ZF 4-speed, T-boxes

Anyone know if the (assumed, not checked) LT230 from a G-reg 5-speed 110 is a bolt-on swap for the borg-warner on an ex-rangie ZF 4HP22?

it's not mission-critical, and it might be that the T-box is in no better shape than the main box.

I've spotted the above-mentioned 110 for sale, and I reckon I can get it cheap as the main box is noisy as f*ck, as Nige would doubltess say :-)

So happens I have an unemployed ZF in "my" 110, which has a shagged chassis. I smell a plan coming together, provided the bank will play ball.

Reply to
Austin Shackles
Loading thread data ...

I'm pretty sure it is. My Classic has an LT230 transfer box, and I sold an identical one to a chap who bought it to fit to his 110.

Reply to
Pete M

It certainly is Austin, I took the Borg-Warner with viscous coupling off my RRC and replaced it with the LT230. Just needed one little mod, the handbrake on the later B-W was better and I had to redrill just one of the handbrake backplate fixing holes to match the earlier box. The LT230 came off a ZF 4HP22 but fitted perfectly on to my manual LT77 so no problems either way. No difference with the mounting but the ex -110" transfer box is much lower geared

Martin

Reply to
Oily

It is on a 101 ;-)

Reply to
.mother

On or around Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:29:28 +0100, Austin Shackles enlightened us thusly:

Thanks all.

The reason for the question is that to fit the BW T-box on my 110 required the rear propshaft to be 2" longer, and it was never balanced right after that.

Given the option (i.e. a motor with a shagged LT77 but a good LT230) I might stick with the LT230 and standard propshafts.

I'm assuming, of course, that a V8 G plate 110 has indeed got the LT77/LT230 combo in it, it's certainly a 5-speeder and has reverse in left-and-forward position.

Lower geared is not altogether a bad thing either. Past experience is that TC stall is about 1800 on the ZF 4HP22 ex-rangie, and that, with the rangie gearing in a 110, made for a lot of use of kickdown, at least with the gas setup I had on it before. However, the 110 I've got me eye on (bank permitting) has a sod-off Holley carb on it, so might make more torque.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

The intake manifold is likely to make more difference to torque than the carb will. And offroad you'll find that unless said Holley has centre hung floats it'll probably flood like a bastard when on side slopes. If however you gasify it the Holley is likely to work quite well.

Reply to
EMB

Oily wrote: quoting someone else

LT85

AJH

Reply to
andrew

I forgot about those, yes, I did have to use the LT230 propshafts as well but apart from that everything did fit together like it was meant to.

Martin

left-and-forward

Reply to
Oily

I didn't say that or quote anyone else, I inserted an added comment. And the most likely reason for the noisy LT85 will be the front layshaft bearing which is easy to replace and probably the *only* reason for the noise. The LT77 is a much nicer gearchange though.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

Martin I snipped a bit from your post where someone had previously asked what box was in a G reg 110, I answered LT85, I made a point of showing this bit was asked by an earlier poster and not you.

I don't know how I missed the original question as I was trying to follow this thread because I'm still interested in an auto box for a 101 and the

2" longer propshaft reference seemed to point to that set up fitting well.

AJH

Reply to
andrew

No probs mate, and I was thinking it should have been an LT85 myself. As far as the swap goes the output flanges on the B-W are further forward which necessitates using the correct propshafts which I had forgotten about. :-)

I was going to put a ZF auto box in my RRC which has a factory fitted 200 Tdi coupled to an LT77, and I have an engine backplate which was supposedly from a 200 Tdi with ZF auto but I don't know if it's the correct one or if I need a different bellhousing for the box and consequently I have two ZF auto boxes languishing in the back of my garage, one with a B-W transfer box and the other with the LT230, but they are both configured to fit a V8. By the time I find the right bits it looks like the body may have rotted away by then.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

On or around Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:17:48 +1200, EMB enlightened us thusly:

's a bit academic, anyway, bloke wants too much moolah for the motor.

Plan B now, I know for a '91 SW with no engine and box, and mine has an engine and box, and if I'd have got the one I referred to, I'd have had to do a gearbox swap anyway.

Still be nice to have the 110 T-box ratios, the BW one is really too high geared for the 3.5 and in for the motor, especially if it gets 33x10.5 tyres on it.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:17:21 +0100, andrew enlightened us thusly:

The BW transfer box is 2" (approx) shorter between flanges, so one or the other propshaft need lengthening, depending on where in the chassis you fit it.

Using standard gearbox mounts in the 110 lined up with the front prop, so I made the rear one longer.

If anyone has a decent 110 (or 90) LT230 then I may well be interested soon, and I could swap it for the BW one which is AFAIK in working order, including the vicious coupling.

but I may be able to get one with the engine-and-box free LR, chap it's coming from has something of a collection.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

I have a recon 110/90 LT230 which was mistakenly fitted to a Disco and then removed after a very short while for a higher geared one.

I'm trying to free up some storage space so don't really want any swaps.

It bites then? :-)

Make it a condition of purchase!

Reply to
Oily

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.