TD Man Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 So I have a 110 that has been shortened to 90ish and am going to fit my double cab body onto it. Has anyone done this? I had a look but couldn't find any info. I know LR did a defender 100" proto so "how hard can it be!"...Haha, I may have to cut my way in and weld my way out My one is an NZ oddball with a steel rear body so bodywork is easy for me to weld. Any observations / opinions are very welcome TD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverik Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Pictures are worth a thousand words... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Sounds interesting and different so please post lots of pictures Will be interesting how you deal with the 2nd row doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Subscribing, very interested to see the outcome of the build Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need4speed Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 ....I may have to cut my way in and weld my way out.... Love it!! Seriously though, pics, pics, pics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacr2man Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think you may need a fair old body lift , as the second row doors will be where the wheels want to be !! , The extra inches give you room to put your feet, and allow there to be a bit of room for a door bottom , so good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 http://www.motortorque.com/res/images/articles/land-rover-100-inch-four-door-prototype_580x0.jpg 100" 4 door is possible but 90" is going to be a huge compromise.... The link is of a 100" example. Could you imagine taking about 10" out? or 7.1" if you are actually making it a true "90 inch" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Member Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I can't see how this would be possible. Look at a 110. How do you remove 17 to 20" of wheelbase and fit in doors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Frimodt Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 A thing that might make it a bit more feasible, however not a smaller task, would be to move the front bulkhead as far forward as your chosen tyre size would allow. This of course will mean shortened bonnet, shortened wings and inner wings. But should all be possible. Then you might just get away with it combined with a body lift as mentioned and a seriously weird looking second row door. Perhaps you could even gain a wee bit more room by shortening the front doors as well? Would be an epic amount of bodywork nonetheless, but a cool project it sure is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 My housemate suggest suicide doors for the rear ones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I wouldn't have thought that there is sufficient 'drop' in the chassis for the rear seat passengers legs without having to sit with their head between their knees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Would that not depend on how exactly the 110 had been shortened to a 90? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 My housemate suggest suicide doors for the rear ones I was thinking the same, a bit like on the modern Mini Clubman, or extended front doors like most 2 door models of vehicles with 4 or 5 seats. The latter brings the problem of seat belt mounting - HD sills (rocksliders and so on) would give a good mounting for the inertia reel and lower belt bracket without the need for a B-pillar, but what do you do about the shoulder mount? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Man Posted March 29, 2014 Author Share Posted March 29, 2014 Hi all, sorry for the delay, I have had a busy week with a job to export so no time projects. Anyway, what I was thinking was to bring the wheel arch under the seats and into the foot-well if required. I will lift the seats up a little so the wheel is under as per the rear seats in a 110 county. I will get some pics this tomorrow and see what I reckon. I will try to post them... but we'll see how that goes. If I can pull it off the rear will still have a 110 overhang as the chassis was factory 110. TD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Good luck, very interested to see this build as it's a bit different to the norm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I'm not sure what the point is, then - reducing the break over angle while retaining a poor departure angle seems a little futile. I'd also be a bit wary of all that weight and moment protruding behind a short wheel base - it might be rather prone to oversteer and losing its tail on slippery conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Idris Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 I don't know about the handling, but I saw a 109 changed to an 88" and although practical by having better turning circle and a reasonably sized load space, it looked 'wrong' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Man Posted March 30, 2014 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 I'm not sure what the point is, then - reducing the break over angle while retaining a poor departure angle seems a little futile. I'd also be a bit wary of all that weight and moment protruding behind a short wheel base - it might be rather prone to oversteer and losing its tail on slippery conditions. Snagger, Your right, what I did not say was that this is stage 1 of my build and the overhang will be attended to but not at this point. I measured the chassis and it is 95' not the 90' I had thought. Pics to come! TD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 90's not 90" anyway isn't it, 92.5" IIRC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 90's not 90" anyway isn't it, 92.5" IIRC? actually 92.9 inches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacr2man Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 you could try something along these lines I suppose http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1277.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy497%2FRustystuffpics%2F88ForwardControlEbay_zps94e821f3.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.landyzone.co.uk%2Flz%2Ff6%2Frare-forward-control-219543-2.html&h=767&w=1024&tbnid=SuCkVz8bf5-vMM%3A&zoom=1&docid=lDeVNZTYrzQ77M&ei=4CY4U9fMN8qS7Qam4oGoAQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CFwQhBwwAQ&iact=rc&dur=2823&page=1&start=0&ndsp=12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 actually 92.9 inches When have LandRover's production tolerances ever been that precise that they can confidently claim the wheelbase dimension to be 92.9 inches ? That is 1/10 ", 2.5mm, 0.100" short of 93" for heavens sake ! The engineer must have had delusions of grandeur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Man Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 you could try something along these lines I suppose http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1277.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy497%2FRustystuffpics%2F88ForwardControlEbay_zps94e821f3.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.landyzone.co.uk%2Flz%2Ff6%2Frare-forward-control-219543-2.html&h=767&w=1024&tbnid=SuCkVz8bf5-vMM%3A&zoom=1&docid=lDeVNZTYrzQ77M&ei=4CY4U9fMN8qS7Qam4oGoAQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CFwQhBwwAQ&iact=rc&dur=2823&page=1&start=0&ndsp=12 Wow... That is amazing When have LandRover's production tolerances ever been that precise that they can confidently claim the wheelbase dimension to be 92.9 inches ? That is 1/10 ", 2.5mm, 0.100" short of 93" for heavens sake ! The engineer must have had delusions of grandeur. Yea I was impressed with a 127 I worked on years ago, it was a 110 with a bit welded in and had mig wire hanging on all over the place. TD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Oddly enough, I had recalled the 90 wheel base to be designed at 92.7" . It's a good compromise between you both anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Member Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The wheelbase of a 90....is....2360 mm. It was designed in metric. I'm not sure if anyone know why they chose that number. The Jeeps of the time were 2370 mm, so maybe they wanted to be just that much shorter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.