Not gone to Biling.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:28:05 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

>Might make sense, you have pushed up the power and I imagine all the
>goodies add a bit of weight so a torque converter might soften the
>shock to the drive train a bit.

This is exactly my thinking around this.

>Are you currently on an lt95?

Yup - good, but not quite good enough :-(


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:52:10 GMT, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Yeah, I guess I do tend to agree, however, I reckon an auto will soak
>> up the extra power without putting too much strain on the drive train
>> together with giving me some space when I rebuild the cab.
>
>Well the theory seems to be working on Percy.. but I did bung a sailsubry
>axle under as well for good measure. Hardly notice gear changes at all.

I'm sold on the idea...


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:30:46 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:28:05 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Might make sense, you have pushed up the power and I imagine all the
>>goodies add a bit of weight so a torque converter might soften the
>>shock to the drive train a bit.
>
>This is exactly my thinking around this.

I saw you had posted these thoughts as mine went on it's way. I had
actually been considering this when you posted your problem on the way
to Billing.

AJH
 
On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:50:44 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>even worse than the old 4 speed auto in the mini / austin
>1100/1300!

Oi. me dad worked on the design team of that one. One thing you can say is
that they were ahead of the times in putting 4 gears in it.

mind, I'd recommend the ZF 4-speeder, as fitted to RRs etc., nice box.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood
 
On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:13:25 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:54:27 GMT, Alex <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>No chance, give me a manual any day.
>
>Yeah, I guess I do tend to agree, however, I reckon an auto will soak
>up the extra power without putting too much strain on the drive train
>together with giving me some space when I rebuild the cab.

the ZF 4HP22 as fitted to Rangies etc. (or maybe an HP24, if you has a 4.6,
IIRC) is a nice box and reputed to be stronger than the 5-speed manuals.

from what I hear, the 4-speed LT95 (early RR) is supposed to be the
strongest of the LR manual boxes.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood
 
On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:30:46 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:28:05 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Might make sense, you have pushed up the power and I imagine all the
>>goodies add a bit of weight so a torque converter might soften the
>>shock to the drive train a bit.
>
>This is exactly my thinking around this.
>
>>Are you currently on an lt95?
>
>Yup - good, but not quite good enough :-(

if you put a later RR one in, you can have the BW transfer box with the
viscous coupling as well...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:24:05 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:30:46 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
>@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:28:05 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Might make sense, you have pushed up the power and I imagine all the
>>>goodies add a bit of weight so a torque converter might soften the
>>>shock to the drive train a bit.
>>
>>This is exactly my thinking around this.
>>
>>>Are you currently on an lt95?
>>
>>Yup - good, but not quite good enough :-(
>
>if you put a later RR one in, you can have the BW transfer box with the
>viscous coupling as well...

That has to be the right way to go. It's one less cable to **** about
with for one thing!


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:21:01 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:50:44 +0100, "Badger"
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>even worse than the old 4 speed auto in the mini / austin
>>1100/1300!
>
>Oi. me dad worked on the design team of that one. One thing you can say is
>that they were ahead of the times in putting 4 gears in it.

Ok, I'll grant you that one. Problem was 2 of them had a tendancy to
fall out of it......

Alex
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:24:05 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>if you put a later RR one in, you can have the BW transfer box with the
>viscous coupling as well...

This is exactly the combination Warren and I were looking at earlier.


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:03 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That has to be the right way to go. It's one less cable to **** about
>with for one thing!

The only drawback is you're (we're) then stuck with the ratios,
whereas we'd have more choice with a geared transfer system. I'm not
overly bothered though as Grumble has the original low ratio (by
comparison) front and rear diffs. Dave White mentioned this issue at
Billing and i've been thinking about whether it would affect Grumble.
I suspect not, unless anyone can offer further insught :)


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:10:42 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:03 +0100, Tim Hobbs
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That has to be the right way to go. It's one less cable to **** about
>>with for one thing!
>
>The only drawback is you're (we're) then stuck with the ratios,
>whereas we'd have more choice with a geared transfer system. I'm not
>overly bothered though as Grumble has the original low ratio (by
>comparison) front and rear diffs. Dave White mentioned this issue at
>Billing and i've been thinking about whether it would affect Grumble.
>I suspect not, unless anyone can offer further insught :)

How seriously are you going to off-road in Grumble? For my needs
(mostly on-road with a few forays onto gentle ground) the low ratios
are not that important. So it's OK to chuck the box in and then tune
the ratios with the diffs. If you want the ultimate low ratio then
this may not work out.

Even with just the standard 3.5 (albeit in very good tune) I'd reckon
that a 70mph cruise would be achievable if the standard overall ratios
were upped a bit and the props quietened slightly. With a 4.6 in
harness I'm sure that you have more than enough to pull whatever ratio
happens to be there.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:29:28 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

>>This is exactly my thinking around this.
>
>I saw you had posted these thoughts as mine went on it's way. I had
>actually been considering this when you posted your problem on the way
>to Billing.

I think it's the logical way to go and it does fit in with my other
plans for rebuilding the front of Grumble - 't will free some space
(especially on the engine cover and hi-lo lever area - so an aircon
kit can go in with the digital dash) together with the benefits of the
overall drive train protection.

