Older Land Rovers (1 Viewer)

[JungleBiker]

I agree with leafsprung:

had dozens of rovers and half a dozen 40 series cruisers. Each has their own advantages. The rover is easier to work on, it is more modular with multiple options for different tops and configurations on a single vehicle, it has a more rigid frame, is less top heavy, has stronger hubs, knuckles, lugs, and has a far stronger t-case than the cruiser and better gearing, parts availability is very good and the documentation (parts catalogs and manuals) is far better than the fjs. I love the flat floors that just sweep out and the doors that split in half from the factory. The cruiser typically has stronger axles (although the optional salsbury and ENV axle for the rover are stronger than the cruiser units), more powerful engine and trans, less prone to rattles, a more rigid body, more mechanical refinements over the course of production, and longer front springs, aftermarket parts are more readily available for the cruiser. They are both worthy vehicles I tend to prefer the rover but I have a soft spot for the cruiser as well.

My experiences and observations have been very similar. LR's are definitely slow, though. For what I do with them, (all dirt/gravel roads, short distances, not very heavy loads usually), that isn't a problem. Oh, they are a bit cramped for big guys--I'm 6'2" and it's a pretty tight fit for me--the 109's are a lot better in this regard, as they don't have a bulkhead behind the front seats like an 88" does. Still, I like my 88's enough to live with the cramped cab, especially since I don't drive very far with them.

 

[Yamabalu]

Did a restoration on a '74 Series III a few years ago. The painter broke a half shaft moving it into his shop for final buffing. As sputnik said, you can wheel much harder in a 40.
View attachment 297312View attachment 297313View attachment 297314

this is a beautiful piece of machine