Need good tow vehicle - 110/RR?

Hi all again

I mistakenly sold my 1984 110V8CSW as it needed some work doing,
px'ing it for a Jeep Cherokee 4l '97 facelift. The Jeeps a nice car
but it won't tow the mobile espresso trailer, which weighs 2 tons. It
has the power, but snakes at anything over 45mph, even after fitting a
stabiliser hitch. I realised this within two days of buying the Jeep,
and called the dealer to see if the Landrover was still around, but
alas, it had sold. Someone got a great bargain - they gave me £1500
and sold it for the same.

Anyway, a friend of mine has an old RR3.5 carb in rather good
condition for the year. It's an '86 which passes it's MOT each year
without fail so far (he's had the car for at least the last 6 years),
has virtually no rust that I can see (but I've yet to inspect the
vehicle really closely) - only the slightest of rust appearing on the
tailgate. I don't think the headlining is sagging either. It's done
less than 50k miles (MOT's to prove) and will be for sale soon for
around £800.

I see that I can get a later (89/90) RR for the same money, but with
higher mileage and often worse condition. Is there any reason why I
should go for a later model if I end up getting a RR? Will the RR tow
my trailer as well as the 110 did? Is a diesel RR any good?

110's seem to be very expensive (I really did let mine go for too
little). I don't know whether to go for an older RR like the one
above, or just splash out around £6k for whatever that will get me in
either a 110, RR, Toyota Surf or even better, the 3.1TD Isuzu Trooper.

I do virtually no offroading if this makes a difference - I just need
a heavy tow vehicle that can tow over two tons...

--
Regards,
Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.dannyscoffee.com (UK advert for my mobile espresso service)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/European online ordering for Malabar
Gold blend)
swap Z for above characters in email address to reply

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:57:56 +0100, Danny
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I see that I can get a later (89/90) RR for the same money, but with
>higher mileage and often worse condition. Is there any reason why I
>should go for a later model if I end up getting a RR? Will the RR tow
>my trailer as well as the 110 did? Is a diesel RR any good?

As a data point.

My 86 efi RR tows our 2 tonne boat BEAUTIFULLY. Very stable, no
snaking etc.

She does have to work hard up long hills, a little more power would be
useful (but my engine is definately tired). A 3.5 on carbs is a lower
compression engine with a little less grunt than an efi.

3.5 seems to be the most reliable V8 all the bigger versions (3.9,
4.0, 4.6) can have problems with slipping liners, porous blocks etc.

Personally, I wouldn't want the complication of air suspension on a
classic.

Diesel classics have a reputation for being a little gutless, but no
personal experience.

HTH

David

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 08:57:56 +0100, Danny
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I mistakenly sold my 1984 110V8CSW as it needed some work doing,
>px'ing it for a Jeep Cherokee 4l '97 facelift. The Jeeps a nice car
>but it won't tow the mobile espresso trailer, which weighs 2 tons. It
>has the power, but snakes at anything over 45mph, even after fitting a
>stabiliser hitch. I realised this within two days of buying the Jeep,
>and called the dealer to see if the Landrover was still around, but
>alas, it had sold. Someone got a great bargain - they gave me £1500
>and sold it for the same.
>
>Anyway, a friend of mine has an old RR3.5 carb in rather good
>condition for the year. It's an '86 which passes it's MOT each year
>without fail so far (he's had the car for at least the last 6 years),
>has virtually no rust that I can see (but I've yet to inspect the
>vehicle really closely) - only the slightest of rust appearing on the
>tailgate. I don't think the headlining is sagging either. It's done
>less than 50k miles (MOT's to prove) and will be for sale soon for
>around £800.



OK:

I have a large 2-axle trailer (about 18' LOA) which can and does sometimes
carry a disco or 110. Behind the 110 it wasn't too bad provided you got the
balance right and the rear tyre pressures suitable (too much noseweight made
it unstable, ditto normal pressure in the rear vehicle tyres; they needed
upping a bit)

It's very much less stable behind the disco. Not unbearably so, but loaded
it's not really safe over 40 mph, and can still wander a bit even then. I
put this sown to the shorter wheelbase and softer springing on the disco,
which might well be the same effect you have on the J**p.

