Will an OM605 shred an R380?
Will an OM605 shred an R380?
I'm looking into converting my Land Rover Discovery 2 TD5 to an OM605.
I've done a lot of work on this vehicle but more power is always good - it's at about 200hp currently.
I can get the extension case off the R380 machined to take larger support bearings which should make it good for ~550nm of torque.
So would this handle a tuned 605? I'd love to be getting somewhere between 300-350bhp but realise the associated torque could potentially kill the R380, and if I had to settle for less power there's probably not much point in swapping. I've got a spare R380 to TD5 bell housing that could be butchered.
Ignoring the gearbox requirement what else would I be looking at to make this kind of power from a 605, presumably just a 7mm element dieselmeken pump and an appropriately sized turbo? Would stock manifolds be good, or would I need a manifold adaptor with blow of valve? The vehicle already has a large Allisport intercooler - I'm hoping this would be re-usable.
The other option I'm exploring is a GS6X53 from an X5 - there's an adapter to mate that directly to an LT230 but we're looking at big money once the bell housing has been cut and shut. See here -> http://www.rallyraid.co.uk/blog/2014/12/...ion-plate/ (I've got no affiliation with these guys btw)
Thanks for your time.
Hi all, this is my first post, apologies if I need to go introduce myself somewhere, please point me in the right direction and I'll do so.
I'm looking into converting my Land Rover Discovery 2 TD5 to an OM605.
I've done a lot of work on this vehicle but more power is always good - it's at about 200hp currently.
I can get the extension case off the R380 machined to take larger support bearings which should make it good for ~550nm of torque.
So would this handle a tuned 605? I'd love to be getting somewhere between 300-350bhp but realise the associated torque could potentially kill the R380, and if I had to settle for less power there's probably not much point in swapping. I've got a spare R380 to TD5 bell housing that could be butchered.
Ignoring the gearbox requirement what else would I be looking at to make this kind of power from a 605, presumably just a 7mm element dieselmeken pump and an appropriately sized turbo? Would stock manifolds be good, or would I need a manifold adaptor with blow of valve? The vehicle already has a large Allisport intercooler - I'm hoping this would be re-usable.
The other option I'm exploring is a GS6X53 from an X5 - there's an adapter to mate that directly to an LT230 but we're looking at big money once the bell housing has been cut and shut. See here -> http://www.rallyraid.co.uk/blog/2014/12/...ion-plate/ (I've got no affiliation with these guys btw)
Thanks for your time.
This is probably a much better option, good for over 500bhp, already directly couples to the LT230, and readily available for not a lot of money.
See the Mercrovers group on FB.
For what it's worth, there's a guy on FB making MT82 adapters for OM60x - 700GBP
This is probably a much better option, good for over 500bhp, already directly couples to the LT230, and readily available for not a lot of money.
See the Mercrovers group on FB.
A boosted 605a will keep it on it's toes. The clutch will be the deciding factor in what destroys the box or not.
If you plan on pushing big boost and bigger tq, then you should look at the MT82 santana or divorce the LT230 and run a 722.6.
What are you putting it in? series landy? disco? rangie? defender?
I think the MT82 (big tq version not the puma one) would be the easiest option if you like manual trans. But run with the R380 until you blow it up - most of the AULRO guys reckon the 380 isn't much chop behind a tdi or td5, so a 605 will make short work of it.
and the 4HP22 won't last either. it's crap behind a 3.9, so I'd look to make the drivetrain all MB, which makes it a little more expensive, but at least the damn thing will be reliable.
The 380 in the R380 is max Nm input the box is designed to cope with.
A boosted 605a will keep it on it's toes. The clutch will be the deciding factor in what destroys the box or not.
If you plan on pushing big boost and bigger tq, then you should look at the MT82 santana or divorce the LT230 and run a 722.6.
What are you putting it in? series landy? disco? rangie? defender?
I think the MT82 (big tq version not the puma one) would be the easiest option if you like manual trans. But run with the R380 until you blow it up - most of the AULRO guys reckon the 380 isn't much chop behind a tdi or td5, so a 605 will make short work of it.
and the 4HP22 won't last either. it's crap behind a 3.9, so I'd look to make the drivetrain all MB, which makes it a little more expensive, but at least the damn thing will be reliable.
With a boosted MB diesel, I think you might want to go visit Dave Ashcroft, grab an ATB centre for your LT and at the very least peg your diffs and get some ashcroft CV's, unless you like roadside repairs......
