Land Rover Lust!

[modrover]

Originally Posted by Mav

Talk to me about wheels/tyres - I'm kinda confused I've spent a while riding bikes off-road so I know plenty about what works for my bikes, but I've no idea what the deal is with Landys/4x4s.

Mine is coming with the standard steel rims - do they limit what kind of tyres I can put on? I know they are the same diameter (16inch) but are they the same width? And how is 255/85 better than 265/75?

I've also been offered a set of Landy Alloys, fitted with BFG All Terrains (265X75X16) for 400 pounds... seems like a good deal. If the steel wheels are versatile enough I could put some proper dirt tyres on those, use the alloys for day to day, and switch depending on what's on the agenda for the day...

Any help is appreciated


]

I think you'll have to look at the rim stamping to determine exactly what rim width it is. I know the 110 is meant to have a certain size on it, but you never know. I know of 5.5", 6", 6.5", and 7" being the most common sizes. Just give that rim a see looks and you'll know what's what.

Now, personally... on an early 90 rim (many series rigs have this size on them too) of 16 x 5.5" (9" wide) I really like the 235/85R16 size for a 90/110/Series. Even on the wider width rims, this size is really great for more stock trucks with no additional lift. I've not run 255/85R16 sized tires on a 5.5" rim, but have heard of guys doing this... I don't think I would though. That's just a bit narrow... this becomes an issue when you start airing down to low psi for rough work... bead blowing can be a problem. I do like the 255/85 size over the 265/75 size. The 255/85 is 33.1" tall and 10" wide. The 265/75 is 31.6" tall and 10.4" wide. I know this doesn't sound like anything, but... there is a difference... not enough to sway me from buying the 265/75 for a deal though. Tall and narrow... the best combo in my opinion. There is a good reason why the military uses tall/narrow over just say... BIG ASS TIRES... because pizza cutter tires work. I even prefer this 255/85 for road manners too. This is just me talking, but... I feel like Rover stuck those 265/75 on the D90s for the American market. You know, us US of A guys like 'em really BIG looking! I think if you could score those AL Rover rims (and they're probably 7" wide) with the 265/75 BFGs for a deal... do it... be sure to get the AL lug nuts to go with them. I think your idea of keeping the steels around for tossing on some MT tires sound like a good one. That said, I've run BFG AT tires and BFG MT tires (235/85R16) on the same series rig... I got the same mileage out of both of them... and that was dual duty work of street/trail. I kept them at 33 psi for a proper footprint and they got even wear to the end. For that reason, I'm not keeping extra rims/tires around... plus... it's hard to find a place to store all that gear!

Something else... on RR classics and Disco rigs with a minor lift (like the 2" lift given by Old Man Emu springs)... I really like the 215/85R16 size. These are 30.4" tall and 8.5" wide. I know many folks run the 235/85R16 size once they lift their RR or Disco, but they usually get that rubbing at the back wheel arch area. Some guys even trim that area. No thanks... not me. The other thing that goes into this equation is tossing on full chains, these are legal here in the state of WA for me, for deep snow work. Those 235 tires with chains will do damage to the truck (unless the truck has been modified or lifted for that additional clearance). I know the 235 is only an inch taller and wider, but the wheel arches on the RR and Disco are tight... that one inch tall/wide finds those tighter spots and... shall we say... removes the lesser strength materials under full articulation. Most of the time it's the brand new rubber knobs on those tires... don't ask me how I know this!

So, and what the hell... I've gone and drawn this out yet again, I'd say get some proper AT or MT tires for a deal if you can. If they come with Rims... run 'em on those. If not, and the tire size is over 10" wide, run them on a steel rim over that 5.5" size.

Oh... and some older steels still run tubes in them. I'm not a fan, but some expedition guys like them better than tubeless. I like tubeless rims, but I have run tubeless tires on tubed rims before... probable not a good idea as the tubeless designed rim has a proper "lip" for keeping the bead of a tubeless tire locked on better. I ran them on my old '62 stock Series IIA and never did experience air leaking past so I soon forgot about the issue.

