Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK guys, coming down to the line for taking possession of my '67 109 pickup. ... 11 months 29 days and counting!

I swear to all that is holy the DAY I get back to the states I'm picking her up from my grandfather. So anyways....

She's an ex-MOD abulance with a pickup bed off a Stage1. I guess her shackles are a little taller, I haven't done much research into the non-mil/mil differences.

Can I fit 33x12.5/16s on her without an SOA conversion? I have a feeling tires any taller than that would snap an axle like Mike Tyson would my neck. What about rubbing? Would I have to trim much fender or 1/4panel?

Thanks guys

Semper fi

Erik

ps. as she stands now, proudly in Vt

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
I don't recommend you put anything bigger than 7.50x16 on a series truck. The wider the tire the more 'squirrely' they act on dry pavement, and the more strain the put on steering relay, marginal tierod ends, and steering gear.

Thanks for your service. I appreciate it. Stay Safe.
 

·
MISSING SOUTH LONDON.
Joined
·
3,433 Posts
Hey fellow jar head!!! Nice truck...I agree with terry anything bigger than 7.50 x 16 and you will have a hand full on the road. I think if you can find them state side get a set of Avon Rangemaster tyres. Great factory spec and beyond performance wise and can handle about anything.Perfect for series Landrovers. They still use them on all new Defenders with steel wheels like ours. Whats your mission in the Corps abroad??? Was a Jar head ten years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the heads-up guys! Guess I'll stick with narrows for now, at least till I get some vovlos or 'mogs under her!

I work internal security at our embassy here, one of seven in our detachment. Sure as hell beats fixing radios in Iraq, and the scenery is so much nicer!

Semper fi,

Erik
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
109 1 tons came with huge 9.00/16 tires. Same size as Dodge Powerwagons. Some shoreland armored cars did as well. One of the issues of Land Rover Enthusiast from a few months ago had a cool article about 109 1 tons. They look badass on those tires. I'd imagine the gearing changed as well. 7.50/16's look pretty good on series trucks especially with wide rims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
AAXD said:
109 1 tons came with huge 9.00/16 tires. Same size as Dodge Powerwagons. Some shoreland armored cars did as well. One of the issues of Land Rover Enthusiast from a few months ago had a cool article about 109 1 tons. They look badass on those tires. I'd imagine the gearing changed as well. 7.50/16's look pretty good on series trucks especially with wide rims.
Are you refering to the FC 109s? Or was there a 1-tonne Series truck?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
There was a small number of 1 ton 109 regular bodied trucks made late in series 2a and early series 3 production. I don't really know the details on them, but I know they came with the 2.6 6cyl and had lengthened spring perches on the frame to give them a slight lift.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
Maybe they're not the same, but the rims on that 109 certainly look like the same ones used on NAS110s, deep dish. According to George Laird at RDS, they're very expensive over here, so, Angel, maybe you should look for a set over there before you come home, you know, get Uncle to pay the freight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
TerryS said:
Maybe they're not the same, but the rims on that 109 certainly look like the same ones used on NAS110s, deep dish. According to George Laird at RDS, they're very expensive over here, so, Angel, maybe you should look for a set over there before you come home, you know, get Uncle to pay the freight.
As a matter of fact, that's a damn good idea! My stuff coming here only weighed in at 380 kilos. I've only bought a 42 inch plasma tv and had some stuff framed in my year here. Plenty of left over kilos! Thank you for that great idea!

I'm interested in what axles the 1-ton trucks came with. My grandfather's 101 (if my memory serves me correct) was rocking Dana44s front and rear and even those were 3/4 ton axles at best. Hmmmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Hi all.

In case you are interested in a few details on the 1 tons, here are some snippetts.

The axles are ENV. These are much more beefy than the Rover standard ones, and have massive differentials. They are also longer, giving a wider track, more like the later coil sprung ones. They are the same as were fitted to the Series 2B 110" Forward Controls from 1966 to 1972. The preceding Series 2A 109"FC's had standard Rover axles. This was one of the reasons for the 2A FC's reputation for breakage under overloading; the axles were barely strong enough. The ENV successors could take anything thrown at them. These are not the same as the 101 (1 tonne) axles, which were one offs. The 110" FC had the rear axle mounted beneath the springs, giving extra height additional to the extended spring shackles, which were fitted front and back, and which were mounted on new and wider hangers fabricated to the outside of the chassis at the rear.

