rangie C4 ratio's
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:14 pm
G'day all,
what was the 1st gear ratio of a C4 in a rangie??
what was the 1st gear ratio of a C4 in a rangie??
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:45 pm
did rangies have c4s? i thought they only had TFs or ZFs.
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:20 am
Yes they did, it'd be the same as all C4's wouldn't it? Whatever that is (2.4:1???)
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:37 am
That's correct about 2.4:1.
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:00 pm
They also used C9's in the conversions as well as the BW.
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:24 pm
Hi Andrew E,
There were C4's, C6's and C9's done by Ritters in Melbourne around 1980-82 before LR in England twigged that some markets might want something more civilised than an LT 95. Ritters also did an aftermarket air-con set up that took up the space of the glove box about the same time because it was not available as stock. Noel at Ritters has told me that their conversions were classified as stock Land Rover Australia options at the time. (no engineering req'd implications going from LT95 to auto, etc - but check for yourself with local authorities) Noel is a great bloke to talk to.
Ritters had a custom bellhousing made and an adapter that goes between the C4/6/9 and a cut off LT 95 transfer case. All very precise and beautiful.
Stock gearbox mounts, etc.
I have a Ritter C9 set up behind a Chev in my 74 2 door and I love it.
Would never go back to manual. It does crawl downhill, but I don't know if that is from the guy who bulletproofed the tranny, or the guy at Autoflite who built the torque converter. Never actually use 1st in low range going downhill - it's way slower than walking.
At the same time Ritters were doing the C4/6/9 conversions I think there was someone in Sydney doing a BW 35 conversion with an LT 95. I had one as part of a deal and I can say the set up looked pretty crude because the BW was stuffed inside the gearbox part of an LT95 with some sort of weird connection to the input of the LT95 TC. It was also some 6 odd inches longer, which meant moving the gearbox mounts and handbrake back and getting a longer front propshalf and shorter rear. (I have both these lying around if anyone wants them for nix).
all good, DL
There were C4's, C6's and C9's done by Ritters in Melbourne around 1980-82 before LR in England twigged that some markets might want something more civilised than an LT 95. Ritters also did an aftermarket air-con set up that took up the space of the glove box about the same time because it was not available as stock. Noel at Ritters has told me that their conversions were classified as stock Land Rover Australia options at the time. (no engineering req'd implications going from LT95 to auto, etc - but check for yourself with local authorities) Noel is a great bloke to talk to.
Ritters had a custom bellhousing made and an adapter that goes between the C4/6/9 and a cut off LT 95 transfer case. All very precise and beautiful.
Stock gearbox mounts, etc.
I have a Ritter C9 set up behind a Chev in my 74 2 door and I love it.
Would never go back to manual. It does crawl downhill, but I don't know if that is from the guy who bulletproofed the tranny, or the guy at Autoflite who built the torque converter. Never actually use 1st in low range going downhill - it's way slower than walking.
At the same time Ritters were doing the C4/6/9 conversions I think there was someone in Sydney doing a BW 35 conversion with an LT 95. I had one as part of a deal and I can say the set up looked pretty crude because the BW was stuffed inside the gearbox part of an LT95 with some sort of weird connection to the input of the LT95 TC. It was also some 6 odd inches longer, which meant moving the gearbox mounts and handbrake back and getting a longer front propshalf and shorter rear. (I have both these lying around if anyone wants them for nix).
all good, DL
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:14 am
Aswell as t400's
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:58 pm
Hi all, I just swapped my lt95 for a C4 in my rangie ('80 2 door with a 4.4) in time for cup weekend in the high country. While I was impressed with the performance overall I would be keen to have it a bit slower on the steep downhills. The GPS measured at about 15kph on the steepest ones. As you can imagine that was a bit to speedy for comfort. Any hints welcome.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:54 pm
Hi 80,
Was that with 1st and low range selected? I have no probs with mine, in fact it doesn't seem much different from when it was a manual. I don't know if this is because of something in the convertor I had made.
DL
Was that with 1st and low range selected? I have no probs with mine, in fact it doesn't seem much different from when it was a manual. I don't know if this is because of something in the convertor I had made.
DL
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:16 pm
Hi DL,
Yes it was 1st low. On most of the hilly stuff I found driving in low range was excellent! Coast along in drive/low, pull back to 2nd over the conversation humps and around the corners and back to 1st on the steep bits. It was only on the really steep bits that it got a bit speedy for me. I was driving thru the brakes which slowed it down heaps but it would be easier to have a lower 1st low.
The gear box I put in was adapted to the t/fer case from a lt95 and had the same gearing as the manual t/fer case. I didn't know if there were other gear ratios that I could use in that box.
The last 4 spd I had in it did seem to be much slower in low range than the 1 before that but when I pulled it out and checked the t/fer gears they were just the same as before.
Still all in all very happy with the swap
Yes it was 1st low. On most of the hilly stuff I found driving in low range was excellent! Coast along in drive/low, pull back to 2nd over the conversation humps and around the corners and back to 1st on the steep bits. It was only on the really steep bits that it got a bit speedy for me. I was driving thru the brakes which slowed it down heaps but it would be easier to have a lower 1st low.
The gear box I put in was adapted to the t/fer case from a lt95 and had the same gearing as the manual t/fer case. I didn't know if there were other gear ratios that I could use in that box.
The last 4 spd I had in it did seem to be much slower in low range than the 1 before that but when I pulled it out and checked the t/fer gears they were just the same as before.
Still all in all very happy with the swap
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:03 pm
Hi 80,
Mine's behind a Chev and I hated it in low range in drive on 1st workout. The auto has been tweeked to give nearly instantaneous shifts and it hunts around in drive/LR and puts unneccessary loads through the driveline when it keeps changing. Bang, bang, bang.
In some steep downhill country I found it actually too slow in 1st/LR. Much slower than walking. In 2nd/LR it is great; sort of soft power transfer and plenty of control downhill. I'm not into rock crawling, so don't need super low gearing.
As I said in previous post - it might have to do with something that Autoflite did when they made the torque converter.
I don't know. (is this possible - anyone??)
In 1st/LR it's really like it was with the LT 95 manual. It really crawls. And mine is one of those Ritter conversions like yours with the LT 95 TC, but with a C9.
Cloughy will weigh in on this - he has a C9 / LT 95 RR that he has nursed gently over the countryside.
DL
Mine's behind a Chev and I hated it in low range in drive on 1st workout. The auto has been tweeked to give nearly instantaneous shifts and it hunts around in drive/LR and puts unneccessary loads through the driveline when it keeps changing. Bang, bang, bang.
In some steep downhill country I found it actually too slow in 1st/LR. Much slower than walking. In 2nd/LR it is great; sort of soft power transfer and plenty of control downhill. I'm not into rock crawling, so don't need super low gearing.
As I said in previous post - it might have to do with something that Autoflite did when they made the torque converter.
I don't know. (is this possible - anyone??)
In 1st/LR it's really like it was with the LT 95 manual. It really crawls. And mine is one of those Ritter conversions like yours with the LT 95 TC, but with a C9.
Cloughy will weigh in on this - he has a C9 / LT 95 RR that he has nursed gently over the countryside.
DL
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:15 pm
And the other thing is: it will (maybe?) have more torque in 1st with the auto (with the multiplier of the torque convertor) so it feels like it's driving more through the brakes. Just a thought.
I just love mine and would never go back. Unreal when I have to go into the city and I only have one car.
DL
I just love mine and would never go back. Unreal when I have to go into the city and I only have one car.
DL