Behind my disco, which has stiffer-than-standard springs, it's better
behaved, which kind of points to the same thing. I've not yet got a towbar
on the recently-acquired minibus, so can't comment on how stable that is for
towing it.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:57:56 +0100, Danny
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi all again
>
>I mistakenly sold my 1984 110V8CSW as it needed some work doing,
>px'ing it for a Jeep Cherokee 4l '97 facelift. The Jeeps a nice car
>but it won't tow the mobile espresso trailer, which weighs 2 tons. It
>has the power, but snakes at anything over 45mph, even after fitting a
>stabiliser hitch. I realised this within two days of buying the Jeep,
>and called the dealer to see if the Landrover was still around, but
>alas, it had sold. Someone got a great bargain - they gave me £1500
>and sold it for the same.
>
>Anyway, a friend of mine has an old RR3.5 carb in rather good
>condition for the year. It's an '86 which passes it's MOT each year
>without fail so far (he's had the car for at least the last 6 years),
>has virtually no rust that I can see (but I've yet to inspect the
>vehicle really closely) - only the slightest of rust appearing on the
>tailgate. I don't think the headlining is sagging either. It's done
>less than 50k miles (MOT's to prove) and will be for sale soon for
>around £800.
>
>I see that I can get a later (89/90) RR for the same money, but with
>higher mileage and often worse condition. Is there any reason why I
>should go for a later model if I end up getting a RR? Will the RR tow
>my trailer as well as the 110 did? Is a diesel RR any good?
>
>110's seem to be very expensive (I really did let mine go for too
>little). I don't know whether to go for an older RR like the one
>above, or just splash out around £6k for whatever that will get me in
>either a 110, RR, Toyota Surf or even better, the 3.1TD Isuzu Trooper.
>
>I do virtually no offroading if this makes a difference - I just need
>a heavy tow vehicle that can tow over two tons...

Get rid of the Jeep before you blow up the back axle. It will happen.

Do you really want your business relying on a 19yr old Rangie?

The Discovery is a fantastic towcar. Go to a gymkhana and count how
may are attached to horseboxes.

For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Colonel Tupperware wrote:

>
> Get rid of the Jeep before you blow up the back axle. It will happen.

Thanks for the info - why is that?

>
> Do you really want your business relying on a 19yr old Rangie?

I don't know - my 1984 110 never let me down apart from a clutch
cyclinder, which could have happened to any car.

The way things are going with the anti-4x4 brigade, we'll soon be
taxed out of existance, although I need a large heavy vehicle. I'll
probably end up with a Transit or a pre-74 landrover

>
> The Discovery is a fantastic towcar. Go to a gymkhana and count how
> may are attached to horseboxes.
>
> For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
> not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
> much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.

Will look at them more closely. I always thought that a LWB was
better for towing, as long as there wasn't much rear overhang?


--
Regards,
Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.dannyscoffee.com (UK advert for my mobile espresso service)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/European online ordering for Malabar
Gold blend)
swap Z for above characters in email address to reply

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 10:27:37 +0100, Colonel Tupperware
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
>not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
>much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.

why, exactly?

shorter wheelbase makes it more manoeuverable, but longer rear overhang
(typical on longer motors) makes it easier to reverse.

IME, the disco as standard doesn't tow my big trailer as well as the 110
did, as detailed in my other post.

'tis a fact that most of the farmers use 90s, around here at least.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
Robert Frost (1874-1963) from Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

In message <[email protected]>, Colonel
Tupperware <[email protected]> writes
>On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:57:56 +0100, Danny
>For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
>not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
>much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.
>



Sorry you could not be more wrong .

A short wheel base may be better for manovering but does nothing for
stability .

The best bet is a LWB with a short rear overhang.

I tow lots of trailers with lots of different landrovers.

3500kg behind a 90 is not nice (you have to get everything spot on to
stop the tail wagging the dog) but behind a Disco, RR or 110 is fine.

You will struggle to beat a used Disco for value for money at the
moment.
--
Marc Draper

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 13:39:34 +0100, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Sorry you could not be more wrong .
>
>A short wheel base may be better for manovering but does nothing for
>stability .
>
>The best bet is a LWB with a short rear overhang.

this might be the problem with the disco vs. the 110: the ratio between rear
overhang and wheelbase is much higher on the disco; i.e. it has more
overhang and less wheelbase. Found the 110 an excellent tow truck, in fact.

>You will struggle to beat a used Disco for value for money at the
>moment.

I'd agree there.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength
and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by
telephoning the police
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>this might be the problem with the disco vs. the 110: the ratio between rear
>overhang and wheelbase is much higher on the disco; i.e. it has more
>overhang and less wheelbase. Found the 110 an excellent tow truck, in fact.
>
>>You will struggle to beat a used Disco for value for money at the
>>moment.
>
>I'd agree there.


It is all really down to very simple physics really.

A longer rear overhang gives the trailer more leverage on the tow
vehicle. (ie it can influence the stability of the tow vehicle more)

As an independent LR specialist it does pain me to say that I feel the
best tow barge I have ever driven was a 1995 Toyota Landcruiser VX. The
4.2TD and the length/weight make it superb.



--
Marc Draper

"Colonel Tupperware" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news[email protected]

<snip>

> Do you really want your business relying on a 19yr old Rangie?

My Ruster (3.5V8/4spd/LPG) is 23yrs old and never lets me down, after I
ripped all the electrics out and replaced it with new, custom made
looms, that is. Apart from that, it tows anything but the Eiffel Tower.
I once had a "snake" on a pretty bad road but then again I was towing
well over five tonnes on the ground at that particular moment. You won't
beat an XR3i at the traffic lights either, but hey...

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:04:37 +0100, Danny
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Colonel Tupperware wrote:
>
>>
>> Get rid of the Jeep before you blow up the back axle. It will happen.
>
>Thanks for the info - why is that?
>
>>
Its merkin. Its not really designed to do much in the way of high
speed (over 55), its got mis-matched mexican and canadian bearings in
and it doesnt hold enough oil.

>>
>> For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
>> not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
>> much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.
>
>Will look at them more closely. I always thought that a LWB was
>better for towing, as long as there wasn't much rear overhang?

Obviously a difference of opinion here. My main thoughts were for
manouvering, but towing with a 109" series 3 was no where near as
stable as with an 88" air portable.
My Disco tows superbly, I've had about 3 tonnes on the hook.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Colonel Tupperware wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:04:37 +0100, Danny
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Colonel Tupperware wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Get rid of the Jeep before you blow up the back axle. It will happen.
>>
>>Thanks for the info - why is that?
>>
>>
> Its merkin. Its not really designed to do much in the way of high
> speed (over 55), its got mis-matched mexican and canadian bearings in
> and it doesnt hold enough oil.

OK. I tow at 50mph max, and only for a few miles each day. I don't
plan on keeping it anyway since I mis my big 110.


> Obviously a difference of opinion here. My main thoughts were for
> manouvering, but towing with a 109" series 3 was no where near as
> stable as with an 88" air portable.
> My Disco tows superbly, I've had about 3 tonnes on the hook.
>

I towed my trailer with both a 110 and a 90. The 110 was better
(partly due to it being heavier). I preferred the length of the 110
wrt tail wagging dog scenario, although I understand that a shorter
vehicle is easier for manuvreability.



--
Regards,
Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.dannyscoffee.com (UK advert for my mobile espresso service)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/European online ordering for Malabar
Gold blend)
swap Z for above characters in email address to reply

On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:39:34 +0100, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Colonel
>Tupperware <[email protected]> writes
>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:57:56 +0100, Danny
>>For a towcar you need as short a wheel base as possible, so a 110 is
>>not as good as a Disco or RR, and a 90 is better, but Defenders are so
>>much more expensive than Discos, and more drafty.
>>
>
>
>
>Sorry you could not be more wrong .
>
>A short wheel base may be better for manovering but does nothing for
>stability .

Its probably got more to do with the relative lengths. I prefer short
tractor and long trailer.
>
>The best bet is a LWB with a short rear overhang.

Each to his own.
>
>I tow lots of trailers with lots of different landrovers.

So, Williams or James for a car transporter?
>
>3500kg behind a 90 is not nice (you have to get everything spot on to
>stop the tail wagging the dog) but behind a Disco, RR or 110 is fine.
>
It does depend on the trailer, I've had horrible times with LWB SIII,
but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.

>You will struggle to beat a used Disco for value for money at the
>moment.
That was my main drift.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

In message <[email protected]>, Colonel
Tupperware <[email protected]> writes



>>I tow lots of trailers with lots of different landrovers.
>
>So, Williams or James for a car transporter?
>>


My Ifor is now a year old and it has been great. The only reason I chose
that is because I wanted a tiltbed with a solid floor and no lip on the
sides (for loading with a forklift). And they were the only people who
made one at the time. Now I see Bateson make one. I would thoroughly
recommend the car transporters that Bateson make as they are a pure
dream to tow.

Brian James ??? everything is bolted together. After a few years of
heavy use the bolts work loose or the holes crack. They should sell them
flat pack for DIY builds ;-)


>>3500kg behind a 90 is not nice (you have to get everything spot on to
>>stop the tail wagging the dog) but behind a Disco, RR or 110 is fine.
>>
>It does depend on the trailer, I've had horrible times with LWB SIII,
>but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.

You are using vehicles that are at least 20 years old !!!! They don't
drive the same from one day to the next ! so hardly a fair comparison.
--
Marc Draper

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:33:20 +0100, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> wrote:

with LWB SIII,
>>but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.
>
>You are using vehicles that are at least 20 years old !!!! They don't
>drive the same from one day to the next ! so hardly a fair comparison.

