1997 NAS 90 vs. 1993 NAS 110

[the_eaze]

I have been daily driving my stock 1997 NAS 90 for the past 17 years. Luckily my commute is very short. I have the chance to purchase a stock 1993 NAS 110. Has anyone owned both that can give me a comparison of what they thought of the two? I already know the technical differences and Im very familiar with both vehicles. I guess I am looking for someone that has owned both and which one they preferred.

 

[rocky]

Horses for courses.
Things you’ll likely notice.
The extra 21 inches in length makes parking lots tougher to negotiate.
The extra 1200lbs slows it down more than you expect.
More space? Fewer excuses for not picking up stuff for the honey do list “on the way home”.

I toy with flipping to a 110, but the relative agility of the 90 would be hard to give up.

 

[mitherial]

For daily driving, the biggest difference to me between any 90 and any 110 is that the 90 has a considerably tighter turning radius--I am always see-sawing my 110 back and forth in the parking lot when I take my truck to work. The 90 is more fun to drive and better on the trail, the 110 is much better for overlanding or camping or carrying more than two people (though the pre-Puma middle benches are pretty basic). On stock NAS trucks, I doubt the V8 performance is that different; there is obviously also your preference of manual vs. auto transmission.

For my money, if you (quite understandably) cannot afford both, I'd keep the 90 and get a cheaper ROW 110--but a lot of this comes down to how much do you value the "uniqueness" of the NAS trucks. The NAS 110s feel overpriced to me now that ROW 110 trucks are readily available--but I've always had a soft-spot for NAS 90s even not owning one (go figure)

 

[UnfrozenCaveman]

My Mrs drives the '97 NAS 90 and I (usually) drive the 3-door 110 (it's been stuck in ABQ for the winter).

Calling our environment "city" would be an overstatement and traffic / parking aren't the issue that the might be elsewhere.

I find the 110 more comfortable and useful ... hardware store, Fleet Farm / Tractor supply etc ...

Yep, it's bigger, heavier, slower so it's "horses for courses" I think.

 

[chuckc4]

I currently own a 1997 NAS 90 SW and had access to a 1993 NAS 110 that I drove a lot. For comparison sake, I have also owned other 5 speed NAS 90's with the R380. The 1997 Auto is hands down my favorite, for the type of driving I do. I think the intended use caveat represents the details that could be the devil for some of us and not for others.

If I have to pick up something that won't fit in the 90's loadspace, I attach a trailer. I like the look of the 110, but I would never want a 110 over any 90, let alone the automatic. While there are many who will argue against the automatic, I think it is perfect!

 

[pfshoen]

Do the bulkhead fresh air vents matter to you?

 

[1of40]

I have been daily driving a 97 NAS for 20 years this month. I also have had a ROW County SW 110 for almost 10. I prefer the 97 for daily running around and commuting into the city, etc.

 

[lordhelemt]

I’ve daily driven both a 95 NAS 90 and NAS110 for 25ish years. I owned the 90 first and about a decade later I purchased the 110 so I’d have something to drive while I restored the 90. I’ve used both trucks on 500+ miles trips and around town. I love them both and actually prefer them over the 997 C2s I used to own so when I came time to drop a vehicle I sold the Porsche. That all said, while they are similar vehicles they are also uniquely different. On nice sunny days I prefer the 90 for top down driving. Days with poor weather or long trips the 110 gets exercise. The 110 is certainly not as nimble as the 90 but the 110 is a much smoother ride. I’m beginning to restore the 110 and add an automatic transmission. Once completed I can’t see myself using the 90 much except for those super fair weather days.

If you don’t find one with a 4.6 already added I would suggest swapping one in. It’s inexpensive (if you do it yourself) and it is a pretty simple swap. The 3.9 will easily cruise at 70 mph but the 4.6 makes it a touch easier to get there. The 4.6 is much better than the 3.9 if you’re in the hills.

 

[jymmiejamz]

I don’t find that the NAS 110 feels much slower since it has the 1.4 ratio transfer case. The HVAC is the biggest downside of the 110. I prefer the ride quality of the 110 over a 90.

Agreed with @lordhelemt that a 4.6 is a nice upgrade that isn’t really taking away from the originality of the NAS 110.

 

[Mac]

I would echo much of what has been said. I have had both a NAS 90 and a 110 in my garage at the same time on two occasions. The first time it was a NAS 90ST and a NAS 110, and second was a NAS 90ST and a ROW (NAS110 interior and exterior + pursuit 4.6 moved over to a ROW frame). I ended up selling the 90ST on both occasions because while I prefer it in many ways it doesn't fit my whole family (3 young children).

As others have said - I think the 90 and 110 serve different purposes. The 90 is more nimble and fun around town, especially the ST. The 110 is better on longer drives, trips, and better for year-round driving (I daily my 110 9-10 months of the year in the northeast). While the NAS 110 didn't feel much slower than the NAS 90, my current 110 with the 4.6 is night and day - more responsive, better on the highway, etc. Also with my current 110 I can drive the crap out of it without worrying about it - like I did on trips to Baja and the Romp (both in the last 4 months). I actually traded my NAS110 for my current 110 for that reason. I wanted to drive it, as much as possible, and not worry about the NAS premium.

Is your 90 an ST? I think a NAS 90SW and a NAS 110 would be redundant. Yes, there are differences as mentioned above but I would either pick one or the other. In my ideal world I would have a NAS 90ST for around town and a ROW 110 for everything else. Now I have convinced myself that I need to buy another NAS ST....

 

[pfshoen]

The ride quality of the NAS 110 not only benefits from the longer wheelbase, but also the Boge strut. Was never available on the 90.

