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.

lt230 - c4?

Tech Talk for Rover owners.

Moderator: Micka

Post Reply
Posts: 6029
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 pm
Location: South Australia

lt230 - c4?

Post by bad_religion_au »

hey guys,

i'm a bit confused with rover stuff, so bare with me. i know that early rangies came with C4 auto's with a rangie transfer case. i've been led to believe this was the transfer case chopped out of the Lt95 manual?

was there a factory/common aftermarket when new C4 - Lt230 conversion that i can find like the LT95 ones that came in the early rangies?

if not, who does C4 auto - Lt230 conversion kits? i know they exist (Overkills buggies runs a C4 with Lt230, and from Micka's buildup it looks like he does too).

alternatively, does/did anyone do a ford crossflow to Landrover Zf 4 speed auto conversion kit?

last ditch effort... are the LT95's any good? what low range ratio's are available, and are aftermarket goodies available like for the LT230? (i found a list of high ratio's in the tech bible)

i know all this sounds a bit wierd, but it's going into a 40 series landcruiser that already has the motor set up exactly how i want it... i just want front dig capability and gearing that toyota can't provide... for less than the cost of an atlas...
Spit my last breath
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Post by PacMan »

There was a Range Rover with C4 and cut off LT95 from ~1978 to ~1982.
The LT95 t/c is ~3.3:1 in low range like the LT230 and it is a strong box.
So far i know, there are some super low ratio for LT95 around.

I dont know about an adaptor from C4 to LT230 but i would have a look for a TF727/LT230. There should be adaptors available from Ford to TF727.
The Range Rovers with TF727 and LT230 been around to 1983.
The TF727 is a very strong box but needs some power to run it.

Hope that helps a bit.

Chris
Posts: 6029
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by bad_religion_au »

does help thanks.

i really wasn't looking to go the torque flite, for the fact that the c4 robs less power, plus i have one sitting here that's been rebuilt for towing... and know a fair few ford guys in the know on how to beef them up, plus factory bellhousing/torque converter/ starter + everything makes parts easier. you may need an adapter c4 - Lt230, but how often do you change output shafts/extension housings compared with flex plates/torque converters/ring gears/starter motors?

again, if it comes down to TF or running a LT95, i'll probably go 95... 3.3:1 is much better than the 1.96:1 currently in there.
Spit my last breath
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Post by PacMan »

Yes, the C4 is one of the best boxes out there.
Easy to work on and very short. Especially if you ran a full manual valve body, because then you can take the governor off - results in 17 inch over all length.

This fallas selling a very nice valve body with reverse pattern and engine break: http://www.broaderperformance.com

Chris
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:35 pm
Location: Captain Creek QLD

Post by Bush65 »

LT95's are arguably the strongest gearbox ever used by Land Rover (when developed they were designed for the military 101 that had to tow artillery cannons while loaded with 1 ton of artillery shells). But they are old now (some would be 40) and were truck like in their day.

Their weakness is the thrust bearings in the transfer case. A taper roller bearing conversion (developed for Australian Army, who still use the LT95) in the transfer case fixes that problem. The taper roller conversion is still available.

I would replace the 2 pinion shafts in the centre diff with a one piece cross shaft, particularly if doing front digs (same applies to LT230). And keep a close eye on the thrust washers for the pinions in the centre diff.

Sorry I'm no help on the other questions.
John
Posts: 6029
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by bad_religion_au »

ok, looks like the LT95 might be suitable. i assume that you can get PTO drives to run a winch off them (being from an agricultural landrover, i would put my left nut on it)
Spit my last breath
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:35 pm
Location: Captain Creek QLD

Post by Bush65 »

bad_religion_au wrote:ok, looks like the LT95 might be suitable. i assume that you can get PTO drives to run a winch off them (being from an agricultural landrover, i would put my left nut on it)
There were PTO's that bolt to the rear of the LT95 transfer case, with shafts to drive winches.

Second hand units don't come up for sale very often now (the UK will be the best place to look). I doubt there are any in manufacture now, since the last Landies available with the LT95 option were 1985 models.
John
Posts: 6029
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by bad_religion_au »

Bush65 wrote:
bad_religion_au wrote:ok, looks like the LT95 might be suitable. i assume that you can get PTO drives to run a winch off them (being from an agricultural landrover, i would put my left nut on it)
There were PTO's that bolt to the rear of the LT95 transfer case, with shafts to drive winches.

Second hand units don't come up for sale very often now (the UK will be the best place to look). I doubt there are any in manufacture now, since the last Landies available with the LT95 option were 1985 models.
would have thought the australian army would have still needed pto on their lt95's?
Spit my last breath
Posts: 1285
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: gold coast

Post by uninformed »

Try MR Automotive for the pto.......a long shot

Serg
DL
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Bellarine, Brackistan

Post by DL »

Hi,

I have what was supposed to be a C4 /LT 95 behind a 350, but the auto turned out to be a C9 which is slightly stronger. Ritters did these too.