Tyres were indeed 9.00x16" cross plys on deep rims. These rims are similar to the current Wolf rims, which you can buy new, and you can see from time to time, for sale, other rims similar to these. There are different types though and true FC rims are very deep dished and are obvious. If you see some which look right but you are not quite sure, they are probably not true FC ones. Having said that, if they do the job for you, that is all you need.

As regards tyre width, Cross plys obviously don't give great road handling, especially the very aggressive, or bar grips usually available today. I have Bfg AT 35x12.50x15" on my S3 Lightweight, and the road behaviour is great; and it will go pretty quickly too. Of course fitting them to a Lwt is a different matter from a normal Series vehicle, having different bodywork. I have a Series 2B 110"FC too, which used to run these, but is now on 37x12.50x15" Good Year MT's, and the road manners are great on these too, even at 70mph. Far far better than on 9.00x16".

I think you should be able to get 33x12.50 to fit standard bodywork on a normal control vehicle. The military Series ambulances had uprated springs for the massive bodywork, and I think, extended shackles. If the ambulance body has come off, it may be a good idea to fit some standard springs if you don't want to break your back on the potholes! Some (good, expensive) parabolic springs are the best, but as I say, buy expensive ones as the cheap ones don't work very well.

As regards loading on the steering components, the 1 ton Normal and Forward Controls running with 9x16" used standard steering components, (albeit with a lower ratio steering box to cater for the weight), so I don't believe that putting wide tyres on a standard normal control not subject to the extra weights a 1 ton could be subjected to, is an issue. The same goes for wheel bearings if you were wondering.


The 1 tons and FC's used a low ratio transfer box to offset the tyre size, and to create more torque for the weight. For any vehicle in light use today, this is not an issue. Indeed, most owners of FC's today change their one ton box for a standard 2A one and fit overdrives, which you can't do on a one ton box because the gears are different.

I hope that this has been at least of a little interest to you.

Cheers,

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Stock tire is 32 (7.50 x 16) You can go to a 35 without much trouble. BIG TROUBLE to go to a wide tire, even more to go to a tall, wide tire. The problem is not the fender or body rub so much as the frame and spring at the front axle. Everything is fine as long as you just want to drive straight ahead. When you try to turn, the tire will rub on the frame and spring. The longer shackles and lower spring mount point on the military frames improves on this by lowering the center line of the tire in relation to the rub points, but it doesn't solve it. You will need larger off-set wheels or wheel spacers to keep the tire away from the frame when turning, unless it already has a wide off-set wheel already. You can probably go to a 33x10.50x16 easily but will have to check things first. I know a guy that has 35x9.50x15's without major issues. He lives with a larger turning radius and has cut out the rear fender arch. You loose a lot of power with a bigger tire, he put in a V8.

Try the BFG 33x10.50x16(or is it only avail in 15?) MT It used to be available in 33x9.50x15 and was awsome. Now only available in the wider size, unless you find someone with new old stock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
Talk about coincidence; The current (Jan) issue of Land Rover Owner Intl, has a brief artical on page 26 about about a chap in Leeds wanting to put together a One Tone Registry. The artical gives a few brief facts about engine, wheels tires and all and some total production numbers in LHD, RHD, home and export (suffuce to say, not a lot of them)

D Warren can be emailed at [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Regarding turning circles, my 35x12.50's are on 15" x 10" rims fitted to the lightweight. I don't know about over there, but in the UK, all the rims I have seen have had all the extra width as offset, so the inside edge of the 12.50 tyre is in the same position as the inside edge of the original tyre. It would be no good otherwise. No doubt if you were to use 15" x 8" rims, there would be more inset of the tyre due to bulging, which would give you problems, but 10" rims are better for 12.50's anyway.

On my lightweight, I was previously running on FC rims with 225 85 16's which are about 2" bigger in diameter than 7.50's but not much wider. I didn't have to adjust the steering stops by much, (only fractionally), when the 35x12.50's went on, and the turning circle with the 35's, although obviously a bit more restricting, is quite acceptable. It is all a question of what you want, and consider more important, extra width or a tad extra turning circle.

I agree that 33"x 10.50 is often quoted as a max practical size, and prpbably would be on 8" rims, but it isn't the max reasonably possible . Comments about wing clearances obviously stand.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top