Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.

350 chev R380 strength

Tech Talk for Rover owners.

Moderator: Micka

Post Reply
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Canberra

350 chev R380 strength

Post by presto »

tried to do a search but its not working for me at the moment..
im putting a 350 chev infront of an R380/LT230 using a marks adaptor kit, just wondering how well the box will handle the torque. from what iv read the 380 refers to how much torque it can handle but the gearbox is an unknown quantity (dunno the history). just curious if there is anything i should be weary of?
cheers :)
im surrounded by money pits
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:35 pm
Location: Captain Creek QLD

Post by Bush65 »

The LT designation was applied when Leyland owned Land Rover. LT for Leyland Transmission. The number after LT is the centre distance in mm of the gearbox main and lay shafts (for gearboxes), or between the input and output shafts (for LT230 transfer case).

R380 gearbox was designed after the demise of Leyland and R stands for Rover. 380 is the torque rating of the gearbox in Newton metres.

The R380 was a redesign of the LT77 (which was based on an old Jaguar 4 speed gearbox).

The R380 has undergone a few changes and the suffix letter (right side of box) tells which you have.

From Ashcroft website:
R 380 Development

The R 380 was introduced in 1994 with the suffix J which was a significant improvement on the LT 77 it supercedes, differences included a steel oil pump (as opposed to the LT 77 fibre one), an additional 2 support bearings were used on the layshaft and the mainshaft, wider gears, bigger diameter syncro rings, syncromesh on reverse and a longer mainshaft spline.

This suffix J did unfortunately have a couple of design flaws which gave the R 380 some bad press, they were prone to the mainshaft shearing across the oil feed holes, the layshaft also sheared at a stress concentration behind the sandwich plate causing loss of 5th and reverse also early ones still suffered from mainshaft wear until the cross drilled transfer case gears became fitted as standard on the suffix G transfer cases.

In 1999 the suffix K was used very briefly for a few months then came the suffix L that is used currently. The J and L are very different, 2 of the bearings were substantially uprated and pinion and layshaft teeth were widened again, this results in a much stronger unit.
John
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by presto »

thanks heaps for the info, its a 2002 box so i'll have a look at the numbers and find out what one i have. thanks again :cool:
im surrounded by money pits
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by presto »

does anyone have suggestions on what manual gearbox would be more suitable for the chevy or is there a way to beef this one up? im a little weary on wasting time fitting this one and spending all that money on the adaptor kit then have it fail on me... i have a built turbo 400 mated to a LT230 which will bolt straight on but i really want to keep it manual.
ideas anyone? pretty please? :)
im surrounded by money pits
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Moronfield....

Post by nottie »

AUTO
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:11 am
Location: Perth WA

Post by discokid »

Presto

I found that an R380 didnt hold behind a mid 4.6lt years ago

My gearbox guy told me that the bearings etc just arent big enough to handle the power and the offroading situations we all tend to put these vehicles in . We rebuilt it twice then got rid of it as we couldnt get it to work.

Is there any particular reason you dont want an auto? A built auto in most situations should last

Ive got a built TF 727 (which toook quite a bit of development) behind my 6lt gen 3 and its been fine so far.
2011 Australasian Safari Assault on a Quad
http://www.offroadinoz.com/viewtopic.php?t=1864
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by presto »

discokid wrote: Is there any particular reason you dont want an auto?
its just more fun to drive and i perfer it far more offroad. dont mind an auto when driving to and fro but for the purpose im building this car for, a manual would be much more preferable. has anyone tried anything exotic to make a stronger manual fit the RR?
im surrounded by money pits
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by garrycol »

This link may be of interest.

http://www.mez.co.uk/chevyupgrade.html

Garry
Garry
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by presto »

cheers mate, iv been all over that site about a hundred times in the last couple of years (cant get enough of the twin turbo set up) but he doesnt have any info on adapting manual boxes to it. which sucks, i think its a good indication that putting the auto in is the way to go.
im surrounded by money pits
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests