Auto to Manual

Does anyone know...can I convert an 89 rangie with an Auto box to a manual
using the 4speed box in my current 76 Rangie? I've found the 89 model for a
reasonable price and may be a better option than the restoration job I'm
doing on the 76 and in the interest of using the parts I've allready
got...wondered if this conversion would work?
Your right, might be more trouble than it's worth...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 22/07/2004

Austin Hi,

Have you also used the RaRo Borg Warner transfer box together with the
autobox?

Take care
Pantelis

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:38:40 +1000, "john smith"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Does anyone know...can I convert an 89 rangie with an Auto box to a
manual
> >using the 4speed box in my current 76 Rangie? I've found the 89 model for
a
> >reasonable price and may be a better option than the restoration job I'm
> >doing on the 76 and in the interest of using the parts I've allready
> >got...wondered if this conversion would work?
> >Your right, might be more trouble than it's worth...
>
> if you've got the 2 vehicles, then yes, but it is quite a lot of work.
Done
> th reverse swap on a 110, and that wasn't that hard.
>
> Mind, I'd be inclined to keep the autobox one as an auto, meself, if it's
a
> ZF 4-speed (which it should be) it's a damned good box, and loads of fun -
> kickdown into second at 50 results in a lion-like roar and lots of
> acceleration.
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
> (confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
> Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

Austin Hi,

Have you also used the RaRo Borg Warner transfer box together with the
autobox?

Take care
Pantelis

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Tue, 3 Aug 2004 20:38:40 +1000, "john smith"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Does anyone know...can I convert an 89 rangie with an Auto box to a
manual
> >using the 4speed box in my current 76 Rangie? I've found the 89 model for
a
> >reasonable price and may be a better option than the restoration job I'm
> >doing on the 76 and in the interest of using the parts I've allready
> >got...wondered if this conversion would work?
> >Your right, might be more trouble than it's worth...
>
> if you've got the 2 vehicles, then yes, but it is quite a lot of work.
Done
> th reverse swap on a 110, and that wasn't that hard.
>
> Mind, I'd be inclined to keep the autobox one as an auto, meself, if it's
a
> ZF 4-speed (which it should be) it's a damned good box, and loads of fun -
> kickdown into second at 50 results in a lion-like roar and lots of
> acceleration.
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
> (confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
> Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

On or around Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:07:04 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Hi,
>
>Have you also used the RaRo Borg Warner transfer box together with the
>autobox?

I did, yeah. The RR mounting plates and the 110 mounting plates were the
same, and they place the box such that the front prop fitted and the back
prop was 2" too short - the BW transfer box is 2" shorter between flanges
than the LT230.

also, on my conversion, had to move the engine mounts forward about 4", but
I think that was due to it not being a V8 chassis to start with.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

Austin thanks for your kind reply.

Was there a problem with the Borg Warner's transfer box operating
gearlever and mounting bracket?

It appears that in order to make a Borg Warner tbox's gearlever sit properly
on a NAS D90 autobox center console we will have to extend its mounting
bracket a bit forward.

Thanks for the rear propshaft tip.

In our case the car is a D90 but I believe the +2 inches extension of the
rear propshaft will also be required. Thanks God we do have an excellent
propshaft specialist over here.

Take care
Pantelis


"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:07:04 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Austin Hi,
> >
> >Have you also used the RaRo Borg Warner transfer box together with the
> >autobox?
>
> I did, yeah. The RR mounting plates and the 110 mounting plates were the
> same, and they place the box such that the front prop fitted and the back
> prop was 2" too short - the BW transfer box is 2" shorter between flanges
> than the LT230.
>
> also, on my conversion, had to move the engine mounts forward about 4",
but
> I think that was due to it not being a V8 chassis to start with.
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
> of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
> boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:54:36 +0000 (UTC), Dave White
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I know Austin extended his rear propshaft but, having done this job
>twice now, if you use the original gearbox mounting holes and the
>correct gearbox mounting brackets for the Bw xfer box, the rear
>propshaft can remain standard and the front propshaft is about 2 inches
>too short. A standard Classic Range Rover front propshaft for this xfer
>box will fit if you don't want to have one modified.

Mine was on a 110, and used the RR mountings which came with the BW. the
110 front prop is the same as an RR front prop, or rather, was the same as
the RR one that came with the gearbox. The box mounting plates were bolted
to the original holes in the 110 chassis.

The chassis was originally a 2.5 NAD with LT77 and LT230.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On or around Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:54:36 +0000 (UTC), Dave White
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I have no idea why Austin had to modify the rear prop unless he used
>LT230 gearbox mounts with the BW box in which case that would explain
>why the engine mounts had to be moved forward.

the engine mountings had to be moved forward about 4". If I'd made different
brackets and lengthened the front prop instead (see other reply about prop
lengths) I'd still have had the engine mounts in the wrong place by 2". I
was, however, using RR engine plates on the V8, and maybe the V8 110 had
different engine plates as well.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

In <[email protected]> Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
> Austin thanks for your kind reply.
>
> Was there a problem with the Borg Warner's transfer box operating
> gearlever and mounting bracket?
>
> It appears that in order to make a Borg Warner tbox's gearlever sit
> properly on a NAS D90 autobox center console we will have to extend
> its mounting bracket a bit forward.
>
> Thanks for the rear propshaft tip.

When I did mine (done this job twice now on Defenders) I moved the
bracket forward so the rear two holes of the bracket were bolted into
the front two holes of the gearbox. To add some strength I then cut a
rectangular piece of 3mm steel plate with 6 holes in it. The centre rear
pair of holes matched up with the rear gearbox holes, the middle pair
match up with the front gearbox holes and the rear bracket holes, the
front pair match up with the front bracket holes. Once it's all bolted
together the plate should support the bracket.

The operating rod will also need extending.

I know Austin extended his rear propshaft but, having done this job
twice now, if you use the original gearbox mounting holes and the
correct gearbox mounting brackets for the Bw xfer box, the rear
propshaft can remain standard and the front propshaft is about 2 inches
too short. A standard Classic Range Rover front propshaft for this xfer
box will fit if you don't want to have one modified.

I have no idea why Austin had to modify the rear prop unless he used
LT230 gearbox mounts with the BW box in which case that would explain
why the engine mounts had to be moved forward. The LT230 mounting
brackets have a different offset to the BW ones. The BW ones move the
transfer box back a few inches.

You need to be aware that if you are using wheels larger than 205x16 on
this 90 you might well find the BW box too high geared and the engine
will struggle to cope with it at cruising speeds. I ran mine with 235/
85s on and found that at 60MPH, locked up, the engine was sat at around
1800RPM - too low for the engine to cope with inclines without kicking
down. SWMBO's 90 (3.9V8 Auto BW) runs fine on 225/70x16s but struggled
on the motorway when I fitted my 235/85x16s to it. My 100 inch Defender (
3.9V8 Auto LT230, was BW) copes much better with the 235/85s on the
motorway since I swapped from BW to a 1.4 LT230.

cheers

Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/