Either way... I'm extremely envious of your 110 MAV! Even if it had no rims/tires... and was sitting on breeze blocks!

[toolfan]

Hey Modrover/ Rover guys:

'99 is disco II, yeah? Or is it the tail end of I?

This looks like it's worth a look:
http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/cto/1433869091.html

Agreed?

[modrover]

Originally Posted by toolfan

Hey Modrover/ Rover guys:

'99 is disco II, yeah? Or is it the tail end of I?

This looks like it's worth a look:
http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/cto/1433869091.html

Agreed?

Hey Toolfan... the price sounds good for the year. As does the fact it's been owned by that same person for a bit. Sort of sends the message that it's not an impulse purchase gone bad resale. That said, call Ships Mech. or The Green Oval for a prepurchase. Those guys will give the straight scoop on it. If you go look at it... and like it... ask if he'd let you have it looked at. If he gets all weird about it... you don't want it anyway. If he's got nothing to hide, he'll let you have it looked at. He'll probably appreciate the fact that you're completely into this purchase and want to get a rig for the long haul.

The 1999 was the first year for the US Disco II. I like the older Disco I rigs for more basic equipment, but that wouldn't turn me off to the Disco II completely... especially if there was a deal to be had. Be sure to ask for the full service history... maybe some Disco II owners here can shed some light on growing old with the series II Disco. I just have never owned one so can't give my blessing on it. That said, I'm still a less is more kind of guy so take that with a grain of salt mate!

[Doc.Snyder]

LR rims, safe combinations:

5.5 R 16 > 7.5 R16, 235/85 R16
6.5 R16 > 7.5 R16, 8.25 R16, 9.00 R16, 235/85 R16, 255/85R16, 265/75 R16

There are

'closed' 6.5 rims from the early 130 Defenders and the 127 LR(not recommended for use w. disc brakes, especially rear. Needs more clearance, ie. Wheelspacers),

'open' 6.5 tubed rims (130 Defender) and

'open' 6.5 tubeless rims (130 Defender & LR Wolf / TUL, TUM / XD)

Which size steel Rims did the NAS spec Defenders have?

[Mercury264]

Originally Posted by Mav

=
Here is one form the German army, which really surprised me - I had no idea the German army were using Landys. And no, they didn't like me taking pics outside the embassy

Pretty sure they're Italian military and you can see what appears to be an Italian flag on the front wing of the Landy.

I also doubt German military would be armed outside the confines of the embassy

[Doc.Snyder]

Yeah, those are italian Defenders.

The only LR The Bundeswehr uses is this one and a civil looking version for Range Control.

The German Border Guards use LR Discovery2, though.

The Bundeswehr calls those Vehicles 'hümS'. Stock vehicles w. special mil. upgrades.

[modrover]

Originally Posted by Doc.Snyder

Which size steel Rims did the NAS spec Defenders have?

I checked mine, as I'm running US spec. 110 rims on my rig, and they are:

ANR1534

6 1/2 X 16 X 20,6

[Doc.Snyder]

Ok. Those are the non vented, riveted 127 / early 130 rims. Thanks!

[Sabre]

Just for shits and giggles I went and drove a '93 County Range Rover LWB today. It surely is built like a bank vault...very solid and very impressive. Had the spring/shock conversion, and it handled beautifully on slightly oversize tyres.

The thing is, I'm not a great gangling tall fellow, I'm only 6-1 but with a rather long torso...but DAMN I couldn't sit upright in the thing! I put the seat in its lowest position and STILL had to crane my neck sideways to drive!

