Series on disco 1 chassis

[keven]

I want to shorten a disco chassis to fit a series 3 tub with the other parts being series and defender parts .Has anyone here done this before and can tell me what i need to do on the chassis to fit the tub.I know i will have to shorten the centre.Im from south africa.

[Bowie69]

FWIW I have see 110 hi cap tub fitted to a disco without shorting things and recking it looks loads better than a series/defender standard tub against the disco bodywork. 

[Chicken Drumstick]

It is a moderately easy job. Measure twice and cut once.
 

When I converted mine we had it as a rolling chassis. Measured wheelbase and figured out how much to cut out of the middle. Then weld back together. Lots of approaches for a solid fit. Eg cut at angle and plate. Or overlay and cut a circle and weld round the circle type of thing. Make sure it is safe and strong. 
 

On the rear you’ll want a cross member for a 90/88. I used one with the short legs but one with longer legs would give more scope. You must weld the rear cross member at the right angle for the tub. So you may want to mock out the other body mounts, bulkhead, etc. sadly on mine we got it running slightly down hill. So the front body sits a little high. But has meant more bonnet clearance and more front wheel clearance. Ie a bit like a body lift. 

Once the rear tub is in shape place you can fit the other body mounts and bulkhead. Depending on where the engine sits and gearbox you will have to fab up the transmission tinned and maybe hack up and modify the seat box. 
 

You’ll also need to sort out rad mounts and how the front end all fits together. Then a million smaller items such as steering columns, pedals, exhaust etc. 

I built an 88 coiler as I had an S3 88 with a knackered seized engine, broken axle and rotted chassis. I also had a great running 200Tdi Disco 1 that just had some rot in the body. I was also building it to compete in RTV trials events. 
 

An 88 is similar to a 90. But lots of more subtle differences, such as the inner wings etc. 

Tbh if I was doing it again I’d probably just build a 100” 90. But competition regs wouldn’t allow it at the time. 

[pat_pending]

1 hour ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Tbh if I was doing it again I’d probably just build a 100” 90.

Probably the best way to go, the original "hybrid", series body on an old Range Rover chassis.

During the nineties everyone seemed  to be building one, there was even a TV series that detailed the build of one, on Discovery channel I think, very detailed it was too.

I think the presenters name was Mark, he was a vet but loved building stuff, I think that's right, the series was available on DVD, it's probably on youtube.

It would be a good place to start for the op.

 

Just looked it up, Mark Evans... A 4x4 is born.  

Edited July 31 by pat_pending

[keven]

8 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

It is a moderately easy job. Measure twice and cut once.
 

When I converted mine we had it as a rolling chassis. Measured wheelbase and figured out how much to cut out of the middle. Then weld back together. Lots of approaches for a solid fit. Eg cut at angle and plate. Or overlay and cut a circle and weld round the circle type of thing. Make sure it is safe and strong. 
 

On the rear you’ll want a cross member for a 90/88. I used one with the short legs but one with longer legs would give more scope. You must weld the rear cross member at the right angle for the tub. So you may want to mock out the other body mounts, bulkhead, etc. sadly on mine we got it running slightly down hill. So the front body sits a little high. But has meant more bonnet clearance and more front wheel clearance. Ie a bit like a body lift. 

Once the rear tub is in shape place you can fit the other body mounts and bulkhead. Depending on where the engine sits and gearbox you will have to fab up the transmission tinned and maybe hack up and modify the seat box. 
 

You’ll also need to sort out rad mounts and how the front end all fits together. Then a million smaller items such as steering columns, pedals, exhaust etc. 

I built an 88 coiler as I had an S3 88 with a knackered seized engine, broken axle and rotted chassis. I also had a great running 200Tdi Disco 1 that just had some rot in the body. I was also building it to compete in RTV trials events. 
 

An 88 is similar to a 90. But lots of more subtle differences, such as the inner wings etc. 

Tbh if I was doing it again I’d probably just build a 100” 90. But competition regs wouldn’t allow it at the time. 

