109 v 88

[Old80]

Another vote for the 109" for all of the above reasons plus you can kip in the back full stretch provided your 6' or under.

[DogDave]

88 makes a better car, 109 makes a better van. Probably more people want a car than a van.

But wouldn't let it bother you - said as someone that has a FC and an ambulance- probably the 2 least desirable variants but I'm happy as they are what I wanted

[Richard]

I've owned two 109s, a S3 Stage One and the present S2a, but I've recently test driven two (S3) 88s, the one really good, the other one extremely good. But I still prefer the 109, for shear practicality and the less bumpy drive. I've never had the impression my 109 was less of a classic than an 88. I visited two Land Rover gatherings recently and nobody came up to me and said: "That's a nice 109 you got there, shame it's not an 88". Reading this thread made me aware of the fact that some see something of a class difference?

I try very hard not to be too bothered by what others think. With limited success. But I think human beings have a need for acknowledgement, appreciation, recognition from others for who they are, how they are, for the choices they make, be that the decision to turn away from God, marry someone of the same sex, vote Lib Dem, hate overhopped beer, or drive a 109. So I don't think it's strange people are swayed by what others say or think. (You could fill several libraries on this subject, but I'll stop here )

Richard

[biloxi]

Why are 109 series not as popular or desirable as the 88 series

For the same reason that some people like Brussels sprouts while others prefer spinach.
.W.

[w3526602]

Hi,

From a personal perspective and requirement ....

I am (or was) 70" tall, and Barbara is (or was) 64" tall, but we both had a 29" inside leg measurement. From memory, a 109" Land Rover is 3" higher than an 88". Can any confirm those last comparisons?

I say "or was" as people tend to shrink with age.

Our personal dimensions suggest that my back is 3" longer than Barbara's. There are other factors (that I won't go into here) that affected Barbara's ability to clamber up into a LWB.

Then there was the matter of parking my trucks in my garage,

SWBs could drive or reverse into my garage, but a LWB (with full hard-top) could not be reversed in. My drives (2) had a 1:8 slope, right UP to the entrances into the garages (2).

A not so obvious phenomena meant the the roofs also continued to rise, after entering either garage, until the wheels reached the horizontal garage floor. Not a problem with SWBs, but the rear "hamper" (behind the rear axle) would plough into the up-and-over garage door, with the extra height of the LWB, (due to bigger tyres), not helping things. That could be critical to some owners. I believe the body sits an inch higher on the LWB, as the chassis rail is deeper in section.

Which reminds me of a visit to Olympia, in London, some years ago (LIVING IN FRANCE EXHIBITION). A high-top Transit van had joined the LONG queue between the highway and the entrance to the multi-storey car park. It wasn't until he reached the kiosk, that he realised that his van was too tall.
 
I'll leave you to imagine the chaos of dozens of vehicles having to reverse out of the car park into a busy London High Street, complete with the queue of vehicles behind the queue. 

602


602

[Craig T]

I drove an 88" for years as my daily driver, at the same time I was restoring my 109"
The 109" is a very different thing to drive. Yes, the turning circle isn't quite so good and maybe the steering is heavier due to the larger tyres but once you are moving on the road, it's a far nicer drive.

I would say the number of people coming to look at your vehicle at a show etc will be the same if not slightly more being a 109". They are rarer things maybe due to the increased purchase cost but they still attract attention. There is a local Land Rover show to me each year and all the times I've been I'm probably one of only ten 109" in the show and so far, the only 109" station wagon to have ever arrived.

Being a station wagon and being the only limestone vehicle in a sea of bronze green 88"s, certainly gets a never ending stream of people wanting to talk about it.

109"s are the hidden secret of the series Land Rovers. Owners know they are great but don't tell everyone.... 

Craig.

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

They are rarer things maybe due to the increased purchase cost...

I'm pretty sure that's a myth spouted to align with row-upon-row of wake-me-up if it ever gets exciting DBG 88s.

As my earlier point, back when the 109  was the  seller. Likely most 109 CSW were bought by civvy owners as a family car. The 88 was bought by farmers with a tractor and trailer for all other jobs. The vast bulk of all military LRs were 109, and the utilities bought the 109. Price was not a barrier, quite the opposite. The barrier was 88. It was never practical for the bulk of buyers, hence the 109.

Today it's about which survive. The mindset of today's Series owner dictates they buy an 88 for a toy "It's tool for the job' etc, whereas the bulk of first owners bought a 109.

Originally bought by my grandfather, our 109 was still working as intended by my father 15 odd years back.  With a trailer, a109 does jobs like 'planting-out'. An 88 would be useless.

109"s are the hidden secret of the series Land Rovers.