I was really flabbergasted by this. I haven't driven a car with such poor headroom since the inlaws' old MGB convertible. Is this something that people just don't talk about? Is it Rover's awful secret? Did the owner of this car secretly have a phone book hidden in the seat cushion? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Barnstormer]

[redveloce]

Originally Posted by Sabre

Just for shits and giggles I went and drove a '93 County Range Rover LWB today. It surely is built like a bank vault...very solid and very impressive. Had the spring/shock conversion, and it handled beautifully on slightly oversize tyres.

The thing is, I'm not a great gangling tall fellow, I'm only 6-1 but with a rather long torso...but DAMN I couldn't sit upright in the thing! I put the seat in its lowest position and STILL had to crane my neck sideways to drive!

I was really flabbergasted by this. I haven't driven a car with such poor headroom since the inlaws' old MGB convertible. Is this something that people just don't talk about? Is it Rover's awful secret? Did the owner of this car secretly have a phone book hidden in the seat cushion? Inquiring minds want to know.

You are correct, Range Rovers don't have a lot of headroom. I'm 6'2" and I've found that I have to slide down in the seats a little to fit. After driving a few miles it feels like the seats were designed to be used this way and it's quite comfortable, but that could just be wear from the previous owners doing the same thing. It's definitely not a vehicle for hat wearers. I don't know why they would design the vehicle this way. My only theory is that the seats were raised when they started becoming popular for soccer moms. I haven't had the chance to sit in an early version to see if they were any different though.

Having said that, I got used to it after the first couple days of ownership and no longer even notice the lack of headroom.

[modrover]

Originally Posted by Sabre

Just for shits and giggles I went and drove a '93 County Range Rover LWB today. It surely is built like a bank vault...very solid and very impressive. Had the spring/shock conversion, and it handled beautifully on slightly oversize tyres.

The thing is, I'm not a great gangling tall fellow, I'm only 6-1 but with a rather long torso...but DAMN I couldn't sit upright in the thing! I put the seat in its lowest position and STILL had to crane my neck sideways to drive!

I was really flabbergasted by this. I haven't driven a car with such poor headroom since the inlaws' old MGB convertible. Is this something that people just don't talk about? Is it Rover's awful secret? Did the owner of this car secretly have a phone book hidden in the seat cushion? Inquiring minds want to know.

You're not far off. The biggest problem has been with the moon roof intrusion into the cab. The earlier Rangies didn't have those and that wasn't so much an issue. Thicker headliners with more "molded" curves and things just further reduced the clearance (the molded headliner with the moon roof comes down quite a bit). Go try a RR without a moon roof and see if what you think. I bet you'll notice a big difference. I personally don't care for moon roofs in Land Rovers. I don't like glass above my head in my off-road rig.

This reminds me... an article of the release of the Disco some time ago. Talked about the Rover group addressing many complaints about the RR with that model. Additional seating, easier access to gear (one big door as opposed to liftgate/tailgate... folks didn't like getting their moleskin slacks dirty when trying to load items in/out of the back ), more internal storage (by getting that spare out of the back storage area and outside on the rear door), and it was mentioned... more head room overall. My '96 Disco SD has more headroom than our old '88 RR (both have moon roofs), but about the same headroom as our old '81 2-door RR. My guess then... if you need the additional headroom... get a Disco without the moon roofs and you'll have that 10 gallon hat clearance... well... maybe not quite that.

[jensht]

Originally Posted by Doc.Snyder

Yeah, those are italian Defenders.

The only LR The Bundeswehr uses is this one and a civil looking version for Range Control.

The German Border Guards use LR Discovery2, though.

The Bundeswehr calls those Vehicles 'hümS'. Stock vehicles w. special mil. upgrades.

Such a shame, Germany should be using G-Wagens.

[Mercury264]

Originally Posted by jensht

Such a shame, Germany should be using G-Wagens.

Clearly, they're not good enough

Please feel free to start your own G-Wagen thread

[Doc.Snyder]

Originally Posted by jensht

Such a shame, Germany should be using G-Wagens.

Tun sie doch. Im KSK, als auch im Heer.

KSK:




Heer: