Landrover 110/130 tipper

[Le Sanglier]

ask your self this do you need a l/r or think you need 1, or just want 1, ??

are you going to be going of road a lot ??

 

Good point, you can carry double in a Transit which will cost less than half.

(ps I have both so no point anyone telling tall tales about how much their Rover will take)

[Peter]

Good point, you can carry double in a Transit which will cost less than half.

(ps I have both so no point anyone telling tall tales about how much their Rover will take)

 

Not legally.

[Mason48]

That is not strictly true.

 

In fact, if you were to get a heavy duty 110 (3500kgs gross), it will probably carry more than a 130.

Yea very true and there seems to be more around just make sure it has been plated to 3500kg incase you get pulled.

[Chris Sheppard]

Good point, you can carry double in a Transit which will cost less than half.

(ps I have both so no point anyone telling tall tales about how much their Rover will take)

 

In that case you either have a very heavy land rover or a very light transit

[Le Sanglier]

In that case you either have a very heavy land rover or a very light transit

 

Volume not weight

[adam4838]

I own a 110 HD 3500kg tipper. Yes, they are lighter to begin with so on paper the payload is higher than a 3500kg 130.

 

But, the length of the body and the position of the load being carried means that I guarantee you will be over weight on the rear axle before you reach your 3500kg gross weight with a full load of chip. A tool locker at the front does not help with this either.

 

If I was doing it all again I would have a 130, More chance of staying legal.

[Dean O]

we have a 110 and a 130

prefer the 110 - the 130's a barge in comparison though it does hold the weight very well.

I would like to change the 130 soon and will posibbly go for a 110.

[skyhuck]

Volume not weight

 

A transit cannot legal carry the volume you can get on a Landy, never mind the amount you can get in its own back.

 

So volume is not what matters, its weight.

[Le Sanglier]

A transit cannot legal carry the volume you can get on a Landy, never mind the amount you can get in its own back.

So volume is not what matters, its weight.

 

Not sure I fully understand your assertion on the legality of carrying volume, but I got the tape measure out.

transit floor 2.1 x 3.1 = 6.5 x height of 1.2mtrs = 7.8 cubic mtrs

Land rover 130 1.8 X 2.8 = 5.04 x height of 1mtr = 5.04 cubic mtrs

 

Now you can probably claim that you can put your chip box higher on the 130 to make up the difference, however even at 1mtr the landy rocks like a boat on corners not least because of the 300mm inferiorty in axel width, and even with the helper springs is as often as not on the bump stops.

Plus the mud terrains are bulging dangerously under heavy load.

whereas the twin wheels on the transit have little problem.

[skyhuck]

Not sure I fully understand your assertion on the legality of carrying volume, but I got the tape measure out.

transit floor 2.1 x 3.1 = 6.5 x height of 1.2mtrs = 7.8 cubic mtrs

Land rover 130 1.8 X 2.8 = 5.04 x height of 1mtr = 5.04 cubic mtrs

 

Now you can probably claim that you can put your chip box higher on the 130 to make up the difference, however even at 1mtr the landy rocks like a boat on corners not least because of the 300mm inferiorty in axel width, and even with the helper springs is as often as not on the bump stops.

Plus the mud terrains are bulging dangerously under heavy load.

whereas the twin wheels on the transit have little problem.

 

You miss my point.

 

If you took a full land rover pick up load of chip and put it onto the back of a transit, the transit would be well over weight.

 

So yes you can physically get more chip on a transit, but you will be massively overloaded.

 

So if you wish to operate within the law, a landy is just as capable as a transit and in some cases has a higher payload.