Recoed the auto for $850, didn't touch the LT 95 transfer and have had no probs. It doesn't like being in drive in low ratio because the shifts are much quicker than stock and it it clunks badly through all the inbuilt driveline slack.

If left in 1st or second in low range it's fine. Crawls downhill in 1st low surprisingly well.

cheers, DL
Posts: 6029
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 pm
Location: South Australia

Post by bad_religion_au »

DL wrote:Hi,

I have what was supposed to be a C4 /LT 95 behind a 350, but the auto turned out to be a C9 which is slightly stronger. Ritters did these too.

Recoed the auto for $850, didn't touch the LT 95 transfer and have had no probs. It doesn't like being in drive in low ratio because the shifts are much quicker than stock and it it clunks badly through all the inbuilt driveline slack.

If left in 1st or second in low range it's fine. Crawls downhill in 1st low surprisingly well.

cheers, DL
cheers mate, will probably get a manual valve body for it anyway, because i'm a control freak :D

and some semantics :) a "c9" is still a c4. there never was officially any other part code from the factory than c4. c9 etc is used by enthusiasts to differentiate the stronger variants, but officially, it's still a c4. any auto shop will know what your talking about when you say c9, but in case you get the "huh" look, now you know :cool:
Spit my last breath
Posts: 3064
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Yinnar South, Vic

Post by cloughy »

bad_religion_au wrote:
DL wrote:Hi,

I have what was supposed to be a C4 /LT 95 behind a 350, but the auto turned out to be a C9 which is slightly stronger. Ritters did these too.

Recoed the auto for $850, didn't touch the LT 95 transfer and have had no probs. It doesn't like being in drive in low ratio because the shifts are much quicker than stock and it it clunks badly through all the inbuilt driveline slack.

If left in 1st or second in low range it's fine. Crawls downhill in 1st low surprisingly well.

cheers, DL
cheers mate, will probably get a manual valve body for it anyway, because i'm a control freak :D

and some semantics :) a "c9" is still a c4. there never was officially any other part code from the factory than c4. c9 etc is used by enthusiasts to differentiate the stronger variants, but officially, it's still a c4. any auto shop will know what your talking about when you say c9, but in case you get the "huh" look, now you know :cool:
Correct, there is no C9, essentially, but there is a C10 ;)
Wanted: Car trailer or beaver tail truck, let me know what you got
DL
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Bellarine, Brackistan

Post by DL »

Well I'm certainly no expert. Jason at Autoflite took one look at it when he was measuring it up for a custom convertor and called it a C9.

Bigger input shaft or different splines or something else at the front of the box was the giveaway.

I just drive it when I'm allowed. ;)

cheers, DL
Posts: 3064
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Yinnar South, Vic

Post by cloughy »

DL wrote:Well I'm certainly no expert. Jason at Autoflite took one look at it when he was measuring it up for a custom convertor and called it a C9.

Bigger input shaft or different splines or something else at the front of the box was the giveaway.

I just drive it when I'm allowed. ;)

cheers, DL
Yep, they are not actually FoMoCo C9, but everyone in the auto biz, actually knows they are a C9, differing spline counts on input shafts etc, C10 is easily designated, as it differs from a C9 and C4, having the bellhousing bolt on seperately, as opposed to being bolted on with the front pump bolts inclusive
Wanted: Car trailer or beaver tail truck, let me know what you got
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Moronfield....

Post by nottie »

The other diffrence is either its a pan fill or a case fill.
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:44 pm
Location: WA

Post by FIXR7 »

cloughy wrote:
bad_religion_au wrote:
DL wrote:Hi,

I have what was supposed to be a C4 /LT 95 behind a 350, but the auto turned out to be a C9 which is slightly stronger. Ritters did these too.

Recoed the auto for $850, didn't touch the LT 95 transfer and have had no probs. It doesn't like being in drive in low ratio because the shifts are much quicker than stock and it it clunks badly through all the inbuilt driveline slack.

If left in 1st or second in low range it's fine. Crawls downhill in 1st low surprisingly well.

cheers, DL
cheers mate, will probably get a manual valve body for it anyway, because i'm a control freak :D

and some semantics :) a "c9" is still a c4. there never was officially any other part code from the factory than c4. c9 etc is used by enthusiasts to differentiate the stronger variants, but officially, it's still a c4. any auto shop will know what your talking about when you say c9, but in case you get the "huh" look, now you know :cool:
Correct, there is no C9, essentially, but there is a C10 ;)
Actually no there isn't. It's a large bell flared case(separate bolt circle for the bellhousing) pan fill C4. Ford has never had a C9 or 10 and any non-genuine ford literature referring to them is just something someone in Australia made up to describe the different variants of C4. And it's actually confusing because people call different C4's either C9 or 10.
There are only C3,4,5,6 and the C5 is in fact a C4 with a lockup converter used in some U.S. six cyl rangers etc.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests