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...

Reply to
Danny
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
rads

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.

Reply to
Colonel Tupperware

Thanks for the info - why is that?

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 ;)

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?

Reply to
Danny

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 10:27:37 +0100, Colonel Tupperware enlightened us thusly:

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.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

In message , Colonel Tupperware writes

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.

Reply to
Marc Draper

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 13:39:34 +0100, Marc Draper enlightened us thusly:

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.

I'd agree there.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

In message , Austin Shackles writes

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.
Reply to
Marc Draper

"Colonel Tupperware" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com

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...

Reply to
aghasee

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.

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.

Reply to
Colonel Tupperware

Its probably got more to do with the relative lengths. I prefer short tractor and long trailer.

Each to his own.

So, Williams or James for a car transporter?

It does depend on the trailer, I've had horrible times with LWB SIII, but great with SWB SIII with the same trailer.

That was my main drift.

Reply to
Colonel Tupperware

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.

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.

Reply to
Danny

In message , Colonel Tupperware writes

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 ;-)

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.

Reply to
Marc Draper

with LWB SIII,

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.
Reply to
Colonel Tupperware

This is how to tow properly

formatting link

Reply to
Colonel Tupperware

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.

Reply to
EMB

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 18:41:35 +0100, Colonel Tupperware enlightened us thusly:

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.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

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 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

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.

Reply to
Autolycus

On or around Tue, 31 May 2005 21:30:46 +0100, Colonel Tupperware enlightened us thusly:

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

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:51:50 +0100, "Autolycus" enlightened us thusly:

yeah, silly, ain't it. You can tow it behind a (large) transit, but not behind a 110.

This one's wide mainly 'cos it has cunning rotating axles, so the bed can be lowered to the ground - loading no problem, apart from the fact that the pump for raising the bed again is manually operated... but then again, I

*could* fit a 12V one from a small electric-type tipper, if I thought it was worth it. I could also have had one with it's original pump (which would probably be better than the one I have on it) but it was an extra 500 quid. Mine was 750 plus vat.
Reply to
Austin Shackles

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.