Thanks for all the advise guys. The truck has already been converted to springs in the rear so no air bag problems. I would love to get it and put a small lift on it if it weren't too expensive. I would also like to get a snorkel but would never use it, just think they look cool.
95 RRC LWB question
- Thread starter Bo S.
- Start date
One thing I have to add...
dont replace anything in the BW transfercase!!
toss those things out(after you harvest the cross pinion)and put a LT230 out of a disco in the truck.
the RRC drive so much better with a LT230 then they ever did with a BW.
I have done a number of these swaps now and everybody always raves about how much better they drive.
dont replace anything in the BW transfercase!!
toss those things out(after you harvest the cross pinion)and put a LT230 out of a disco in the truck.
the RRC drive so much better with a LT230 then they ever did with a BW.
I have done a number of these swaps now and everybody always raves about how much better they drive.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
In what ways do they drive better. On road, off road?
TigerDan
Observer
Off road. On road, you won't notice much difference. But I would look for a late model DII LT230 to swap in. The main reason Rover went to the BW box in '89 (prior to '89. all RRCs had LT230s) was noise and ease of operation. Since the Range Rover was the upscale vehicle in the Rover lineup they wanted to make things smoother, quieter and easier to operate so they used the Borg-Warner transfer case. It's chain driven instead of gear driven (not really a plus in my book) and has the viscous coupling instead of the center diff lock so operation is simple, you only have to select high or low range and don't have to decide whether to lock the center diff or not.
The later LT230-Q from the DII has the gears cut differently (and a few other changes I believe) so it's quieter than the older boxes. I have one from a '02 DII in my RRC, and I can't hear any more noise from it than I did from the old BW. You just have to be careful what you buy, the late '02 and '03 boxes had a non-locking center diff since they had traction control on those trucks and felt that there was no need to lock the center diff. They realized their mistake with the '04 and put the center diff lock back in. However, it's very simple to convert a non-locking LT230 to locking. I have one from an '03 that I converted for my D90.
Now that we bring up the subject, if you were planning to wheel the RRC very much, I would certainly consider changing to an LT230. If it's only going to be street driven or see easy trails you would be okay to stay with the BW, but I would start looking for a spare to have on hand. The BW box has three weak points: one is the already-discussed viscous coupling, the second is the drive chain which can stretch and slop around in the box after a lot of miles and eventually break, the the third is the input shaft splines which tend to strip and leave you stranded. A low milage BW is not necessarily a bad thing, a high mileage one is a ticking time bomb eagerly waiting to strand you at some inopportune moment.
The later LT230-Q from the DII has the gears cut differently (and a few other changes I believe) so it's quieter than the older boxes. I have one from a '02 DII in my RRC, and I can't hear any more noise from it than I did from the old BW. You just have to be careful what you buy, the late '02 and '03 boxes had a non-locking center diff since they had traction control on those trucks and felt that there was no need to lock the center diff. They realized their mistake with the '04 and put the center diff lock back in. However, it's very simple to convert a non-locking LT230 to locking. I have one from an '03 that I converted for my D90.
Now that we bring up the subject, if you were planning to wheel the RRC very much, I would certainly consider changing to an LT230. If it's only going to be street driven or see easy trails you would be okay to stay with the BW, but I would start looking for a spare to have on hand. The BW box has three weak points: one is the already-discussed viscous coupling, the second is the drive chain which can stretch and slop around in the box after a lot of miles and eventually break, the the third is the input shaft splines which tend to strip and leave you stranded. A low milage BW is not necessarily a bad thing, a high mileage one is a ticking time bomb eagerly waiting to strand you at some inopportune moment.
SeaRubi
Explorer
I disagree 100% with the driveability part. If the LT230 drove better then the factory would have never chosen the borg-warner cases for the range rover in the first place. I was personally disappointed with the LT230 swap in my 91 RRC, and I only did it for reliability and strength as I'd intended to run 35's. I fully intended to rebuild the borg-warner in my '94 LWB.
As with anything chain-driven like the borg-warner case you can't ignore the service life of the part, and that comes up somewhere north of 100k miles. Most chain driven jeep cases aren't as robust, smooth, or geared as well as Land Rover's borg-warner transfer case.
