berti1554

I've a ZF4HP22 behind my 3.9 and so no reason why I should install a manual box instead

Can you post the url - couldn't find it Thx!

This is the one on the front of my rrc. 3 weeks later the rear one looked the same...

Use the exhaust manifolds. Is no problem at all - they are good to take the weight of the engine + AT + TC

I think you will end up in fabricating you a mount that just fits. When I put in my V8/AT/LT230 in I couldn't get a mount that fitted so I just reworked the one I had out of the rrc or Def - not sure which one it was...

Is it a 90 / 110 / 130?

No, they are different. On the pics below you see an LT77 w/ the mechanism of an LT230 and a 4HP22 with an LT230 fitted but still the mechanism for the Borg&Warner box on it. You've already fitted an AT to you Td5? So you had to relocate the mechism anyhow. Maybe it works to adjust the mechism as it is similar. And remove the linkage for the diff lock But why will you go from an LT230 to the Borg Warner? The Brog Warner is much weaker...

Take a voltmeter and connect it to ground an + while engine is off. Voltage should be around 12 to 13V. Then start the engine - voltage should go up to approx 13.5 to 14V. Switch on lights, fan and everything else - voltage should be stable (might need higher revs).

I'm not sure if it works with the ECU of the AT as I don't know what is installed on the RR. On BMW's which are using the same AT the TCM as it's called there (made by Siemens) won't work. IMHO you have two options: Contact Dave Ashcroft for a 4HP24 that is hydraulically controlled only (I think he reworks them) or (and this is the one I'd prefer at this point of time) contact Dave Ashroft for Compushift. This is a free programmable ECU that fits on the 4HP24. The third option is to wait at least 18 months - then you might be able to control the 4HP24 with MegaSquirt. At the moment there are no codes available for this type of AT (just for some US AT's) but I know some guys working on it...

ABS is not the problem - it can be switched off. The rear axle of the rrc has a max load of approx 1500kg wheras the one of my '84 110 has a max load of approx 1800kg. AFAIK the max load on the rrc was not limited because of the axle itself but the springs and other things. Am I wrong?

This is what I will do and I think it should be the best way to get these documents. TÜV should accept them. Problem here is that they don't really care about whether something works or not as long as they have not to take the responsibility for it. This is one of the reasons why I have to provide a certificate written by a consulting engineer - they do not want to do this work on their own. I'm already sick about these things over here so I might go to the German TÜV and then import the car to Austria but this is also not as easy as it seems... The brakes were the same as on the Diesel units? As this is MY93 they should already have disc brakes on the rear axle. My '84 oneten had drum brakes on the rear but as I'm using the axles out of the rrc I've got discs on the rear too. I will use the complete brake system out of the rrc including the ABS (see photo)

Hehe, and I will be at the US then... I've got already a lot of information here on lr4x4 and on d-90 that should help me. The problem (and this seems to be something like an Austria-Special-Requirement) is that the Austrian TÜV (similar the MOT) requires a certificate wirtten by a consulting engineer that guarantees that the work is done according to factory specs, brake system is ok for the larger engine and so on. Ok, then I thought using the complete drivetrain including steering and the brakes out of the rrc is ok for them, they wouldn't ask for any further information but they did. They told me that basically everything can be checked w/o the information they asked for but it makes the thing more and more expensive. So I search for as many documents as I can get - and these have to be official LR documents like the German "Fahrzeugbrief" - that show the spec of the NAS110. Does the US registration show the engine? If yes this would already be something helpful... Cheers - Robert PS: You will move to Germany? If you search for LR contacts and a Forum over there go to balcklandy.de

Ok, maybe I have to make myself a bit clearer - there seems to be some misunderstanding. Everything you say is correct but it doesn't answer my question. I'm working on the V8 conversion of my oneten MY84. It was a rhd with the 4cyl petrol engine. Now it got the 3.9 RV8 out of a rrc MY91 and is lhd. The fuel tank I use is the original one w/ an external fuel pump - I don't need a new one. The problem I have is the TUV here in Austria which is similar to your MOT. To bring the car thru they either require quite expensive certificates of a consulting engineer or the spec sheet of a similar car as it was made from factory. I thought that the 3.9 V8 was never installed on the 110 from factory but then I saw the fuel tank for a 110 w/ 4.0V8 at Paddock (and with this the confusion came up - sorry ). The only reason why I posted the picture w/ the fuel tank here was to show that Paddock sells a fuel tank for a car of what I thought had never existed from factory. Now I know that it has and need some further information on it. What I need is detailed information on the 93 NAS110 w/ the 3.9 RV8 installed. Best would be to get a copy of a registration document or a copy of a document from the manufacturer that shows all dimenstions, weights, exhaust emissions and so on. Thanks and sorry for the confusion I brought up...

