RRC: LWB vs SWB
- Thread starter reece146
- Start date
Douglas S.
Adventurer
I prefer the looks of the SWB over the LWB, but I would much rather have the 4.2 than the 3.9.
Ended up with a SWB, but managed to skip the 3.9.
Ended up with a SWB, but managed to skip the 3.9.
m3 bavaria
Adventurer
Does the 4.2 make that much of a difference?
Douglas S.
Adventurer
I've only test driven a 4.2, ours has a 5.0L.
Scott Brady
Founder
big fan of the LWB. 109" is about perfect for most trails, and it is really not that long when compared with other trucks.
FZJ80= 112"
Jeep Unlimited Rubicon= 117"
The benefit of the shorter wheelbase would only be realized in very narrow trails. Climbing and overall stability benefits from the longer wheelbase, as does high-speed dirt road stability.
I digg it
FZJ80= 112"
Jeep Unlimited Rubicon= 117"
The benefit of the shorter wheelbase would only be realized in very narrow trails. Climbing and overall stability benefits from the longer wheelbase, as does high-speed dirt road stability.
I digg it
big fan of the LWB. 109" is about perfect for most trails, and it is really not that long when compared with other trucks.
FZJ80= 112"
Jeep Unlimited Rubicon= 117"
The benefit of the shorter wheelbase would only be realized in very narrow trails. Climbing and overall stability benefits from the longer wheelbase, as does high-speed dirt road stability.
I digg it
yeah, but the rear door looks strange. Hahahaha!
The SWB is a mutha to get into the back for me at 6'3" and 195lbs. but my kids love it. The LWB shines when you have rear passengers who are riding with you, the word 'Limo' comes up a lot.
Off road, I've only ever had SWB's my current one is prolly 102 or 103" WB as it sits and I love it.
If my wife wold put up with maintenance downtime I'd have a stock EAS 1995 LWB in a heartbeat. But the kids wold be wrapped in saran wrap from feet to shoulders and would not be offered a complimentary beverage or Grey Poupon!
My 13 pence
Viggen
Just here...
SWB all day long.
1) Cosmetics: That rear door looks goofy as hell.
2) Interior space is actually not that advantageous. ALL of the room was added to the rear seat. The cargo room was not increased at all and there is no folding the rear seat down to extend the cargo room as there will just be 8" in front of the rear seat. The stretch was half arsed at best. If you have a few moments, look at the regulator of the rear doors. Youll notice that instead of making a solid piece for the window lift, they took the normal one and riveted an 8" section in the middle to make it work.
3) Too long (for East Coast at least) but that varies from area to area.
4) I would never use it as Im sitting in the front seat so why does 8" of rear seat foot room really matter all that much? If it were 4" in the rear seat and 4" of cargo room, my opinion would change.
Yes, break over is worse but you can just lift it higher/ sport bigger rubber to make up for it. For me, a 100" wheelbase is the perfect length. 90 is too short (but super maneuverable) for stability and 108- up (109, 110, 127, 130) strikes me as too long needing a good amount of lift to make the angles that a 100" can. At ROTR last month, watching the 100" Disco vs. the D90s that were there you could immediately see a difference. The 90s were having to flex the rear a lot with around 2 or 3 inches of lift to get around some obstacles. There were many that lifted rears off the ground. A Disco sporting the same lift made it look effortless. The 90s shined in the tight turn arounds where their shortness was an advantage. 90s had to flex, D1s flexed a little bit and D2s dragged their rears (extra overhang) on a few spots. An RRC/ Disco chassis gives you a good amount of cargo room, long enough wheel base for moving through tight trails and is very stable. I would take a couple of inches of width over a couple inches of length.
1) Cosmetics: That rear door looks goofy as hell.
2) Interior space is actually not that advantageous. ALL of the room was added to the rear seat. The cargo room was not increased at all and there is no folding the rear seat down to extend the cargo room as there will just be 8" in front of the rear seat. The stretch was half arsed at best. If you have a few moments, look at the regulator of the rear doors. Youll notice that instead of making a solid piece for the window lift, they took the normal one and riveted an 8" section in the middle to make it work.
3) Too long (for East Coast at least) but that varies from area to area.
4) I would never use it as Im sitting in the front seat so why does 8" of rear seat foot room really matter all that much? If it were 4" in the rear seat and 4" of cargo room, my opinion would change.
