RRC: LWB vs SWB

[seashore]

I've recently begun modifying my LWB after 8 years in a disco. With 3 kids the disco was just too small. With the exception of the rear drive shaft and brake lines I just transferred all the 3" running gear over to the LWB and hit the trails. I definitely noticed the differences brought on by changes geometry, never mind the whine of the BW transfer case.

the 4.2 was notably better than the 4.0 in my 96 when stock, and although it suffers a bit now on 33" tires it is still adequate.

All that said, I absolutely loved wheeling the 100" wheelbase discovery.

 

[REDROVER]

LWB usualy means later model rrc and leter model means more problem in land rover world

+ all that LWB idea doesnt help any ways if u use the truck for camping. that L means extra leg room no extra cargo room over SWB.

i prefer early model SWB

 

[cabell]

I've owned both. The SWB looks better, the LWB is easier to live with. They are both great trucks, but I really liked the 4.2 in my LWB; it was downright peppy by land rover standards.

 

[4Rescue]

SWB look nice on stock wheels while the LWB looks a bit odd. When you put the LWB on 31/33" tires or larger it is hard to tell the difference between the two at first glance. The proportions fill out nice.

Depends on your type of wheeling. SWB for east coast, tight stuff. LWB for west coast, way more room to travel

A) I agree the above statement, the LWB looks very odd with stock/small tires. Personaly, me???: I'm IN LOVE with the 2dr RR and the old 1st Gen's (not that that has anything to do with this thread but hey, I'm me )

B) You mean the SW ....the NW and really central CA on up to Canada) will REALLY teach you what wet tight and steep IS. the east is rockier, I'll give you that, but the NW is something EVERY true 4wd enthusiast should try their hand at.

...(with the exception of some of N. Ca and Wa) ...

DUde...how can you go from Ncal to WA WITHOUT going through Oregon??? Oh and we've got Idaho and BC/Alberta... Sorry mate, I'm a West-coast guy and yeah, I've wheeled in the NE...

Back on TOPIC: I really am sad to hear that with 8" of added room in the back seat, you can't fold down the seat to make more cargo room... That just sounds like a BAD design idea. Is there any (reasonable) way to convert to a foldable back seat??? All this talk of getting into the tight back doors of a RRC SWB reminds me of riding in the back of my dad's XJ Cherokee... Those things really shouldn't be called 4dr vehicles either, forget riding long distances back there. I imagine the RRC SWB being very similar in this restect

Cheers

DAve

 

[Viggen]

DUde...how can you go from Ncal to WA WITHOUT going through Oregon??? Oh and we've got Idaho and BC/Alberta... Sorry mate, I'm a West-coast guy and yeah, I've wheeled in the NE...

Back on TOPIC: I really am sad to hear that with 8" of added room in the back seat, you can't fold down the seat to make more cargo room... That just sounds like a BAD design idea. Is there any (reasonable) way to convert to a foldable back seat??? All this talk of getting into the tight back doors of a RRC SWB reminds me of riding in the back of my dad's XJ Cherokee... Those things really shouldn't be called 4dr vehicles either, forget riding long distances back there. I imagine the RRC SWB being very similar in this restect

Cheers

DAve

Haha, sorry about that. Oh yeah, OREGON too. Better? I dont think that there really is an easy way to make the seats fold completely forward. The seat box that the rear seat is hinged on is an additional 8" away from the back of the front seats. They would need some sort of slider arrangement to move forward enough to actually expand the cargo area when the seat is folded.

I remember my XJ and the back seat was comical. Im 6'4" and trying to get into the back seat was a dive in head first and lay out on the back seat and then pull your feet in kind of thing. It had zero room in the back. Getting into the back of an RRC or D1 is MUCH easier. Not to mention the headroom being more spacious.

 

[Snagger]

I've recently begun modifying my LWB after 8 years in a disco. With 3 kids the disco was just too small. With the exception of the rear drive shaft and brake lines I just transferred all the 3" running gear over to the LWB and hit the trails. I definitely noticed the differences brought on by changes geometry, never mind the whine of the BW transfer case.

the 4.2 was notably better than the 4.0 in my 96 when stock, and although it suffers a bit now on 33" tires it is still adequate.

All that said, I absolutely loved wheeling the 100" wheelbase discovery.

You must have a faulty unit - the LT230 whines as standard, and the LT230Q had finer toothed gears to quieten it down, but the Borg Warner unit should be virtually silent. That's one of the primary reasons it was used on the flagship model.