Ahh I see you're putting it in a disco 2.... I suggest you go MB for the trans and divorce the LT230. Does your D2 have the CDL on the LT or is it the later 'removed' version?
With a boosted MB diesel, I think you might want to go visit Dave Ashcroft, grab an ATB centre for your LT and at the very least peg your diffs and get some ashcroft CV's, unless you like roadside repairs......
I have an OM606 from a '98 W210 that I want to shoehorn into a Discovery 2, not only for the improved power (178hp as opposed to the 136 from the Td5) but also due to the fuel flexibility and removing the unit injectors on the Td5.
Not entirely sure what gearbox arrangement to go with. Needs to be manual, and I know the existing R380 is going to be very close to it's limit (it's also rather knackered) and I like the idea of a 6-speed box... so is there a 6-speed MB box that will bolt-up to the OM606, with an appropriate flywheel/clutch/release bearing arrangement? I can either divorce the transfer box, or possibly look at some clever machining of whatever the gearbox output shaft to suit the transfer box.
There will then also be questions over how to deal with the electronic control of the injection pump, but that's for another day!
Thanks.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am looking to do a very similar thing, albeit with rather less power:
I have an OM606 from a '98 W210 that I want to shoehorn into a Discovery 2, not only for the improved power (178hp as opposed to the 136 from the Td5) but also due to the fuel flexibility and removing the unit injectors on the Td5.
Not entirely sure what gearbox arrangement to go with. Needs to be manual, and I know the existing R380 is going to be very close to it's limit (it's also rather knackered) and I like the idea of a 6-speed box... so is there a 6-speed MB box that will bolt-up to the OM606, with an appropriate flywheel/clutch/release bearing arrangement? I can either divorce the transfer box, or possibly look at some clever machining of whatever the gearbox output shaft to suit the transfer box.
There will then also be questions over how to deal with the electronic control of the injection pump, but that's for another day!
Thanks.
(08-17-2016, 10:05 AM)David_R Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am looking to do a very similar thing, albeit with rather less power:
I have an OM606 from a '98 W210 that I want to shoehorn into a Discovery 2, not only for the improved power (178hp as opposed to the 136 from the Td5) but also due to the fuel flexibility and removing the unit injectors on the Td5.
Not entirely sure what gearbox arrangement to go with. Needs to be manual, and I know the existing R380 is going to be very close to it's limit (it's also rather knackered) and I like the idea of a 6-speed box... so is there a 6-speed MB box that will bolt-up to the OM606, with an appropriate flywheel/clutch/release bearing arrangement? I can either divorce the transfer box, or possibly look at some clever machining of whatever the gearbox output shaft to suit the transfer box.
There will then also be questions over how to deal with the electronic control of the injection pump, but that's for another day!
Thanks.
As already stated by others, the 716.6xx manual 6 speed will fit. MB used a dual mass flywheel and a non-sprung centre clutch plate. Slave cyl is concentric. The Bellhousing on sedan boxes is not fully sealed, so if you're mud-plugging you will need to solve this additional issue.
There are widely known DMF conversions (e.g. sprinter SMF) and sprinter boxes also, You may find an ML 716.644 from a w163 - not sure of manual box popularity in the UK. In Australia ML's are completely different spec to ROW.
Bottom line is you will require a 240mm clutch & pressure plate. Personally I find the dual mass flywheel is much better for low speed driveability, and this is far more important in a 4x4 low-range application - you need the FW mass to maintain low rpm stability.
If you were going to go for a 6000rpm monster, I'd say use a lightened single mass flywheel - aka M103 SMF, with a sintered clutch disc and an uprated pressure plate. For this you will need a gearbox with the 'long' input shaft - a 717.4xx 5 speed is the obvious option here. Linkages are different and the TC will be divorced in this application. UNLESS you use the sprinter SMF 'conversion' style flywheel option.
The advantage of the ML box is that it has a different rear housing to the normal sedan variants, this will allow a direct coupling of the LT230 to the 716.644, using an adapter plate/flange and with a spud shaft, just like on the ZF4HP22 in the disco and RRC/BWTC
Personally I would recommend using a CV joint between the two if you have room. (These are better at distributing load evenly than a conventional uni, and why MB uses them in the Gwagen between the transmission and VG-150), else normal practice is to divorce the transfer case and run a conventional style 1310 spicer uni joined stubby propshaft.
Below are screenshots from the MB EPC for the ML. Note when viewing a major assembly unit in the EPC, it normally shows the different housings available ( in this case for 716.6xx) and the different flanges / drive options. Some Food for thought.
