Bigj66
-
Posts
3,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Bigj66
-
-
So if the R380 and the auto box share the same LT230 transfer box and the Series transfer box will bolt to the R380 with a kit, then it stands to reason that the series transfer box will also bolt to the auto and the overall length of each will remain the same.
Question is whether a LT230 is the same length as a Series TB or is the series one smaller?
-
There’s also this on the Ashcroft website in the Defender V8 auto conversion section:
Kit to Convert the V8 Defender to Automatic Transmission
For this conversion we use the 4HP22 autobox. The lengths of the auto and the manual box are the same so the existing transfer case can go straight on the auto with no modifications.
When they refer to the manual box is that the R380 they’re talking about?
If so then in the Series section they say this:
2) The other option is to fit the LT77 or R 380 and then fit the series transfer case onto the back of it with this kit. This way you retain the stock "Series" transfer case with selectable 2/4WD. You can also fit freewheeling hubs so you are not wasting fuel spinning the prop, diff Etc. This ends up a shorter transmission and allows you to keep the stock front grill even on a 88".
In theory then if the R380 and 4HP22 boxes are the same length then it should be possible using the conversion kit to fit the Series transfer box to the back of the auto?
Or have I read that wrong? Will call Ashcrofts tomorrow as they haven’t replied to my email yet.
-
Cheers, I can see that the handbrake drum is wider than on the series box and wondered if the series transfer box will bolt to the back of the auto box by any chance? Or can be adapted to do so?
-
I am out in the garage with my tape and I get 1.63m from the back of the transmission brake drum/prop flange to the nose of the SERP water pump. Is the LT230 smaller than the BW transfer box as I would need to try and reduce the overall length if I kept the auto box?
Could maybe grab an inch off the rear prop and same off the rad panel.
-
22 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:
2WD kit availability! And more ratios, Borg Warner box is only 1.2.
Could I sell the BW and fit a 230 to the same box?
-
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve seen a lot worse than I have in front of me on the Rangy and it may well be that a specialist restorer would take a different and more positive view than mine. As it stands at the moment it will need rear floor, rear arches inner and outer, rear side panels, inner and outer sills, rear seat base but maybe a good second hand one would do, front inner wings and possibly footwell repairs based on the wet carpets, rear tailgate, roof as it looks like someone has been dancing on it in stilettos 🤬and some chassis repairs.
Again, all doable but at a price - and then double it. And all this before a respray or any mechanical work.
If I do decide to upgrade the S3 then at least I would have a good known engine, box and diffs to fit and wouldn’t have to put up with someone else’s bodged work or cut wiring looms. It seems to be the items of trim etc, especially those unique to the Softdash that are hard to come by which are in demand and fetch good money so I’m sure that these, and the remains of the body, suspension and axles would be of interest to someone else looking for a good donor for their own project.
As you can tell, I don’t rush into things so will take the time to listen to advice and consider the best option.
What is the benefit of the L230?
-
26 minutes ago, lo-fi said:
Someone will pay good money for the rangey as it is, I'm sure
Though if you're going to daily drive whatever comes out the other side, the rangey has got to be the better choice?
My serp V8 came from a rotten disco and there's plenty of them about very cheap if you do decide to convert, though.
It’s a valid point and I also need to weigh up my MOT exemption and vehicle registration requirements if I change too many parts.
-
Cheers, these sound like good options if I end up having to scrap the Rangy although I’d prefer not to as they are a sought after classic in their own right as are the Series vehicles. If I had to though then recycling it into another Landrover would take some of the sting out of it. Need to investigate the extent of the rot further and speak to some specialist repair companies before making a final decision.
Cheers for the input.
-
4 minutes ago, lo-fi said:
It'll be longer than the series box, for sure! As Bowie says, the serp has a short nose pump, so a pusher fan in front of the rad will probably see you right. My setup put the engine so far forward I didn't need to mod the footwells, but there's not a lot of clearance for the manifolds: about an inch or so. Enough, but tight.
Enough to get a socket on the manifold nuts?
-
1 hour ago, lo-fi said:
As Bowie says, you've quite a choice in manifolds.
Yep, you can get a non aircon belt, but you'll need a different tensioner to suit as it's routed differently on the non aircon version. I run my serp with just water pump and alternator on a 7PK1220.
You could move the lot forward by fabricating new gearbox mount plates, custom props and modifying the tunnel a bit. I'd just bite the bullet and scallop the bulkhead a little, though.
So if I was able to keep my auto box then I wouldn’t need the conversion ring, flywheel, clutch etc. Would that combo then push the engine forward enough to get access to the spark plugs without needing the bulkhead mods or hitting the radiator or would I still need to move the radiator forward a bit? I’ve done a search but can’t find any posts about this particular conversion so I’ll keep digging.
Edit: I’ve emailed Ashcrofts to see what their take is on it.
-
1 minute ago, Bowie69 said:
You can move the gearbox mounts
Yes, I forget the part number, but I did the same on my V8 that went into my RRC.
Ok 👍. I take it I can’t fit my auto box.......? 😬 Permenant 4WD I know but...
