SWB all day long.
1) Cosmetics: That rear door looks goofy as hell.
2) Interior space is actually not that advantageous. ALL of the room was added to the rear seat. The cargo room was not increased at all and there is no folding the rear seat down to extend the cargo room as there will just be 8" in front of the rear seat. The stretch was half arsed at best. If you have a few moments, look at the regulator of the rear doors. Youll notice that instead of making a solid piece for the window lift, they took the normal one and riveted an 8" section in the middle to make it work.
3) Too long (for East Coast at least) but that varies from area to area.
4) I would never use it as Im sitting in the front seat so why does 8" of rear seat foot room really matter all that much? If it were 4" in the rear seat and 4" of cargo room, my opinion would change.
Yes, break over is worse but you can just lift it higher/ sport bigger rubber to make up for it. For me, a 100" wheelbase is the perfect length. 90 is too short (but super maneuverable) for stability and 108- up (109, 110, 127, 130) strikes me as too long needing a good amount of lift to make the angles that a 100" can. At ROTR last month, watching the 100" Disco vs. the D90s that were there you could immediately see a difference. The 90s were having to flex the rear a lot with around 2 or 3 inches of lift to get around some obstacles. There were many that lifted rears off the ground. A Disco sporting the same lift made it look effortless. The 90s shined in the tight turn arounds where their shortness was an advantage. 90s had to flex, D1s flexed a little bit and D2s dragged their rears (extra overhang) on a few spots. An RRC/ Disco chassis gives you a good amount of cargo room, long enough wheel base for moving through tight trails and is very stable. I would take a couple of inches of width over a couple inches of length.