MT82 to duratorq 3.2 engine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

I'm guessing the 3.2 TF is a LH drop rather than LandRovers RH drop. Is a ZF auto an option?

---

Hi Slunnie. A 4 speed auto that is 20 years old in design is not attractive option. The 6r80 auto was an ideal. I actually like the MT82 and would be quite happy to go that route if it gets me back on the road with a reliable functioning truck.

Hi Rick, as Pat said the Ranger manual is a MT82. The only difference is the bell housing and extension casing. I think the confusion has arisen from the UK builders which used the transit manual which may have a different model number and we in the LR community have given it the MT eighty five designation. Ive lost the numbers screen on the ipad.

Ranger TFC is left drop on front and centre on rear i believe but need to confirm in the flesh. It is also not constant four wheel drive which is not a deal breaker but not ideal.

ask your questions on the ranger forum......newranger.net

Anybody will tell you that the gearbox in a Ranger is weak as.I guess it comes from so many used in the mining industry,overloaded and thrashed within an inch of their life.
I'm sure a caring Defender pilot could nurse one along just to feel the grunt!!!!
We had a Ranger at work,the go really well,it was traded on a Dmax.
Andrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LandyAndy

Anybody will tell you that the gearbox in a Ranger is weak as.I guess it comes from so many used in the mining industry,overloaded and thrashed within an inch of their life.
I'm sure a caring Defender pilot could nurse one along just to feel the grunt!!!!
Andrew

---

From my research in the past week the MT82 is rated to 500nm. Ranger is tuned to 480nm from factory. The weakness is 6th, being the overdrive. Most of the complaints in the UK and Oz of failed gearboxes relate to that gear. The complaints with US of A boys are generally track day failures in worked Mustangs. The Mustang like the Ranger roll off the factory floor near the limit of the gearbox.

I'm sure Ranger drivers are no different to Landy drivers when they get lazy and not change down from the overdrive when loaded and/or on long hills. The R380 is no different and many Landy drivers abuse 5th.

Hows the re-engine coming along Mark? any more details on the gearbox side of things? certainly has my interest, as much as i hate to say it the little 2.4 is probably not the best option for a fat 130....

Is a divorced TC an option for the Auto?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangy

Is a divorced TC an option for the Auto?

---

Not out of the running of options but would add to the level of complexity that is presently faced with the auto to LT230. Any suggestions on a suitable TFC and how would you connect the 2 boxes. I assume the output from a 2wd auto with a coupling to the input gear for the TFC. I guess the LT230 input gear could be fashioned into a coupling or UJ to attach to the output of the Auto. I know little about remote/divorced TFC arrangements so best ignore my musings.

my mind hurts at the thought of working through all that.

Mick - no progress since last post. The whole project is at a stand still. You complain about the 2.4 but a working 2.4 is superior to a half completed 3.2 project.

Pinched from lrforum and another site.
I recall sheldon "the Grubb"
having a similar set up.

Attachment 119398Attachment 119399

A D2 shifter and cable would sort the hi lo and CDL

Added thoughts.
I recall some commodores had a cv joint installed in the tail shaft. Possible option for the short shaft in a divorced set up.
Also a few options for rubber drive couplings capable of the power output off the shelf.
I recall Porsche Merc and others with considerable grunt using them- not to mention LR.

I recognise this is a considerable mod option for an auto. But if you feel determined to prove a point to yourself or bank balance it's a thought.[emoji848]

off road race transfer box motorsport
some other ideas here too.

mention Rakeway in a sentence and you are talking $$. At least I know there is a input for a remote LT230.

Having had a look at the 2wd 6R80 images the rear of the gearbox i saw images of is part of the casting of the case. That would necessitate swapping the 4wd version for the 2wd version or fabricating a case enclosure to protect the output seal (assuming the 4wd version was not intended to be exposed to mud, water and all that). Unless the output shaft/UJ coupling from the 2wd can be swapped in to replace the 4wd output shaft/spline it would require fabrication of a female spline coupling with a UJ coupling. The fellas working on the conversion said they were having difficulty machining the female coupling for the gearbox output. I assume it would be a continuing problem. It would also carry over the lubrication problem inherent in the MT82 to LT230 configuration.

Notwithstanding all the head hurting musings, i wouldn't know if the remote TFC front output would clear the auto casing until it was stripped of its current configuration and rejigged as a pilot fit. The truck is in QLD. I live in NSW so i don't have the luxury of crawling under it for a mental visual.

I'm pretty much settled on going the manual combo. It's been done by Ashcroft so at a pinch I can buy tech support and parts, can be put together with a combination of current or easily sourced parts and fabrication of unique parts is at a min.