Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

seats, floors, bodies in a 110

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Austin Shackles - 29 May 2007 14:37 GMT
2 problems I can see in fitting 9 forward-facing seats in the 110.  The main
one is the shape and nature of the rear floor.  

What stops one removing the wheelboxes and substituting a flat floor with
wheel arches like a van?

The biggest objection to an additional "second row" as a third row is the
matter of foot-space.  There's also probably an access issue, but that might
be more easily solvable.

Anyone using the "high back" middle row seats: how well do they fold up
compared with the standard "low back" kind?

This is a possibly-easier-to-achieve alternative to the transit-rover hybrid
- there's talk now that we may all have to be private-hire licensed next
year, and the authority might take a dim view of the hybrid.

Signature

Austin Shackles.  www.ddol-las.net  my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy!  Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\  
  >>  http://www.schlockmercenary.com/  <<      \  ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

Ian Rawlings - 29 May 2007 18:18 GMT
> What stops one removing the wheelboxes and substituting a flat floor with
> wheel arches like a van?

They do that in the high-cap 110 so...

Signature

Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

JD - 29 May 2007 21:35 GMT
> 2 problems I can see in fitting 9 forward-facing seats in the 110.  The
> main one is the shape and nature of the rear floor.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> hybrid - there's talk now that we may all have to be private-hire licensed
> next year, and the authority might take a dim view of the hybrid.

The seat boxes contribute a lot of the strength and rigidity to the rear
tub, but this could be replaced by suitable reinforcing - would need to
build a completely new floor, and the reinforcing underneath would need to
be stronger. You would probably want to put a reinforcing rail along where
the seat box edge joins the body. But I question how much footroom you
would gain from this - the front of the seatbox is nearly as close as you
can get to the wheel on the wagon, and what you gain at the back would not
be much use for footroom unless you have rearward facing seats, which is,
of course possible.

However, looking at mine, the seat boxes could be narrowed out to about the
outside of the spring upper mount. Remember that the size of the seat box
and floor width is actually inherited from the Series 1, which had a much
narrower track.

JD
Austin Shackles - 30 May 2007 09:19 GMT
>> 2 problems I can see in fitting 9 forward-facing seats in the 110.  The
>> main one is the shape and nature of the rear floor.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>and floor width is actually inherited from the Series 1, which had a much
>narrower track.

Good point.  This is in fact what they've done inside the newer Santanas,
with the added bonus of a wider door as well.  That'd probably work, in
terms of space.  I'll have to have a look.  Floor could do with coming out
anyway to repair the back end of the chassis.
Signature

Austin Shackles.  www.ddol-las.net  my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy!  Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\  
  >>  http://www.schlockmercenary.com/  <<      \  ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

Lee_D - 30 May 2007 17:02 GMT
Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> uttered
summat worrerz funny about:

> Good point.  This is in fact what they've done inside the newer
> Santanas, with the added bonus of a wider door as well.  That'd
> probably work, in terms of space.  I'll have to have a look.  Floor
> could do with coming out anyway to repair the back end of the chassis.

Get the rear tub off and sort it properly then. Should be straight forward
enough.

Lee
Austin Shackles - 31 May 2007 20:47 GMT
>Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> uttered
>summat worrerz funny about:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Get the rear tub off and sort it properly then. Should be straight forward
>enough.

that's a lot of hassle on a CSW though - roof lining to remove etc. etc.  If
I'm going to be modifying the floor/wheelboxes anyway, there's not much to
be gained, might as well get the floor out.

However, on the basis of conversation with the contracts bloke in the
council, I might end up doing none of it.  Apparently there's imminent
legislation which will force all councils to use licensed vehicles.  Chances
of the authorities looking with favour on any of mine is slender, but more
worryingly, I'd have to shell for the licences and much more expensive
insurance in advance of tendering for any route that might be available, and
no guarantee of getting the route I've got now.

Frankly, I like the bit I do now, I'm not that keen on putting in for
something like transporting special needs pupils to special needs units
which is what the majority of the small contracts are.  I'd be quite
inclined to tell 'em thanks-but-no-thanks.  This would mean I'd have to seek
other work, either more self-employed or an actual real job.  Alternatively
and possibly just as lucratively, I could sign on...

In such case, I'd probably sell the minibus and Edward II and do up the 110
as everyday transport, to which end I'd not need to faff with modifying the
body, which would of course make it all much easier.

Of course, this new plan will gain nothing in the way of safety or
accountability in the school transport, it'll just make it all cost a lot
more, which will come out of taxation one way or another.  Typical increase
in bureaucracy for the sake of it.  But I'm not bitter.  not much.  not more
than that stuff for putting on anklebiters' thumbs to stop them sucking
same.

F*ck the lot of 'em, I say.  
Signature

Austin Shackles.  www.ddol-las.net  my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy!  Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\  
  >>  http://www.schlockmercenary.com/  <<      \  ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.