Re: [lro] Which transmission?

From: Kirk Hillman (hillman88@telus.net)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 10:52:04 EDT

  • Next message: David G. Russell: "[lro] Re: video inside rover"

    "Golly, It has only been a couple months since I visited them and they
    proudly showed me their adaptor kit to make the NP435 to a Rover
    transfer case. I had to agree with Timm that it was a lot slicker than
    the plate & modified output shaft Timm used on my T18."

        It may be a nice piece of kit, but finding the tranny is very difficult,
    whether close or wide ratio. The problem is that there aren't many -GM-
    NP435's out there. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will sell you a Ford version
    for nothing but it won't bolt up to the GM bellhousing. It can't be made to
    either unless you weld on ears since the castings are different. Overall, I
    thought this was a great swap. It's actually what I tried to start but when
    I ran into serious problems locating the tranny I trashed it. BTW, a
    commercial rebuilder said they could provide one to me, but at $1200 I might
    as well step up to the NV4500.

    "They did have an NV4500 on the bench when I visited. But it is a very
    expensive gearbox. A rear prop shaft on an 88 has got to be just about
    all slip spline and 'U' joint knuckles."

        Actually, it isn't that bad. Most people know about all the wasted
    space on the tail end of the NV4500. From my conversation with Timm it
    sounds like the WHOLE tail housing is a new casting to shorten things up,
    which requires either a new shaft or modified one. Both of these are part
    of the kit. Timm, being the sensible guy he is thought it would be nice to
    have an easy way to fit the NV4500 in the SWB. This was his solution.
        As far as other options go, there is the NV4600 someone mentioned. The
    problem with the 4600 (I think) is that it's a close ratio box. In other
    words, the actual spread of the gears is no larger than the 4500. Smaller I
    think. If it's the one I looked into it's bigger and heavier again with no
    apparent advantage other than even closer gears. Oh, it also seems that the
    preferable 4500 is the close ratio anyway since the 1st gear is low enough
    and the gear spacing is better. Cheaper too since all the J**pers want the
    super low version.

    Kirk
    _______________________________________________
    LRO mailing list
    LRO@land-rover.team.net
    http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 10:52:21 EDT