make an invisible join. It would take a good plod to find out that the chassis had been cut and rejoined. On the racer, I cant even find the join without some careful looking (and I know it's there!).

I reckon that with the body stripped off and a little bit of preparation, you could easily have a driveable vehicle in less than a weekend, just leaving a butt to be cut down/extended (not structural, so pretty easy to glue another section on the front) in your own time.

Toby