A discovery chassis might be easier to shorten than a series chassis if you look on a disco or rrc chassis the mounts where the coil springs goes both are level on the chassis if you work with that then youll have a level chassis when shortened.My first idea was too shorten a disco chassis and make a 90 but i would have to shorten a 110 tub too it will be better to use a series body and 88 tub or make it like a stage 1

[keven]

7 hours ago, pat_pending said:

Probably the best way to go, the original "hybrid", series body on an old Range Rover chassis.

During the nineties everyone seemed  to be building one, there was even a TV series that detailed the build of one, on Discovery channel I think, very detailed it was too.

I think the presenters name was Mark, he was a vet but loved building stuff, I think that's right, the series was available on DVD, it's probably on youtube.

It would be a good place to start for the op.

 

Just looked it up, Mark Evans... A 4x4 is born.  

I was also thinking of a 100inch on a rrc chassis but rrc chassis are not easy to find.if i do a 100inch build then id go for a defender front look

[landroversforever]

On 8/1/2024 at 5:15 AM, keven said:

I was also thinking of a 100inch on a rrc chassis but rrc chassis are not easy to find.if i do a 100inch build then id go for a defender front look

Both disco 1 and 2 are still the same 100” wheelbase as a (normal) RRC. 

[pat_pending]

On 8/1/2024 at 5:15 AM, keven said:

I was also thinking of a 100inch on a rrc chassis but rrc chassis are not easy to find.if i do a 100inch build then id go for a defender front look

 

3 hours ago, landroversforever said:

Both disco 1 and 2 are still the same 100” wheelbase as a (normal) RRC. 

Exactly,  Disco/Range Rover chassis are pretty much the same, and you said you've already got a Disco!

[Snagger]

On 8/1/2024 at 8:15 AM, keven said:

I was also thinking of a 100inch on a rrc chassis but rrc chassis are not easy to find.if i do a 100inch build then id go for a defender front look

I think there is very little difference between a RRC and Discovery chassis - the Discovery was designed to use almost the entire RR platform of chassis, (bulk of the) shell and doors, suspension, steering and drive train.  Apart from the interior trim, outer panels and the rear end of the shell (door vs tailgates), the biggest difference was just the transfer box (which is interchangeable with a few other mods anyway).

[FridgeFreezer]

Ultimately the "answer" to this is if you own a tape measure and a welder anything is possible... it's just the level of practicality / common sense varies.

The only reason to do a project like this is "for the hell of it" as there's no way it's worth the effort in any practical sense.

[geoffbeaumont]

3 hours ago, Snagger said:

the biggest difference was just the transfer box (which is interchangeable with a few other mods anyway).

Even that was just using the transfer box that the Range Rover had previously used.

Surprising how different they were to drive (I think mainly down to the the higher, steel roof on the Discovery making the centre of gravity higher?).

[Snagger]

They probably had different springs and dampers along with the slightly higher CoG.  Weight and longitudinal CoG can't be wildly different - the Discovery rear door and spare wheel mount weight are probably comparable to the two tailgates and the RR spare wheel isn't a long way forward of the Discovery's, though maybe enough for a small handling difference.

[geoffbeaumont]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

They probably had different springs and dampers along with the slightly higher CoG.  Weight and longitudinal CoG can't be wildly different - the Discovery rear door and spare wheel mount weight are probably comparable to the two tailgates and the RR spare wheel isn't a long way forward of the Discovery's, though maybe enough for a small handling difference.

Range Rover has a longer rear overhang, which will go some way to offsetting the Discovery door - but that door is massively heavier than the Range Rover tailgates.

Range Rover Classics are great fun to throw around on the road. My Discovery (on stock suspension) was just plain butt clenching if you pushed it too hard.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Pretty sure the overhangs are very similar. And practically identical from a chassis point of view. The RR normally had softer springs. Both could have anti roll or no anti rolls bars. Which may have made a difference. The rest is probably placebo tbh. There just isn’t enough mechanical difference to make any real odds. 
 

I had a H plate 200Tdi, it even used RRC style 10 spline axles. 
 

In fact a Defender doesn’t really drive or handle all that differently. Again due to using mostly the same components and designs under the body. 