-
14 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:
With a serpentine front end you can move the engine forward more easily, there's potential for not modifying the bulkhead at all - modify the radiator position if needed and use a pusher electric fan.
There's loads of manifold options out there, you would be bound to find set that fit, even if it is MG ones...
V8s are kinder to gearboxes as the torque delivery is another, so rest easy on that one.
Definitely keep it EFI, even hot wire stuff is better than carbs on the bigger V8s.
Cheers. Wouldn’t the engine position be dictated by the gearbox and thickness of the conversion plate though?
I’d like to keep the existing manifolds but not sure if the exhaust systems currently on offer will fit to them, will need to investigate further.
Is there a smaller serpentine belt available if I bin the aircon compressor?
-
Things have moved along a bit since I last posted but not necessarily for the better.
I’ve decided not to proceed with the Rover 3.0 as I’m struggling to get anywhere with finding a crankshaft from a manual vehicle and furthermore I’ve realised how unsupported that engine is which makes me nervous about a longer term investment in one. That said it been a very interesting discussion and thanks to everyone who has contributed to it.
I’ve been stalling for a while now with choosing whether to throw money at the Series or my RRC Softdash. I can’t justify a full restoration of both as I also have a Capri which I did a shell up rebuild on and which needs to get used more than it does. Whilst looking at the options for the Series 3, I’ve also been planning to assess how much work the RRC needs if I chose to restore that leaving the Series as is to be used as a sunny day fun car.
Today in preparation for a visit to the body shop to have the work assessed and costed up, I decided to make the job a bit easier by removing some of the rear carpets so the guy in the garage can get a closer looksee. I already know from the P.O. that work had been done on the boot floor which “cost thousands” 🙄 and that the two front inner wings would need to be replaced but I’d not looked any further than that until this afternoon. Pics tell their own story.
Seen worse but still that’s just the visible stuff and the chassis also needs work.
Looking around on the various websites I can see that some repair panels are still available but even so (and without lifting up the saturated front carpets) it’s clear that there will also need to be a fair bit of fabrication work required for those areas such as the floor and rear seat base where panels are not available. I’m not a big fan of this to be honest as I don’t thing these repairs are ever as good as fitting brand new panels and the costs can easily spiral out of control (ask me how I know) 🤬. If I was restoring the RRC it would be for it to be a keeps car or another 20-30 years or so out of it at least and it would need to be done right as my standards are very high, all of which comes at a price.
It’s a shame really as it’s a very original Softdash that has everything working and.....a very sweet 3.9 V8 serpentine engine 😬. However, heart cannot rule head as we all know so a choice has to be made.
Given the shortage of good second hand Softdash spares available to buy then potentially I could keep the engine and diffs and sell the rest of the car for spares if I don’t get the work done on it. Although I didn’t want to modify the bulkhead on the S3, it could now turn out to be that using the RRC V8 may well be the best way of upgrading it to act as my new daily just for the cost of a conversion kit.
If I did this then I would probably keep it EFi but I would also need to take it easy for the sake of the gearbox given the output of these engines. If I did fit this engine then would I need to change exhaust manifolds to an earlier version or could I keep the ones on it? I think you can still buy exhaust systems for this conversion but might need to look at an additional silencer if I could squeeze one in somewhere if it was too loud with the truck cab.
Thoughts, advice and opinions are, as always, very welcome.
-
8 hours ago, Snagger said:
That's why I brought up that magazine article and some comments about the ACR tuning options for the 4-cyls. Not cheap, but better value than a diesel you can't take anywhere, if that's how things go. At least those 4-pots would be very simple to install, though.
It was the possibility of upgrading a 2.5 that prompted the question about the torque and bhp figures required for the higher gearing. That said even the top 2.8 package will only produce 117 bhp/177lb.ft torque and is very expensive.
-
Tak Soren, that looks much more like it 👍I reckon the 3.0 manual crank will be the same and therefore the 2.25 petrol flywheel will fit straight on. Now I just need to either get hold of a 3.0 manual crank or a 2.6 engine. 🤞
-
48 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:
You will burn money putting together a tuned 2.5, and then burn as much fuel as a V8 once running...
If I use as much fuel as a V8 I’ll be a happy bunny 😀
Actually, one thing I was looking at was fitting the Weslake head and cam maybe off this 3.0 to a standard 2.6 LR block. I’m told it’s a straight swap and these heads were fitted as standard to the North American 6 cylinder engines. As I understand it, the head is where most of the gains were made with this engine and using a 2.6 block would eliminate all the problems of trying to match the flywheel to the crank. I may even be able to bore out the 2.6 slightly, skim the head etc to increase power output further. I’m not sure the extra 400cc of the 3.0, although nice to have, would make a huge difference to the overall performance of the vehicle.
-
I doubt I’d go down the road of high ratio transfer gears and 3.54 diffs but either or.
I know most V8s will pull that gearing without much bother but for the smaller engines, I think a standard 2.25 petrol for instance @73 bhp and 120 lb.ft of torque isn’t really up to the job especially on any sort of incline. I’m thinking then that torque outputs over 160 lb.ft would be required to maintain a decent speed with that sort of gearing and tyre size.