They weren't 20 years old then. They were new. I haven't driven a
series 'rover since 1986 when I got issued with a brand new 90 diesel.
Fantastic it was, we could keep up with our trucks (Bedford TM 8 tonne
4x4) instead of them waiting for the Landies.
Series 'rovers were ok when we had AEC 10 tonners with a top speed of
32mph but the new Turbo'd TMs would out drag a loaded 3/4 tonne FFR
any day.
I'd love to get my hands on a Wolf.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:33:20 +0100, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>
>>>3500kg behind a 90 is not nice (you have to get everything spot on to
>>>stop the tail wagging the dog) but behind a Disco, RR or 110 is fine.
>>>
>>It does depend on the trailer, I've had horrible times with LWB SIII,
>>but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.
>
>You are using vehicles that are at least 20 years old !!!! They don't
>drive the same from one day to the next ! so hardly a fair comparison.

This is how to tow properly
http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=12932910

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Marc Draper wrote:

> As an independent LR specialist it does pain me to say that I feel the
> best tow barge I have ever driven was a 1995 Toyota Landcruiser VX. The
> 4.2TD and the length/weight make it superb.

Having recently towed a racecar and full collection of spare parts
several hundred miles behind a VX Cruiser I'll second your comments - it
was one of the quickest and most relaxed trips of that type I have ever
done.


--
EMB

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 18:41:35 +0100, Colonel Tupperware
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>So, Williams or James for a car transporter?

I've a swedish-built ex-NATO thing. It's heavy and the military rate it
only to 1500Kg, but it's quite happy to carry 2 tonne vehicles. Trailer
itself is just over a tonne.

only real drawback is the height off the deck, although it's never going to
ground on anything, and the overall width, which is over 8' - I think, in
fact, it's 2.55m or thereabouts, which is the standard maximum width for
lorries in the UK, and maybe in the EU. That and the NATO hitch, which
requires a modified hitch for "normal" vehicles; on the 110 you can just
bolt it to the crossmember.

Next trick is to work out how to fit my adjustable hitch, which the NATO
adapter I made fits, to the minibus.

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 18:41:35 +0100, Colonel Tupperware
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>So, Williams or James for a car transporter?
>
> I've a swedish-built ex-NATO thing. It's heavy and the military rate
> it
> only to 1500Kg, but it's quite happy to carry 2 tonne vehicles.
> Trailer
> itself is just over a tonne.
>
> only real drawback is the height off the deck, although it's never
> going to
> ground on anything,

I like a low deck height for three reasons:

Easier loading - especially for cars with spoilers

Lower c of g, for stability

Less risk of hitting low bridges when you're carrying something odd,
like the WW2 German truck I fetched recently.


> and the overall width, which is over 8' - I think, in
> fact, it's 2.55m or thereabouts, which is the standard maximum width
> for
> lorries in the UK, and maybe in the EU.

and means that, strictly, it's too wide to be towed by a anything under
3500kg. 7'6". or whatever that is in these newfangled millimetre
things, is your limit.

That and the NATO hitch, which
> requires a modified hitch for "normal" vehicles; on the 110 you can
> just
> bolt it to the crossmember.

I'm comforted by the knowledge that if, heaven forfend, the Rangey fails
to proceed when far from home, I could retrieve the trailer with either
a hired van or the good lady's Rover. Try asking the Archduke Hertz van
Rental for something with a NATO hitch...

I'll second Marc's comment about how well the Bateson tiltbed tows.
It's very stable, loaded or empty, and I do find the low sides give
added comfort that the load can't move far. My grouses are the
inadequate securing points, the vulnerable number plate lamp, and the
poor design of the suspension units. The first Avonrides only lasted
three years, and the replacements that Bateson sold me very soon settled
so far that I've had to make packings to fit between the suspension
units and the chassis to give me any wheel arch clearance.

I like the look of the Ifor Williams CT177 - taperleaf springs, and some
nice touches like an offsettable winch, but rather expensive-sounding
tyres (155/70R12,104N).

Getting back to the original question - I find the 200tdi auto Rangey is
OK for towing in terms of stability, but underpowered. 50mile/h flat
out on motorway hills with 2.5 tons behind you really isn't enough if
you're doing it at all regularly. Perhaps I should consider the Land
Cruiser, but, like the Rangey, it seems such a waste lugging all that
off-road capability around just to get something that has the magic
"3500kg" figure in its handbook, when so many ordinary cars have just as
much torque available.

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 21:30:46 +0100, Colonel Tupperware
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:33:20 +0100, Marc Draper
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>3500kg behind a 90 is not nice (you have to get everything spot on to
>>>>stop the tail wagging the dog) but behind a Disco, RR or 110 is fine.
>>>>
>>>It does depend on the trailer, I've had horrible times with LWB SIII,
>>>but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.
>>
>>You are using vehicles that are at least 20 years old !!!! They don't
>>drive the same from one day to the next ! so hardly a fair comparison.
>
>This is how to tow properly
>http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=12932910

always fancied a shot at making one of them. Unfortunately, it tends to
detract a bit from other use of the tractor.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)