Yes, break over is worse but you can just lift it higher/ sport bigger rubber to make up for it. For me, a 100" wheelbase is the perfect length. 90 is too short (but super maneuverable) for stability and 108- up (109, 110, 127, 130) strikes me as too long needing a good amount of lift to make the angles that a 100" can. At ROTR last month, watching the 100" Disco vs. the D90s that were there you could immediately see a difference. The 90s were having to flex the rear a lot with around 2 or 3 inches of lift to get around some obstacles. There were many that lifted rears off the ground. A Disco sporting the same lift made it look effortless. The 90s shined in the tight turn arounds where their shortness was an advantage. 90s had to flex, D1s flexed a little bit and D2s dragged their rears (extra overhang) on a few spots. An RRC/ Disco chassis gives you a good amount of cargo room, long enough wheel base for moving through tight trails and is very stable. I would take a couple of inches of width over a couple inches of length.
Last edited:
Maryland 110
Adventurer
this is a matter of personal preference but if you are tall @ all, there is no leg room in the back seat with the front seat moved back in a swb classic. Additionally the small doors on the back of the swb are really hard to deal with-try putting a mid sized box in the truck through them, or an adult over 6 feet tall. The lwb fix is great. The lwb 2nd row doors do look a bit off when down low on stock 205 skinny tires but when you lift the truck and put 33's on them they look great and the proportions work well. Having had a couple of each I'd buy a rust free lwb again in a second. And yes the 4.2 does make a big difference. A lot of the comments above have to do with a hard core weeling perspective. As someone with 30 yrs off road experience I find that 95% of my time is spent on the road. And with that as a given the lwb does that better. Yes longer wheel bases add departure and turning radius issues but in the right hands an lwb will go places a less experienced driver can't get a 90. I have driven a 130 trough a trail where the 2 disco's ahead of me both sustained body damage and broken glass.
It's an additional challenge that I personally enjoy.
It's an additional challenge that I personally enjoy.
Last edited:
I would think that an SWB should look better on paper due to break over angle and perhaps turning radius. I think where the LWB would shine is on road, towing anything and also snow. I drive LWB, but if I had a choice for pure offroad ability it would likely be a '88 or earlier SWB with a newer 4.6.
I do think that you can notice 4.2 vs. 3.9.
I do think that you can notice 4.2 vs. 3.9.
ini88
Adventurer
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.
The 3.9 isn't bad in the SWB. You can also plug in a 4.2 ECU to give it a little modification to run better. Never driven the 4.2 but I hear they are great except for the cam being weak and suspect to breaking... but then again its a rover so anything can go!
Depends on your type of wheeling. SWB for east coast, tight stuff. LWB for west coast, way more room to travel.
The 3.9 isn't bad in the SWB. You can also plug in a 4.2 ECU to give it a little modification to run better. Never driven the 4.2 but I hear they are great except for the cam being weak and suspect to breaking... but then again its a rover so anything can go!
Viggen
Just here...
Really? Im sure that the wide open spaces of the West coast (with the exception of some of N. Ca and Wa) resemble the rocks, mud, roots, dense woods of the East coast perfectly. For me, no matter the lift, the LWB just looks goofy. I thought about one but dont see the point. Im driving, never in the back seat so the added room only in the footwell is pointless. If only it was 8" of cargo space behind the rear seat or maybe a split between the two.
ini88
Adventurer
Well technically its all a bunch of crap then. It's 8 inches. It really doesn't matter in the end. If you want your passengers to have lots of leg room in the back get the LWB. I have a dog, he sits in the front, so my SWB is great.
Last edited:
Snagger
Explorer
I have never liked the aesthetics of the LSE (LWB), and much prefer the standard 100 wheel base. Off road, the 100" is ideal, while the LSE would have turning and breakover issues on more complicated tracks. The extra weight would also be a problem for me - I use a 300Tdi for decent fuel economy, buy its performance is hardly blistering. The 4.2 V8 will cope with the weight admirably, but you'll pay for it at the pumps.
The other thing that put me off the LSE is spares availability - these vehicles have been obsolete for 15 years already, and the LSE is pretty rare by comparison to the standard size vehicle, so any rear door or trim parts like carpets or head linings are going to be like rocking horse poo.
For all that, if you're regularly going to need the second row for adults, the LSE is worth serious consideration - the legroom in the rear of a standard RRC is pitiful.
The other thing that put me off the LSE is spares availability - these vehicles have been obsolete for 15 years already, and the LSE is pretty rare by comparison to the standard size vehicle, so any rear door or trim parts like carpets or head linings are going to be like rocking horse poo.
For all that, if you're regularly going to need the second row for adults, the LSE is worth serious consideration - the legroom in the rear of a standard RRC is pitiful.
The LWB is a pretty sweet vehicle. If I were to buy another LR for more leisurely stuff like just forest roads for camping and fishing, I'd get a LWB. That being said, they are at a disadvantage on tight 4x4 trails here in WA. I've been on a few trips with LWBs and they have a much tougher time on the tight tree filled trails.
One big advantage of having that extra space being in the second row is that children wont be able to kick your seat.
One big advantage of having that extra space being in the second row is that children wont be able to kick your seat.
Similar threads