Somebody on blacklandy.de found this: 1993 NAS 110 Seems that the 3.9 RV8 was factory fitted on a limited build for the US and CAN only. If somebody has further information on this it would be gratly welcome. Thanks

Yeah, I know. But the question was if the 3.9/4.0 V8 was available in the 110 from factory. If yes this would help me to bring the V8 thru the TUV (MOT) which seems to be much harder here in Austria than at GB. Thanks

I was ordering some parts at Pad...s for my V8 conversion the other day and saw a fuel tank that was for use on a 110/130 4.0V8. I was not aware that the 110 ever had the 4.0V8 from factory - was thinking just the 90 had it. Somebody told me that the 4.0V8 110 was sold at the US. Is this true? If yes does anyone has further information on this (spec sheet or a copy of a registration document)? thanks - b

The 316 is quite ok but this is not the 4cyl 2.2cdi. It has the 5cyl 2.7cdi engine. On our sprinters - they are used as a tool and gear waggon - we always were loaded to 3.5to. On one sprinter we had the clutch gone at 30k km - this was the one that was used most time up in the mountains. And there the low torque at low revs was really a problem (this was the engine before they gut twin-turbo). The one I had before (312D) was the best I ever had because of the 2.8 5cyl engine. Edit: when they were on revs they are quite ok

IMHO not the best choice as it has very low torque at low revs. I had this engine in my company car (alway had 3.5to) and was not happy w/ it. Also, the Sprinter cdi-engines have lots of troubles with the injectors at low miles.

I doubt that you really have that high pressure in your system - filter would have gone at 55bar or more. I don't know the system you have installed (do you have a link to the seller?) but easiest way to check is to install a conventional oil pressure gauge or replace the sender unit as this should be a very low cost part and can easily be fitted. Other possibility is that you have problems w/ earth (don't think so as it reads trustable values at certain rpm's and temp's) or a conector.

imho the word fuel economy and Defender (would say it has a cd-value similar to a fridge on tyres ) do not match. A good working AT using the correct maps for lock up and shift points won't be that less efficient. You want maual shift on an AT? Use compushift (or MegaSquirt but this will require somebody to write the codes for the zf-auto box)

Porsche used dual clutch gearboxes already in the early 1980's for their race cars. So the clutches should be good for high output / high torque engines. Maybe Audi had problems with their earlier gear boxes but this should be solved (but not the expensive repair in case ) But once again: You won't be happy with a dual clutch gear box on a Defender if you have driven a AT w/ torque converter. What's the reason behind?

Best is to give Dave Ashcroft a call. I've already had a discussion with him about compushift and he seems to be quite experienced on how to calibrate compushift to avoid any problems w/ either transmission or engine.

Wanted to install my new dash today and needed my MIG-welding unit. The damm coolant of same got frozen overnight. Took me more than 2 hours to get it work and fill up with antifreeze. No dash installed...

With having enough time and money everything is possible but the question is if this is the best setup you can get. IMHO a dual clutch gearbox is better than a standard manual shift but far from an AT. With an AT you have a TC that is best for heavy off roading and ver slow passages. Nearly no wear compared to a clutch. For this a dual clutch won't help

Take a 110, put in a V8 (4.6 out of rr p38), install an auto box (zf 4hp24). You'll have a car that fits your requirements (mountain bike...) and makes a lot of fun. If you want something special run the v8 on MegaSquirt and the auto box on compushift. That gives you the possibility to do what you want. The 4.6 is good to make up to 260 - 280HP and the 4HP24 is strong enough to take the torque Cheers