Outer Limits 4x4 Board

hey guys, we all hear how 100 inches is the magic wheelbase, but why is this? what makes 100 so wonderfull?


while on the subject of wheelbases, what sorta conditions do long/mid/short trucks excel in? we all know a long one rides better onroad, but a short one is more nimble, but when it comes to getting down and dirty, whats the pros and cons of each?





*dons flame suit... *

105 is better.

I have SWB and it's the best when u hit boost it's to much funny and should be banned

Rick.

i have a super longwheelbase 75 ute 120 inches.
and the ride is shit. but it exels at steep hill climbs were it is very stable.
on tighter tracks it sucks.

Wheelbase alone doesn't mean much. A 100" wheelbase on 28" tyres won't work as well as 100" on 38" tyres.

A 90" wheelbase with appropriate tyres, articulation and ground clearance may work better than a 100" wheelbase with large tyres, massive lift and no articulation.

I think mine's about 95" on 33" tyres with 4" of lift. I think approach, departure and ramp over angle are pretty good, but I think it's too tall (and narrow) for hard-core offroading - not that the IFS really helps, either.

YMMV.

Scott

It all depends on the track you are trying to do as to which wheelbase it better. Rock steps and ledges for example could have one wheelbase length at the start of two steps, while the other one is at the base of one step, but half way along the other.

In my normal 4x4ing experience (average trucks) I have found the smaller wheelbases do very well mainly due to better rampover angle. Also, most longer trucks I have been with had a fair bit of rear overghang.
This is negated however when you add huge tyres and big lifts.

my patrol is 116 .super stable on and off road.This is a wide car
i think 112 for this patrol with total 6 in lift would be perfect

there is no magic numder that would cover every 4x4
eg.is a hilux with 116WB and 6 in+ lift that is not widened will still fall over, side on more often.. All depends on how high they are.how wide they are etc etc

My IFS Lux extracab is super long at 122.5".
I have no problems with ramp over angle with 35s and lifted drivetrain.
It also climbs great very stable.
The only problem is turning, you have to do so many 3 point turns where other shorter WB just drive straight round.
Im not sure what WB I will build my new truggy to, maybe 112"-114"

I have run 93" wheelbased LWB suzukis, 110" wheelbased hiluxes and my 108" wheelbased Gwagen offroad.

Obviously, I drive with lots of SWB zooks as well - 79" WB

Personally, I do think that 100" WB is a good compromise, but it is dependent on lots of other factors - namely, tyre size, weight distribution, overall weight, width, and ramp over.

I think there are a couple of ways of assessing this-

Rather than wheelbase, measure distance between the tyres- so:

100" with 33" tyres = 67"
Maybe this is the magic number - so a 108" WB might be able to run a 37 and have the same drivability, but a 90" WB can't run a 33 without getting a bit spooky - I know this isn't perfect, but maybe it is a start.

The other way is width as a ratio of WB.

My guess is that track width and wheelbase are linked in terms of stability. A short, wide car can get spooky because it wants to turn across the track on steep climbs. The penalty of being overly long is in rampover and maneuverability.

the guys in the US running rockwells etc and hitting big climbs are running some huge WB figures - over, say, 125" but they are also really wide.

Personally, I think the original range rover hit the width/WB and maybe even the length between tyres thing spot on (roughly 29" tyre, so 71" between wheels) But the original range rover (in stock form) also has excellent weight distribution and overhangs, and is nice and wide, but not silly. This wasn't by accident - Land Rover worked that stuff out, which is why is was longer than a 88" land rover and shorter than a 109" LWB but much wider than both.

I think that using it as a basis for some ratios might be the way to go.

Obviously weight distribution is a factor too - a SWB inevitably leads to lots of weight behind the rear wheels which leads to problems on climbs.

Steve.

I dont think there is a magic wheelbase but there certainly is a desired ratio between, width, height, wheelbase and tyre size. This ratio would vary to suit different types of driving styles and terrain, so there really is no magic figures IMO.

I was running 111" wheelbase on my old lux, 36's, 63" wheel track (wms to wms) and approximately 78" high to the roof, to me this was the happy medium although i was happier with the stability on 33's. I think a shorter wheelbase for this height vehicle would be prone to endo's and backflips on steep and difficult terrain.

I think your right on the money there Steve

So you only just starting to GET what us rover owners already know - 100" = luv you long time

-Richo- wrote:I dont think there is a magic wheelbase but there certainly is a desired ratio between, width, height, wheelbase and tyre size. This ratio would vary to suit different types of driving styles and terrain, so there really is no magic figures IMO.

I was running 111" wheelbase on my old lux, 36's, 63" wheel track (wms to wms) and approximately 78" high to the roof, to me this was the happy medium although i was happier with the stability on 33's. I think a shorter wheelbase for this height vehicle would be prone to endo's and backflips on steep and difficult terrain.

Quit your whinging, your old ute was stable as a mountain goat.

Its horses for courses when it comes to wheelbase, there is no silver bullet.

i have never put the tape measure on mine.

I am happy with it as i cant change it, But the misses would be happier with an extra inch or 2