 

[Mike_rupp]

Back on TOPIC: I really am sad to hear that with 8" of added room in the back seat, you can't fold down the seat to make more cargo room... That just sounds like a BAD design idea.

Cargo space wasn't a consideration. Rear leg room was the primary consideration when designing the LWB. Keep in mind that the RR wasn't intended to be a loaded to the gills, overlanding vehicle. It was a luxury vehicle that would go offroad. The LWB just takes the luxury up a bit. Think of it as a limousine RRC.

 

[seashore]

You must have a faulty unit - the LT230 whines as standard, and the LT230Q had finer toothed gears to quieten it down, but the Borg Warner unit should be virtually silent. That's one of the primary reasons it was used on the flagship model.

only whines when engaging the viscous unit. on the road is MUCH quieter than the LT230.

I'm considering an LT230Q with CDL for this truck, since it is a matter of IF, not WHEN the Borg Warner will fail. Now to find one with 1.4 gears.....

 

[majornerd]

As a recent convert from a Disco I to RRC LWB - I will not be going back at all. The Vehicle was given to my wife after her Wrangler started having issues and was jettisoned. It will not be an off-road build (at this point I am thinking I like the P38 for me) but rather a main family vehicle and maybe a camp vehicle at most. The comfort, room and power of the LWB over the Disco is amazing. No 9 year old kicking my seat, adults can fit in the back seat. Acceleration that is not TERRIBLE!!! Although my Disco was great with standard height and wheels (manual trans was so much better than a slushbox) when I upgraded to 32" tyres the engine could no longer be described as peppy.

Count one for never going back - very happy.

 

[David Harris]

only whines when engaging the viscous unit. on the road is MUCH quieter than the LT230.

I'm considering an LT230Q with CDL for this truck, since it is a matter of IF, not WHEN the Borg Warner will fail. Now to find one with 1.4 gears.....

Forget the LT230 for the RR. Yes, I know a lot of people do it, but why? The Borg Warner so much more fits the character of the RR and is plenty strong for 100K at a shot, same for the viscous. A V8 auto RR with the Borg Warner and some Tru tracs front and rear is a magic combination. It just goes wherever you want it to with smoothness, grace and style, befitting a RR. Anything else and you're just making the RR into a Disco. Fine, but not a RR. :ylsmoke:

 

[ArmyRover]

If the Hunter were available in a LWB thats what Id buy

Bah, the Hunter should only come in SWB it would ruin the character of the truck in LWB.

SWB is the best as it was the only way to get a Hunter Edition:victory:

 

[David Harris]

Bah, the Hunter should only come in SWB it would ruin the character of the truck in LWB.

SWB is the best as it was the only way to get a Hunter Edition:victory:

x2. The only true RR is a SWB RR. The LWB is a different beast and not the same as the legend. Only the SWB RR ended up in the Louvre, 'nough said! (and that's only the aesthetics of the issue!)

David

 

[Thor]

I love the LT230 in my 1992 RR County SWB compared to the Viscous Coupling in my 1995 County SWB.

I know its engaged when I want it engaged and I don't have to slip to make it engage (how it was explained to me, and what it felt like) it feels much more secure on hairy obstacles where feeling sure of your drivetrain really pays off.

IMHO of course.. and I'm not that bright.

 

[DividingCreek]

Most convert to lt230 due to cost considerations and the fact that the 230 is a more rugged unit. When the 15-20yr old borg warner gets worn and needs sprockets, chain, and viscous coupling, a lt230 swap for $250 is an easy decision for most.

 

[4Rescue]

Haha, sorry about that. Oh yeah, OREGON too. Better? I dont think that there really is an easy way to make the seats fold completely forward. The seat box that the rear seat is hinged on is an additional 8" away from the back of the front seats. They would need some sort of slider arrangement to move forward enough to actually expand the cargo area when the seat is folded.

I remember my XJ and the back seat was comical. Im 6'4" and trying to get into the back seat was a dive in head first and lay out on the back seat and then pull your feet in kind of thing. It had zero room in the back. Getting into the back of an RRC or D1 is MUCH easier. Not to mention the headroom being more spacious.

HAHAHAHAHA yas, MUCH better I see what you're talking about, I read your post and then had a look at a friends mom's LWB this weekend...

XJ's... Yeah the rear is "comical" at best, torturous at worst eh. I'm 5'11 and I find it painfull, I can't imagine another 5" of body crammed back there.

Cheers

DAve