I have a 1985 110 V8 with a LT95 gearbox. According to my parts book the box number should be prefixed 13C. The Range Rovers used a 12C version of the LT95 around the same time, but my box is a 17C.
Anyone have any ideas on where it was originally from, please? I don't think it was from a 101 as I think that was fairly low geared and my 110 will do over 90mph without much effort.
Thanks Andy
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
B
beamendsltd
Well, 17C isn't listsed in any of the books I've got, and te only one I don't ahve to hand is the 101 book. It isn't Stage 1 V either. Perhaps it's a Santana box?
Richard
D
Dougal
101 Parts book suggests 101 'box has the 95600001A series of serial numbers (i.e. the old numbering system). Don't believe that 101 'box had different ratios to standard RRC 'box although I'm open to correction.
101 input shaft and bell housing were shorter however. The fundamental difference in overall gear ratios occurred as a result of the 101's numerically much higher axle bevel gear/pinion ratio.
David
M
Mother
Yep, WHS.
B
beamendsltd
It's perhaps worth noting that the 4 Speed box was devloped for the 101, and then used in the RR, not the other way round as is usually supposed.
Richard
A
Andy Fox
Thanks for the help - looks like I can eliminate 101s from the list. I've since had another idea:
My 110 is a county station wagon but was once a Shorland armoured car. It has Salisbury axles front and rear (like the 101?) and anti-roll bars front and rear. It also has a non-standard power steering box, as I found out when I tried to fit an exchange recon one!
The gearbox number is 17C00048 which would imply it was the 48th 17C made. Lack of documentation about the 17C means there probably was not a massive amount of them built. Perhaps they were only fitted to these Shorland armoured conversions?
Any military specialists have any comments, please?
I wonder if whoever converted it back to a CSW maybe changed the transfer box high ratio gears to a range rover setup as the 17C perhaps had a lower ratio to cope with the extra weight and would have made high speed cruising impossible (and first gear redundant).
If I find out anything definite I'll post it here.
Andy
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.