fourwzzy Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Hi, guys! Now I'm rebuilding my series 3 109". I want to swap engine to 300(Di/TDi), my question is: If I couple 300tdi with series gearbox and will use gearbox mounting points as a referent points for placing engine mounts, can I in future replace gearbox to r380 without doing anything with engine mounts? And also shoud I make a custom mounts for gearbox? Sorry for my english guys, I'm from Russia) Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon White Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 300 tdi wont bolt to a series gearbox. Fit a 200tdi and it will bolt straight up to the series gearbox and will bolt straight on to the series engine mounts. R380 is about 4" longer so mounts will have to move. It's easier to move the gearbox mounts in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuko Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 The 300tdi will not directly bolt to the series gear box, but if you remove a few studs and create 2 new stud locations at the bottom of the bell housing, it will work. I've been running a series 3 transmission behind a 300di/tdi for 6 years. Sitting in the garage is a LT77/LT230 that I plan to install this coming summer. The motor mounts will not need to be altered when the LT77 is installed but I will have to make new mounts for the transmission/transfer case as already said by Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Alternatively, fit the bell housing from a scrap 12J or 19J 2.5 diesel to the 300 Tdi engine, move one stud to the unused hole next to it and it'll bolt straight up. As to whether the engine would stay n the same position for a later R380 retrofit, no - you'll have to move the engine forward 4" or 10cm if you use a short bell housing and pinion version (expensive) or Defender LT77, much more if you use a standard R380. You could move the gearbox back, but that will require removal of not only the gear box cross member but the next one back and a lot of cab floor alteration. It would be impossible on an 88" due to the rear prop length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourwzzy Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 Thank you guys! And one more question! My chassis don't have original engine mounts. Thats why I wanna use gearbox mounts as referent point, but I don't have spacers betweet gearbox brackets and gearbox member.Are theese parts correct for series gearbox:http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/387/272498-MOUNTING-BRACKET-LH.html?search=gearbox%20mount&page=1http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/11976/272501-MOUNTING-BRACKET-REAR-RH.html?search=272501&page=1Is it the easiest way to place engine and gear box correctly? Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon White Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Rubbish. I have an lt77 and lt230 in my 88" using the stock engine mounts. Yes the gearbox crossmember has to go, but the next one back is still there in the stock position. Rear prop length is still sensable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Why the hostility, Jon? Disagreeing with someone doesn't require abusive language I wouldn't fancy running a propshaft that short with those angles - it must be almost all slip joint and will go through UJs faster than normal. Better to have a standard length rear prop and a front prop that isn't so long as it'll also avoid having to chop lumps out of the bell housing cross member. The LT320 output shaft is higher up than the Series transfer box, so that will help the front prop over that cross member, but I would expect it to foul unless you are also switching to coiler axles with the inclined front diff. It may be clear, but it is an area that would need careful assessment. With a rear shifted transmission, that aft cross member is going to be much closer to the transfer brake drum, so on a 109 that element of maintenance will be a bit more awkward. I haven't ever measured the gap between the cross member and brake drum, and on mine it's a bit tighter than usual because Marsland cocked up the transmission and engine mounts and put them about an inch further back than they should be. I don't think it would cause you much trouble, but measuring up the current distance and then subtracting 4" would give you an idea of how much space you'd have for replacing brake parts. Should be fine, but worth checking. It would be less of a hindrance on an 88 because they have a different shape cross member that is less obstructive. In all honesty, I think you're much better off doing both the engine and transmission change together - doing one at a time is going to make it much more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon White Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Errr what's abusive about saying rubbish?? Rear prop actually works fine being short because of the way that the series leaf springs work. In all the years I've been running it I've never even changed a uj. It's only a stock 88" rear prop that I cut down. There is no need for long travel props on the back of a series. Front also clears fine, and no, I'm running series axles. However I do have to admit that the bent to hell series bell housing cross member has long since been cut off and replaced with one cut from a scrap discovey which is a very similar shape, but thick metal and stronger. That may improve clearance a little, but I've never found it a problem. Front prop is a cut down coiler one. Again nothing special. I've gone through a couple of front props, but being as they are only second hand ones anyway it's not a problem. My truck has more suspension travel the most coilers, and I've checked it many times with a forklift. And I have no problems with propshaft a even at extreme articulation. I can't comment about trans drum as I've run a disk handbrake since day 1. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I figured with the steep angle of the shortened rear prop, the UJs would be working hard. The steeper the angle, the more the slip joint will work on spring compression. My 109 is on parabolics with 1-ton chassis and hangers. The combined lift caused the rear prop to foul the hole in the cross member behind the transmission - a problem that will never affect an 88 with their open bottomed cross member. The 1-ton and MoD 109 chassis have a notch in the bell housing cross member to allow for the steeper front prop angle. I would have expected a similar notch to be needed, if not something bigger, to allow for the LT230's front output being so much further aft than on the Series transfer box. Moving the back end of the LT230 even further back to allow for the length of an LT77 with the engine in the original position, I'm sure it'd be a problem without an altered cross member. Keeping the engine aft would certainly benefit weight distribution, though, and if you want to keep the SIII front end, will be essential. Fitting a Stage 1 V8 bonnet and rad panel is not so bad, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.