I’m just looking at alternative engine choices and upgrades if I can’t get the six pot idea to work and I’m leaning towards a 2.5 petrol with head and cam upgrades just for simplicity.
-
Does anyone have an idea of what the minimum BHP and torque an engine would need to produce in order to pull either Rangy diffs or high ratio transfer gears in a SWB on 7.50 tyres? When I say pull, I don’t just mean get the vehicle moving but allow it to drive reasonably well at motorway speeds without slowing to a crawl at the first sniff of a hill and be able to overtake fairly comfortably without being overgeared. 120 - 140bhp/ 200+ lb/ft torque? Higher/lower?
-
1 hour ago, Gazzar said:
I think you can just fit the head.
The 5mm spacer would work, though: if you trim the spigot on the flywheel to 2mm, have 2mm hole to match on the spacer, but turn the spacer from 10mm, so it has a spigot, 18mm, that fits the crank.
The spacer should then centralise on the crank, and centralise the flywheel.
Accuracy, of course, being essential.
Cheers. Yeah I could see how that could work and I probably have an engineering company that could do that. If using a spacer I will then need to source flywheel bolts that are 5mm longer than standard. Does anyone know what thread size the flywheel bolts are? The 2.6 and 3.0 ones are the same length.
-
I’m not sure I’ve explained myself very clearly about what is concerning me about having the end of the crankshaft opened up to accept the larger spigot bush boss off the 2.25 petrol flywheel so I found a good YT clip from Paddocks and screenshot some bits that might help explain things better.
This is my crank where the flywheel attaches. This is from the auto 3.0 and has an 18mm diameter hole in it which is about 20mm deep.
This is a picture of the 2.25 petrol flywheel, same diameter as the 2.6 so should fit within the 2.6 flywheel housing.
The boss in the centre on the crank side has a 5mm raised boss within which the spigot bush is fitted.
As I understand it the purpose of the raised boss is to centrally locate the flywheel against the crankshaft by sitting inside a matching recess on the crankshaft, in this case the 18mm one.
General overview of the flywheel and clutch arrangement.
My concern (which may be unfounded) is that by opening up the crank hole to accept the larger diameter flywheel boss, the flywheel and the clutch assembly that is bolted to it, will in effect move 5mm closer to the engine and may cause problems for the operation of the clutch. For instance the clutch friction plate moves along the splined section of the gearbox input shaft and one worry is that once the flywheel is fitted to the modified crank, the splined section of the input shaft will be 5mm too short and this may cause problems for the smooth movement of the friction plate on the spline.
Will things such as the operation of the release arm or the clutch push rod be affected and if so could I just use a longer push rod like one off a Disco to compensate?
Hope these photos help explain the concerns better and as always would appreciated any input or advice.
A manual crankshaft off a Rover may be a straight swap for the auto but I’m still trying to get confirmation of that. One other option is to fit the Westlake head to the standard 2.6 engine if it can be done.
-
8 minutes ago, steve b said:
How deep is the spigot boss on the flywheel ? How about a spacer with a spigot crank side and an appropriate counterbore flywheel side ?
What are the respective diameters?
cheers
Steve b
Flywheel boss is 35mm diameter by 5mm deep. Existing crank recess is 18mm diameter by approximately 20mm deep. If I open the crank boss out to accept the flywheel boss the flywheel will move towards the engine by that 5mm overall due to the thinner 2.25 petrol flywheel compared to the original thicker 3.0 auto flywheel ring gear/TC with the smaller diameter boss.
This may well be ok if it doesn’t affect clutch function hence the original request for more experienced input.
I don’t think the top hat solution would work in this scenario but happy to be corrected.
-
20 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:
A 5mm spacer would be cheap to get made.
The problem is that if I space the flywheel off the crank by 5mm I will lose the centralising function of the spigot boss to the crank.
-
3 hours ago, Soren Frimodt said:
Turning into quite the job it seems, would it be impossible to drill out 5 new holes in the flywheel you got from me? Are they not on a different PCD?
Hej Soren.
The 2.25 petrol flywheel should bolt straight on and fit within your flywheel housing if I was to open out the hole in the crank flange to 35mm. Problem is that this would then move the flywheel 5mm further towards the engine and I’m just not sure what if any, effect that would have on the operation of the clutch push rod. Would pedal travel be affected or would there still be enough spline length left on the first motion shaft to allow the clutch to engage and disengage correctly given the flywheel would be sat further away from the gearbox
Without having a pile of parts to experiment with its hard to judge. I’m told a manual crankshaft may be interchangeable with the auto one so I’m still investigating that option at the moment.
I was also wondering if the 3.0 Westlake head would fit the LR 2.6 block as a lot of the power seems to come from that (in addition to the additional cc)? Possibly the camshaft too if it’s a bit more pokey?
-
Last chance saloon - I’m going to see if the crank off the P5 manual is directly interchangeable with that of the auto.
If not then the Softdash gets the restoration and the Series stays as is.
Though if you're going to daily drive whatever comes out the other side, the rangey has got to be the better choice?
6cyl SWB?
in Series Forum
Posted
Is that the front output shaft housing you’re referring to?