[Snagger]

5 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Pretty sure the overhangs are very similar. And practically identical from a chassis point of view. The RR normally had softer springs. Both could have anti roll or no anti rolls bars. Which may have made a difference. The rest is probably placebo tbh. There just isn’t enough mechanical difference to make any real odds. 
 

I had a H plate 200Tdi, it even used RRC style 10 spline axles. 
 

In fact a Defender doesn’t really drive or handle all that differently. Again due to using mostly the same components and designs under the body. 

Individual cars can behave very differently depending on the state of their true type and pressure, springs, dampers, bushes and steering adjustment.  I had dreadful problems with my RR on motorways, really unstable in the first lane ruts worn by HGVs, which transpired to be nothing more than too much toe-out (I’d already replaced some perished bushes with no effect).  I was horrified at the body roll of my friend’s mid 80s RR with no ARBs as he took us on a “spirited” lap of North Weald’s peri-track.

[geoffbeaumont]

That made me go off hunting for the actual overhangs... Couldn't find definitive figures for that, but looking at overall dimensions you're right, there's nothing in it. Discovery is about 3" longer (hard to say where - probably split between front and back overhangs). One thing that's really obvious when you look at side elevations is how much more bodywork the Discovery has behind the rear axle (and especially high up).

My main RRC was on air, so actually fairly firmly sprung, but then again my Discovery was an early 300Tdi with the very firm springs that gave a harsh ride. Both had ARBs. To be fair, the only other Discovery I've driven was @VeryDisco's, and that was off road (lifted and on large tyres, so lovely in that situation - probably not so much at speed).

All Range Rover Classics, even on air suspension, like to roll - but they're nice and progressive on the limit, even when the passenger is looking out the window at tarmac...😇

The Discovery was unpredictable and "lurchy" on the limit. It definitely encouraged a more sedate driving style...

[Chicken Drumstick]

I think the length difference is mostly the bumper design and that the rear wheel is on the tailgate. 
 

It really was an amazing achievement from LR to produce a vehicle that looked so different (unless you knew what to look for) and somehow felt different to drive too, despite so many common parts and dimensions. I bet many many people had no idea at the time of launch that the Disco shared so many bits with the RR. 

[Sheffield]

Our 300TDI Discovery is on RRC springs, and they seem too soft for it. I do think the Discovery is heavier and this causes the springs, especially the front to sink too far. I put the RR springs on it because one of its own had broken, and they were all I had to hand.

[Snagger]

5 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I think the length difference is mostly the bumper design and that the rear wheel is on the tailgate. 

I think that is the exact reason.  The chassis are the same, save perhaps for some brackets, including the rear cross member, but the Discovery bumpers are much larger.  I can only assume they include the spare wheel in the length.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Sheffield said:

Our 300TDI Discovery is on RRC springs, and they seem too soft for it. I do think the Discovery is heavier and this causes the springs, especially the front to sink too far. I put the RR springs on it because one of its own had broken, and they were all I had to hand.

Most RR’s were V8’s. The VM ones have different springs at the front (not sure on the rear). Which I would assume they kept for the Tdi versions too. 
 

The weight difference must be minimal between the models due to such common parts. Disco roof is heavier, but RR bonnet is heavier. Most of the other bits must be about equal. 

[Chicken Drumstick]

Spring rates here: http://www.red90.ca/rovers/springinfo.html

Disco V8 and RR same at the front. And similar at the rear. Diesel RR and Disco also match. 

[deep]

It's true the chassis were very similar but there were two key differences that worked in favour of the Range Rover.  One was the fitting of the Boge self-levelling unit in the back, which allowed considerably softer springs and a more compliant ride.  The other was weight - the original Disco was not only heavier but had the weight higher up and further back.  In some situations, that was compensated for by the stiffer rear springs but I've always been happier, when pushing hard on the road, to be doing it in the Range Rover.

Interestingly, when I criss-crossed Australia in 2004, living in my heavily loaded Range Rover, I obtained a much better ride and handling by putting slightly stiffer springs in the rear.  There is only so much the Boge unit can compensate for!  When I got back from my travels and removed everything, it was truly horrible with the stiff springs in.  (I think that 1982 Range Rover was the best car I ever had and I often regret leaving it there.)