Agreed.  If you're tall you'll not even get in any 88. A 109 rides nicer, handles better, is more practical. Aside from turning-circle and parking/storing advantages, there's not really good reason  to opt for any 88.

I'll 'fess to this, A 109 IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD, I went into Brent Cross Shopping Centre a few years back. They have a spiral fed multi-storey car-park. Don't get in that spiral-ramp with your 109, you want an 88.
The up spiral is a wider arc than the down.


Don't ask. I'm had therapy.

[Mycroft]

I grew up on/next to farms (and still live on one) and every farmer I knew in the 70s had 88" Landies - my current farmer landlord has a late 90" Defender too.

I personally always hankered after the 88" as a result, but I find that my collies wobble more now when I see an old 109". Maybe it's the Land Rover owners' Land Rover.

Or maybe I've just been scouring eBay too long...

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

Agreed, I don't think I've ever seen farmers of that era with anything but... why would you want a 109 which would have cost more? For that use a 109 makes no sense. Every farmer had an 88, and on market-day, a 109 would be a pain.

[Exile]

107" and 109" Basics were always less common than 88's.

You had to have a need for one and not everyone had that need.

For most of my 55 years as a Land Rover enthusiast, the LWB variant was always less popular.

I have owned LWB versions in all three Series, and they were always cheaper to buy and sold for less than the 88".

This attitude has only changed in more recent years, as people have come to appreciate the longer vehicle.

For instance Series One 107" Station Wagons were considered "ugly" for years.  Now they are one of the most sought after Series Ones - and considered beautiful!

Fashions change - and will continue to change.

For instance, with the early-sliding window One Tens, it is currently all about "County" Station Wagons.
Non-Countys, despite being much rarer, are not sought after.

Which is why I have one.....

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

For most of my 55 years as a Land Rover enthusiast, the LWB variant was always less popular.

... 109" Basics were always less MORE common than 88's.

I think we mix 'popularity then or now' with sales figures. Except in the first year or so of production, buyers bought rather more 109s than 88s.
You had to have a need for an 88, and not everyone had that, 88s are not as practical, they bought more 109s.

88s were LESS popular with buyers.

However as 88s & 109s progressed thru' the food-chain it is the 88 that better survives. Hence popular now.

[Craig T]

My 109" was an export one. Maybe they were more popular in overseas markets?

My one is a ten seat version which was pretty much only sold in overseas markets as they were subject to purchase tax in this country which made them a silly price. I think in 1966 / 67 a 12 seat station wagon was cheaper than an 88" station wagon all due to tax reasons.

Craig.

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

The 109 sold more. Period. If you're happy to factor in S3 sales, ever more so. It's simply that less 109s survive. I've just found this:



https://www.lrfaq.org/FAQ.3.LR_production.html

[w3526602]

Hi.

It was only relatively recently that I read that the 86" and 88" used the same basic chassis rails, with the extra 2" being found by moving the front axle foreward. Similarly, the 107" and 109".

Rovers never mentioned the change to the Plus 2 (My description), and very few people noticed. For those that did notice, all became clear when they introduced the diesel engine which initially was two litres.

I've known for a long time that the Series One LWB ESTATE was never changed to 109". I presume that was because the LWB estate was never supplied with a diesel engine.

Did the Parts Book reflect that there had been changes?

602

[Craig T]

The genuine series one parts manual I have is printed in the early 60's so it is referred to as the "land Rover series one" on the front cover. Before the series two's were released they were off course simply Land Rovers.

That manual does mention all the differences between the the 86" and 88" models and covers the 2 litre Diesel engine which is very recognisable as the basis for the series 2, 2286 engines.

As you say, the 86" series one became an 88" simply by moving the spring hangers, spring bushes, and damper mountings 2" forward on the same chassis. The front grille panel was moved forward only 1" however so the front crossmember moved 1" as well. I think the inner wings were different, bonnet length, outer wings, steering link rod between the box and relay, and the front propshaft was longer.

As you also correctly say, the 107" station wagon never got the Diesel engine so it never became a 109" station wagon, at least not until the series two came along.

The series one 107" utility and station wagon chassis are very different things however. For the 107" (and 109") utility chassis, imagine an 86" chassis cut in half behind the gearbox after the chassis steps upwards, with really long rear rails stuck to it.
Off course that wouldn't work for the 107" station wagon as the rear floor needs to go in the space behind the gearbox but before the chassis steps upwards so they made a very unique chassis for the station wagon.
The 107 (and 109") utility also had the rear springs under the chassis rails, the station wagons were placed outside the chassis rails and it was off course the station wagon design they standardised on for all the 109" series two models.

Even the series two 109" chassis frames vary though from the station wagon to the utility models. It is essentially the same thing but not interchangeable without cutting floor supports and mounting brackets off and replacing them with specific ones for the model you are building.

Craig.