SII 109 project

[greenmeanie]

Ok Yorker here we go with my own thread. My apologies for any bad forum etiquette.

In that this potential truck has a Ford V8 I am obviously perusing T.A.W. website in great detail. Naturally I will have a bucket load of quetions.

First off though is there any reason other than gear ratios that you would chose an NP435 over a T-18? While T.A.W. seems to have chosen a T-18 it her web page does not give any preference reasons other than gear ratio that I can find. I am still reading however.

As I like the idea of retaining the LR transfer box I am tempted to go the T-18 route as I have an obvious resource for info on the build to adapt the two boxes together.
Cheers
Gregor

[leafsprung]

I like the NP435 better. Its a little shorter and shifts nicer (in my opinion than the T-18. But its personal preference. I also would put a SBC in a rover over a ford V8 any day of the week. The process for making the adaptor for either transmission is the same, so that shouldnt be an issue in your decision.

[greenmeanie]

Thanks Ike,
The only reason I'm takling Ford is that the truck already has a 289 fitted. If I was starting from scratch I would probably be going diesel but that would break the bank on this project right now.

The truck has the 289 fitted to a series box which I know is going to be a problem si I'm looking for some stronger cogs.

Cheers
Gregor.

[leafsprung]

Not like SBCs are expensive, sell the ford and buy one, or sell it and buy a diesel, you could get a running 6AT for a couple grand. I have a friend who is selling his diesel 109 project. Its a sprung over 3 door on FJ60 axles with a cummins/NP435/HR rover t-case.

-Ike

[greenmeanie]

Thanks for the info Ike.

Other than personal preference is there any fundemental reasons the Ford is bad. I got the impression from a picture on your website that you don't like 'em. I can't say I'm a huge fan or anything but just looking for some solid inforamtion to base my decisions on.

I would be interested in seeing some more info on your friends project. My issue is that I really need a SW as it is to become a family vehicle. I know conversions can be done but, as always it comes down to comparing what you've got to start with to where you want to get to in a budget. Converting a 2 door to a SW sounds like it could get expensive.

Cheers
Gregor

[leafsprung]

Which picture was that? Ford v8s are not bad per se. However the SBC has the advantage in parts interchageability and aftermarket support. Which is why you see a lot of SBCs in ford hotrods . . .

[yorker]

If the Ford engine is OK I doubt I'd bother changing it for a SBC. I've never had any great affinity for SBC or Ford Small Blocks. Either are ok, I'd go with what you have. They are all light duty car/truck engines and will work well enough in any Land Rover.

It might be worth running the serial #s on the 289 though just to see if it is something that might be worth more to someone doing a resto on a Mustang or something.

The NP435 is better then the T18 IMHO. I may end up using a T18 for my 109 but only because it is available locally I'd prefer the 435.

FWIW Ford Fuel injection is pretty simple. Speed density or mass air...

[yorker]

Which picture was that? Ford v8s are not bad per se. However the SBC has the advantage in parts interchageability and aftermarket support. Which is why you see a lot of SBCs in ford hotrods . . .

Yup same reason you see ford 9" rear ends under mopar hot rods and others...

Gregor FWIW here is a lightweight a friend of mine is building, it is where my Sals went:

http://www.landroverusaforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=535

Ike- how did the FJ60 axles work out on your friend's 109? I have been looking for a set for my Ambulance I found a set of free floater FJ60 axles on Long Island which kind of intrigue me. - I might use the set of FJ40 axles I already have but I'd like to reserve them for an 88".

[greenmeanie]

Well there's a rather nice looking project for sale on line right now in Ohio. A 67IIA 109 with galvy bulkhead, chassis & B-pillars for about the right price. Two questions:
1. Does anyone know the guy who's offering it?
2. I am sure it was on here that there was a thread showing a blue coil sprung series station wagon. Does anyone know who that is and where the pictures are.

Cheers
Gregor

[TeriAnn]

First off though is there any reason other than gear ratios that you would chose an NP435 over a T-18? While T.A.W. seems to have chosen a T-18 it her web page does not give any preference reasons other than gear ratio that I can find. I am still reading however.

I didn't so much choose a T-18 nine years ago when the conversion was done as Timm Cooper recommended the box and I went with his recommendation. He stopped recommending the box years ago. The T-18 is a very rugged box but the shift pattern is very loose and you have to shift by guessiing where the gear should be instead of by feel.

If I were to do it all over again and money were no object I suspect I would go with the 1995 or newer version of the NV4500 five speed with Timm's adapter. If I were to do it over again with a 4 speed I would pick the close ratio NP435.

Close ratio? Yep. A T-18 has a 6.32:1 granny first gear, which using 4.7 R&P & C or later suffix transfercase provides a low range first gear ratio of close to 70:1. Stock for a Series IIA is 40.7:1. I find 40.7:1 to be too tall for much of the more technical off road driving I do. But 70:1 is much lower than I need and with V8 torque it is hard to keep the pedal still enough to apply steady power. For the kind of technical driving I do I've tended to prefer a gear around 55:1. I just never use low range first. What good is having a gear you almost never use?

Actually I use first gear high range a lot on the trail because the axle ratio (with Ashcroft kit in the transfercase) is very close to stock series low range second gear. If I'm traveling with Series LRs who are using low second I easily go the same speed in high first. If they drop to low first I can usually drop my RPM to idle or near idle and travel at the same speed. My engine has more torque at idle than a 2.25L has at peak so dropping that RPM works when trailing with stock Series rigs. When I travel with stock Series rigs I never need to drop ino low range. I carry four gears I don't use in that kind of situation.