 

[the_eaze]

Thanks everyone for the replies. The community on this site is awesome. Feels like the old d-90.com days.

I have a 1997 NAS SW that I have put all the creature comforts into. Power windows, power locks, heated seats, puma dash, and upgraded to a 4.6. Its a great car but just feeling like soemthing different. Im considering the 110 and putting the 90 up for sale later this year.

The AC in the 90 has always been lackluster at best. Cold knees, sweaty back. Is the NAS 110 AC worse?? I know its a totally different set up.

 

[LRNAD90]

The AC in the 90 has always been lackluster at best. Cold knees, sweaty back. Is the NAS 110 AC worse?? I know its a totally different set up.

Maybe I have low expectations, but haven't found the AC to be to bad in the 90, but it is a soft top tractor that creates plenty of its own heat on top of the ambient temps, so..

As for the NAS D110, never owned one, but the HVAC in general was always known to be a bit of a sore point with them, and you loose the bulkhead vents, which I personally love in the Spring, Fall and early Summer..

Don't think anything short of cooled seats will cure the sweaty back. I suffer that even in cars with AC that turns the interior into an ICE box, just no air flow there..

 

[lordhelemt]

I know this will be met with some resistance from the NAS110 hvac haters but the factor air works very well. I briefly owned a second NAS110 and the ac blew ice cold and kept the cabin nice and cool in the DC heat/humidity.

 

[jymmiejamz]

The biggest issue with Defender HVAC systems is that there are usually a bunch of air leaks allowing outside air inside the cabin while driving

 

[havens51]

I have been daily driving my stock 1997 NAS 90 for the past 17 years. Luckily my commute is very short. I have the chance to purchase a stock 1993 NAS 110. Has anyone owned both that can give me a comparison of what they thought of the two? I already know the technical differences and Im very familiar with both vehicles. I guess I am looking for someone that has owned both and which one they preferred.

How about a frivolous answer? I have D90s and 110s. The Series 1 86” is the most fun by far!

 

[vtlandrover]

I guess the only thing I can contribute that hasn't been said (or at least I don't think so) is that the NAS110 has a lot of 'driveline slack.' I've owned two and didn't think they were nearly as much fun to drive as my NAS90s (of which I've had four). I currently have an '86 110 and just sold a '97 90 (R380; 300 Tdi) and still feel that the 90 was overall more fun. Mind you, no one in my family will ride in my Rovers any more for fear of accidents... the fun factor of a neighborhood's worth of children in the 9-seater is gone.

I've mentioned before that in Spring 1994, the local dealer had 3x NAS110s in the used lineup - right when the 90 was introduced. They were priced at $27,990... the same price as a stripper 90 (recall, they were $39,990 new). My belief has always been that Range Rover owners went from a RRC (SWB) to an NAS110, then very quickly back to a RRC (likely LWB) because the LT77 was a bit of a bear. A $12k + hit (after all, the dealer had to make some money in the transaction) after 6 months of ownership suggests discontentment.

NAS110s were always lackluster for both heat and A/C, but wonder if the RN center console unit + under dash would make an NAS110 rather pleasant?

My best advice: an NAS110 will likely hold its value over the next year. If you have the capacity, hold onto your 90 until you've lived with both for a while. Any 17-year relationship is difficult to end... especially one that doesn't criticize you for snoring.

 

[gerken]

For daily driving, the biggest difference to me between any 90 and any 110 is that the 90 has a considerably tighter turning radius--I am always see-sawing my 110 back and forth in the parking lot when I take my truck to work. The 90 is more fun to drive and better on the trail, the 110 is much better for overlanding or camping or carrying more than two people (though the pre-Puma middle benches are pretty basic). On stock NAS trucks, I doubt the V8 performance is that different; there is obviously also your preference of manual vs. auto transmission.

For my money, if you (quite understandably) cannot afford both, I'd keep the 90 and get a cheaper ROW 110--but a lot of this comes down to how much do you value the "uniqueness" of the NAS trucks. The NAS 110s feel overpriced to me now that ROW 110 trucks are readily available--but I've always had a soft-spot for NAS 90s even not owning one (go figure)

On the trail, the 90's are really only superior for - again - tighter turns, and extremely acute breakover on rocks. If it's sharp breakover on dirt, clay, grass, the 110 is fine. Few people are actually rock crawling in old Defenders of any model.

Off-road, the 110's have a lot of advantages on the trails too that 90's don't have due to their shorter WB. I'd even go so far as to say if you're truly crawling uphill, the 110 is superior. The longer wheelbase allows your front tires to truly clear an obstacle before your rears engage it. The 90's require more momentum, which is at odds with their lighter duty axles.

 

[mitherial]

Off-road, the 110's have a lot of advantages on the trails too that 90's don't have due to their shorter WB. I'd even go so far as to say if you're truly crawling uphill, the 110 is superior. The longer wheelbase allows your front tires to truly clear an obstacle before your rears engage it. The 90's require more momentum, which is at odds with their lighter duty axles.

All fair points. To me, the biggest advantage on trail of a vehicle with a shorter wheelbase and corresponding tighter turning circle is not the breakover angle, but simply that if I encounter an unsurmountable obstacle (e.g. locked gate on a fire road) or--more likely--simply chicken-out, there is a much higher likelihood that I can find somewhere to *turn around* on the trail, instead of having to back out however many feet / kilomters / miles until there is a larger space.

 

[jymmiejamz]

In my opinion, the D90 wheelbase makes it quite unstable on even moderate trails on the west coast. I never felt that way about mine on the east coast. It’s hard to describe, but a D90 just hits a point very easily where it wants to lift the front rather than move forward. Here’s an example of where a Disco or 110 would probably not have needed to winch.