I would agree with you ... up to a point.

With the difference between an 88" (2A) wheelbase and a 93" (90) is not a great deal, I would contend that the shorter, lighter and narrower 80" Series I has a definite advantage, as it doesn't suffer the axle twisters to the same degree as the 2A, and with the wheelbase being shorter the groundings are less frequent, and depending on the size choice of tyres the spring hangers can have an acceptable clearance.

Zillions of years ago, Simmy and I had a similar discussion, and fortunately we could test out theories in a local quarry. He always pushed for raw speed and power hence the AWDC, whereas my approach was much more sedate. There are times for both, and I have never believed that using more power will necessarily get you through!

The number of times that I have witnessed AWDC beasts bogged down simply because they have powered themselves into holes, whilst a Series I trotted past them.

An example if this is when driving in sandy deserts. We would be tanking along at between 25 and 28 mph. That does not give the surface time to break up underneath the tyres and slow enough not to allow a build up in front of the wheels.

Then along came the yanks with their high-speed, high performance junk and sped past us laughing. Unfortunately, we couldn't stop to help otherwise we would have become bogged down ourselves. They had to wait the best part of a day for chopper support to rescue them!

My contention is that speed and power are not the be all and end all. :rolly:

My favourite off road, all terrain vehicle is, and will remain the 80" bog standard Series I. :5bdriving:

OSD

its an interesting debate but the aurguement in favour of the series 1 80 is a little similar to why Suzuki SJs used to do so well in AWDC trials. There are times when a narrower shorter vehicle has an advantage. If you are on a trial section in a 90 you have to be a lot more accurate passing through the gates than you do in a series 1 or SJ. There are times though when V8 power was the only way up a greasy slope where you needed to reach sufficent momentum before the slope to carry you up and over.
If you are not trialing but just passing over tough terrain then the coiler is likely to be better.
If you are in boggy ground a lighter vehicle could have an advantage. I did plenty of trialing back in those days and I never saw a leafer out perform a coil sprung machine, assuming they had competant drivers.
One pal had a V8 series so he all the advantages but he rarely did that well in trials. He was normally nursing bruised thumbs where the wheel had been ripped out of his hands on a cross-axler! Power steering msde a huge difference on certain sections.

90 simple

2 motors an 88 series'III vs a 90. Both have the same tyres, rear detroit lockers and diesel engies the 90 drove more without help no question. We both got stuck and needed winching alot of the time but lack of power steering and articulation. And ground clearence. Most of the time it was similar both motors got stuck in the same place but on a few occasions the 90 could move abbout repositioning itself where the 88 just couldn't move. Springs and x member in porridge. Later on a tight bit'in and out a small riverbed which i'd driven a few monthe earlier in reverse on std tyres open rear diff got the 88 stuck again because no power steering nor soft front suspension the wheel just would't come out of the rut. Remember same tyres.

All in all theyre pretty similar but the coilers have it out the box and the x member and springs hanging down is never good if your doing owt interesting! Driving to the shops or even "offroading" they shouldmbe very similar. Trials there is a reason they use coilers its because theyre better and you can uprate the driveline far cheaper.