Close ratio NP435 first gear is 4.78:1, granny first is 6.69:1 (Ford version), Suffix C & later low range transfercase ratio is 2.35:1 and the stock series R&P ratio is 4.7:1.

Therefore the low range first gear axle ratio for the close ratio Ford version of the NP435 is 53:1 and for the granny gear version is 74:1

If you are building a serious rock crawler 70:1 or 74:1 is good to have but for a Dormobile that occasionally does moderate rock crawling the 53:1 ratio is more useful in more places and still much superior to the stock 40.7:1

Anyway, that's what I would do if I were to do it over again. I stayed away from recomendations on my gearbox web pages because I don't want to limit people's ideas and their needs are likely different from mine.

By the way, it is T.J.W. My middle name is Jennifer

[TeriAnn]

Which picture was that? Ford v8s are not bad per se. However the SBC has the advantage in parts interchageability and aftermarket support. Which is why you see a lot of SBCs in ford hotrods . . .

I often times think it more a matter of if you were raised in a Ford household or a Chevy household.

In a Series rig Chevy has the advantages of being slightly shorter, the rams head exhaust manifold and rear sump. Ford has the advantage of a easily accessible distributor, slightly less weight and I think a 302 is slightly narrower.

Small block Fords have lots of parts interchangeability. For instance my engine is a 1970 Mustang long block with mid 1970's timing chain cover & front auxiliaries from an econoline van, a Bronco oil pan and 1991 Mustang fuel injection system that includes the manifolds & distributor. One of these days I plan to install a 351 cam. But yes there are less versions of the Chevy small block.

Speed parts? Most speed parts add power to the high end by stealing it from the low end. You need to look very carefully at the resulting idle to 3000 RPM curves before plunking down money on speed gear. But there are lots of after market parts for the 302.

I think the engine choice between small block V8s is mostly a personal preference and not a technical preference.

[leafsprung]

Speed parts? Most speed parts add power to the high end by stealing it from the low end.

Not speed parts per se, general aftermarket. SBC parts are very cheap and plentiful.

[yorker]

Close ratio? Yep. A T-18 has a 6.32:1 granny first gear, which using 4.7 R&P & C or later suffix transfercase provides a low range first gear ratio of close to 70:1. Stock for a Series IIA is 40.7:1. I find 40.7:1 to be too tall for much of the more technical off road driving I do. But 70:1 is much lower than I need and with V8 torque it is hard to keep the pedal still enough to apply steady power. For the kind of technical driving I do I've tended to prefer a gear around 55:1. I just never use low range first. What good is having a gear you almost never use?

The trucks these granny low four speeds were originally in were usually used as a 3 speed with an optional extra low gear. The shifter knobs were sometimes marked L-1-2-3-R which sort of reflects this philosophy. In practice you rarely used L but it was there if you needed it- three speed trannys were common on other vehicles at the time so it didn't seem so strange to use only 3 of the 4 gears in day to day use.

FWIW whenever someone who is used to one of these 4 speed transmissions uses one of my land rovers they always complain that the LR is too highly geared.... So like everything else I guess it depends what you are used to.

For most people like you say the close ratio is probably a far more practical choice. With the granny low 4 spds it might be nice to have a secondary OD to split them. Maybe the Ranger torque splitter or something like that vs. the Roverdrive or Fairey?

[greenmeanie]

First of all, thank you guys and gal for the information.
Secondly, please accept my apologies TeriAnn, I got a little fooled by the caps A in your name.

I am gradually building a spec for this vehicle.
For emissions reasons I am looking at a 67 or earlier vehicle and I think a pre 67 engine. Arizona seems to be getting more in line with California these days in regards to emissions. It also has to be a 109 Station Wagon as it is really to become a family vehicle.

Given its expedition orientated type build I think the close ratio box is the way to go. Does Tim Cooper have a web site or does he offer stock adapters for Rover transfer cases to US gearboxes? I want a rear Salisbury and may have a line on a front too.

As far as engines go I am an expat Scots so the only V8 I ever new in my house was an old mil spec low compression Rover 3.5L lump. That doesn’t bode well. I’m rather ambivalent about Ford vs Chevy although my driving factor is that the project I have found has a galvanized 1987 110 chassis with 200tdi mounts so I suppose cost and whatever fits with the minimum butchering and cost is the way I’ll go. I must be going native or something because the redneck in me has a desire for oodles of power and torque from a V8 as opposed to a diesel.

I found this (see pictures.) on line for $4500. It would make a fun project as the hard part of putting the series body on the 110 chassis has been done. It’s also already a hybrid so I wouldn’t have the usual heartache about modifying or restoring a leafer. It’s only issues as I see them are:
1. It’s not a leafer. Coils seem terribly modern but I suppose they are good and open up some options.
2. It has a SIII bulkhead. I really prefer the SIIA dash so I would have to sell this one (shouldn’t be that hard.) and obtain another. Ike, do you have any IIA bulkheads or do you only accept restoring cores supplied by the customer?
3. The rear cross member is made out of checker plate. It’s quite ugly but I suppose it is functional.
4. Am I right in saying that ditching those alloys and putting the original 16” steel rims on would bring the wheels back under the arches? I don't do flares on series rigs.







Upside down damn it.
I’d love some comments. I suppose I should move over to the hybrids if I get it. NCRover's truck would have a big brothre.

Cheers
Gregor

[leafsprung]

the hard part of putting the series body on the 110 chassis has been done

Thats the easy part really. Looks like a viable project. The early wheels will help but the coilsprung axles are significantly wider. Makes for a stable ride.