Sod really, going as it did - especially as we've sorted the
overheating problem. Cruising down the M1 at 75 without the heater on
full blast was an absolute joy - till the transfer box went!


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:13:36 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> wrote:

>How seriously are you going to off-road in Grumble? For my needs
>(mostly on-road with a few forays onto gentle ground) the low ratios
>are not that important. So it's OK to chuck the box in and then tune
>the ratios with the diffs. If you want the ultimate low ratio then
>this may not work out.

Grumble can, but doesn't 'seriously' off road these days - although
'very rugged terrain' is planned. The 'low' in a 101, as you know, is
about 'gentle walking pace'. This is well handy at times and I'd like
to keep close to it - although not for mud-plugging.

>Even with just the standard 3.5 (albeit in very good tune) I'd reckon
>that a 70mph cruise would be achievable if the standard overall ratios
>were upped a bit and the props quietened slightly. With a 4.6 in
>harness I'm sure that you have more than enough to pull whatever ratio
>happens to be there.

I think the issue is with the high ratio. With low revs the engine is
not as efficient - so cruising at 60-70 only doing 1800rpm is not
necessarily a good idea. 'pends on the box, but with a viscous Borg
Warner, there are no options - as with a geared transfer, for
adjustment of ratio.

Erm, if that makes sense... :)


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:50:44 +0100, "Badger"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>even worse than the old 4 speed auto in the mini / austin
>>1100/1300!
>
>
> Oi. me dad worked on the design team of that one. One thing you can say is
> that they were ahead of the times in putting 4 gears in it.

Yes, BUT they are supposed to stay IN the box. Not automatically deposit
them on the road.....

Steve
 
Steve Taylor wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>> On or around Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:50:44 +0100, "Badger"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us
>> thusly:
>>
>>
>>>even worse than the old 4 speed auto in the mini / austin
>>>1100/1300!
>>
>>
>> Oi. me dad worked on the design team of that one. One thing you can say
>> is that they were ahead of the times in putting 4 gears in it.
>
> Yes, BUT they are supposed to stay IN the box. Not automatically deposit
> them on the road.....
>

Two words.

Hillman Electromatic.


The damn thing used iron filings and an electromagnet instead of a viscous
torque convertor.

Now imagine *any* moisture getting in there.

P.
 
Paul S. Brown wrote:

>
> Two words.
>
> Hillman Electromatic.
>
>
> The damn thing used iron filings and an electromagnet instead of a viscous
> torque convertor.
>

This is the new bleeding edge of clutch technology - magneto-rheological
clutches and electro-rheological clutches - and the Hillman was made
when ?

An idea long before its time. What a shame.

Steve
 
Steve Taylor wrote:

> Paul S. Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> Two words.
>>
>> Hillman Electromatic.
>>
>>
>> The damn thing used iron filings and an electromagnet instead of a
>> viscous torque convertor.
>>
>
> This is the new bleeding edge of clutch technology - magneto-rheological
> clutches and electro-rheological clutches - and the Hillman was made
> when ?
>
> An idea long before its time. What a shame.
>

The reference I saw for it was a 1956 car. My father who started his
apprenticeship in 1962 tells me that they would basically tell any insurer
who came looking for a quote to write the car off. The garages hated
working on them.

As for the 1100 automatic box, there is a story told of a mechanic at Macrae
and Dick in Fort William in the late 1960s who had one brought to him with
a noisy gear box.

A standard trick to quieten a noisy gearbox at the time was to pour a
handful of sawdust into it to thicken the oil a bit. Worked a treat on the
manual boxes of the day.

The result with the 1100s autobox was that the microbore galleries clogged
and it tried to select all four forward gears and reverse at once.

P.
 
"Mother" <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Sod really, going as it did - especially as we've sorted the
> overheating problem. Cruising down the M1 at 75 without the heater on
> full blast was an absolute joy - till the transfer box went!

oh interesting...what was the source of the heating problem?

Lee D.


 
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:46:20 GMT, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>oh interesting...what was the source of the heating problem?

The leccie fan I reckon.

The switch packed up so I though enough was enough and put a Rangie
viscous fan back on. Also put the old rad cowl on and changed the
water pump (although there didn't appear to be anything wrong with the
old one - just a few less blades). The collective result is that
cruising at 70mph (did I say 75 before? - silly me!) is an absolute
joy ;-)

I did a test run after the MOT and was happily (accidentally) doing 85
with the temp at a steady 65-70^ - Only trouble being the noise - but
the lead sticky stuff from Billing may cure that a tad.


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:10:59 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:
changed the
>water pump (although there didn't appear to be anything wrong with the
>old one - just a few less blades).

Interesting. As posted earlier (topic Hot Rangerover), I'm sure mine
RR runs hotter with the new water pump I recently fitted. The pumps
are not all the same then?

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flat 6
New alternator not charging!?!
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Flat 6
Flat 6
Slooby
P38 2.5 DSE Spares or Repairs [SOLD]
Replies
14
Views
2K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
PieterLV
D2 V8 not starting
Replies
6
Views
1K
PieterLV
PieterLV
Philygoat
Intro to Electrical help with LED's
Replies
4
Views
928
Philygoat
Philygoat
s8ndst0rm
Wipers not working, but washers are
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
s8ndst0rm
s8ndst0rm
Back
Top