LT95 gearbox info

Hi

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

In message <[email protected]>
"Andy Fox" <nospam> wrote:

> Hi
>
> 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
>
>
>

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

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

>>Hi
>>
>>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
>>

>
>
> Well, 17C isn't listsed in any of the books I've got, and
> the only one I don't have to hand is the 101 book. It isn't
> Stage 1 V either. Perhaps it's a Santana box?
>
> Richard


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

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:30:05 +0000, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

Yep, WHS.

In message <[email protected]>
Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> >>Hi
> >>
> >>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
> >>
>
> >
> >
> > Well, 17C isn't listsed in any of the books I've got, and
> > the only one I don't have to hand is the 101 book. It isn't
> > Stage 1 V either. Perhaps it's a Santana box?
> >
> > Richard
>
>
> 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
>

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
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

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




"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>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
> >>
>
> >
> >
> > Well, 17C isn't listsed in any of the books I've got, and
> > the only one I don't have to hand is the 101 book. It isn't
> > Stage 1 V either. Perhaps it's a Santana box?
> >
> > Richard
>
>
> 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
>