If I had another RRC to build into a trail rig, I'd hold out for an LT95 with a conversion to mechanical diff-lock actuation. If I were doing a mild "overlanding" setup, I'd rebuild the borg-warner in a heartbeat and run 215's or 245's.
My advice to the O.P. is to avoid an older Rover if he's this easily annoyed.
-ike
The BW makes for heavier steering and more torque converter wind up then the LT230.
The LT just makes the RRC drive free and easy.
My wife is a small lady and she drove a D1 for 100k and then a DII for 100K and then the a 95RRC. She felt the RRC was the most work to drive.
I swapped the BW out and she right away thought is drove like a stock D1 and was way easier to drive and smoother to steer and park.
I have to agree
The last reason is on really slick roads such as ice covered crowned roads nothing works like a LT230 with the CDL locked.
The LT just makes the RRC drive free and easy.
My wife is a small lady and she drove a D1 for 100k and then a DII for 100K and then the a 95RRC. She felt the RRC was the most work to drive.
I swapped the BW out and she right away thought is drove like a stock D1 and was way easier to drive and smoother to steer and park.
I have to agree
The last reason is on really slick roads such as ice covered crowned roads nothing works like a LT230 with the CDL locked.
Viggen
Just here...
Im curious about the LT230Q also but have a question about the LWBs. Was all the length added in the rear seat area for more foot room or was it split between the rear floors and the rear cargo area? I guess the question is: Is there more behind the seat cargo room in a lwb than a swb?
David Harris
Expedition Leader
I believe it's all in the rear seating area. The rear quarter is the same as the SWB. If you look at a LWB, the rear doors are stretched, but the quarter is the same.
Viggen
Just here...
Damn. I was hoping that it was split between the two. A little more rear storage room would be awesome. Must be like sitting in the back of a limo then with an additional 8" of room back there. How does the extended wheelbase affect it off road? Ive never wheeled anything longer than my D1 and Jeep Cherokee (about the same).
David Harris
Expedition Leader
If you only have two people, you could benefit from the extra length as cargo space. Partially so if you fold half of the rear seating down.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
Won't prove a problem except in the most difficult of terrain. It's still shorter than a 110.
TigerDan
Observer
That's the main drawback to the later Q-model, as I believe they all are lacking the speedo drive. On both my Qs I changed the rear housing to an earlier model so that I would have the speedo drive. The first time I bought a used rear housing, which came with the output shaft and everything, for 50 bucks from one of the guys who sell Rover parts online. The second time, I scored a broken partly disassembled DI LT230 for free, figuring on using it for pats. Later I bought a low-mileage LT230Q from an '03 DII for a hundred bucks since the owner of the truck was swapping in a CDL unit from an early '02. I converted it to CDL and swapped the output shaft and housing all with parts from the earlier broken unit, so I wound up with a CDL Q model for a hundred bucks and about 2 hours work.
Your results may vary...
SeaRubi
Explorer
The LWB is 108" wheelbase. it feels a bit more stable in climbs but you give up some turning radius, which is already challenged at 100" wheelbase. as the others have said, the extra space is all in the rear footwell, just like the Jaguar lwb sedans, incidentally.
I also used a Q series box in my LT230 swap, and a D1 rear output housing. I recall needing to take off an extra part either from my borg-warner or the D1 output housing bits to get the rangie VSS cable to mate correctly. Between the two it should be obvious what you need; maybe someone with a fresher memory can chime in.
I kind of regret selling my LWB. I liked the 4.2L and the rear traction control on my '94 worked surprisingly well for a stock vehicle.
cheers
-ike
I also used a Q series box in my LT230 swap, and a D1 rear output housing. I recall needing to take off an extra part either from my borg-warner or the D1 output housing bits to get the rangie VSS cable to mate correctly. Between the two it should be obvious what you need; maybe someone with a fresher memory can chime in.
I kind of regret selling my LWB. I liked the 4.2L and the rear traction control on my '94 worked surprisingly well for a stock vehicle.
cheers
-ike