How the 606a in Gelandewagen is coupled to the VG150 transfer case:
(08-17-2016, 10:05 AM)David_R Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am looking to do a very similar thing, albeit with rather less power:
I have an OM606 from a '98 W210 that I want to shoehorn into a Discovery 2, not only for the improved power (178hp as opposed to the 136 from the Td5) but also due to the fuel flexibility and removing the unit injectors on the Td5.
Not entirely sure what gearbox arrangement to go with. Needs to be manual, and I know the existing R380 is going to be very close to it's limit (it's also rather knackered) and I like the idea of a 6-speed box... so is there a 6-speed MB box that will bolt-up to the OM606, with an appropriate flywheel/clutch/release bearing arrangement? I can either divorce the transfer box, or possibly look at some clever machining of whatever the gearbox output shaft to suit the transfer box.
There will then also be questions over how to deal with the electronic control of the injection pump, but that's for another day!
Thanks.
As already stated by others, the 716.6xx manual 6 speed will fit. MB used a dual mass flywheel and a non-sprung centre clutch plate. Slave cyl is concentric. The Bellhousing on sedan boxes is not fully sealed, so if you're mud-plugging you will need to solve this additional issue.
There are widely known DMF conversions (e.g. sprinter SMF) and sprinter boxes also, You may find an ML 716.644 from a w163 - not sure of manual box popularity in the UK. In Australia ML's are completely different spec to ROW.
Bottom line is you will require a 240mm clutch & pressure plate. Personally I find the dual mass flywheel is much better for low speed driveability, and this is far more important in a 4x4 low-range application - you need the FW mass to maintain low rpm stability.
If you were going to go for a 6000rpm monster, I'd say use a lightened single mass flywheel - aka M103 SMF, with a sintered clutch disc and an uprated pressure plate. For this you will need a gearbox with the 'long' input shaft - a 717.4xx 5 speed is the obvious option here. Linkages are different and the TC will be divorced in this application. UNLESS you use the sprinter SMF 'conversion' style flywheel option.
The advantage of the ML box is that it has a different rear housing to the normal sedan variants, this will allow a direct coupling of the LT230 to the 716.644, using an adapter plate/flange and with a spud shaft, just like on the ZF4HP22 in the disco and RRC/BWTC
Personally I would recommend using a CV joint between the two if you have room. (These are better at distributing load evenly than a conventional uni, and why MB uses them in the Gwagen between the transmission and VG-150), else normal practice is to divorce the transfer case and run a conventional style 1310 spicer uni joined stubby propshaft.
Below are screenshots from the MB EPC for the ML. Note when viewing a major assembly unit in the EPC, it normally shows the different housings available ( in this case for 716.6xx) and the different flanges / drive options. Some Food for thought.
How the 606a in Gelandewagen is coupled to the VG150 transfer case:
I suspect I am leaning towards a directly coupled 716.644 gearbox. If there is an issue with it not being fully sealed around the flywheel/clutch area, I can live with that, as I prefer not to put a vehicle I have invested time/money/effort in up to it's windows in sh!tty horrible muddy water! It does get used for a lot of fairly heavy towing though, so I am quite prepared to over-engineer the drivetrain if needed.
Interesting that it has a concentric slave cylinder... I may look a bit carefully at that with a view to making it not so, as I've had some terrible experiences with concentric ones.
.. so, just need to find a crashed 6-speed manual ML. Did different models have different gear ratios?
Some very very interesting options there, and thanks for the information.
I suspect I am leaning towards a directly coupled 716.644 gearbox. If there is an issue with it not being fully sealed around the flywheel/clutch area, I can live with that, as I prefer not to put a vehicle I have invested time/money/effort in up to it's windows in sh!tty horrible muddy water! It does get used for a lot of fairly heavy towing though, so I am quite prepared to over-engineer the drivetrain if needed.
Interesting that it has a concentric slave cylinder... I may look a bit carefully at that with a view to making it not so, as I've had some terrible experiences with concentric ones.
.. so, just need to find a crashed 6-speed manual ML. Did different models have different gear ratios?
(08-19-2016, 05:09 AM)David_R Some very very interesting options there, and thanks for the information.
I suspect I am leaning towards a directly coupled 716.644 gearbox. If there is an issue with it not being fully sealed around the flywheel/clutch area, I can live with that, as I prefer not to put a vehicle I have invested time/money/effort in up to it's windows in sh!tty horrible muddy water! It does get used for a lot of fairly heavy towing though, so I am quite prepared to over-engineer the drivetrain if needed.
Interesting that it has a concentric slave cylinder... I may look a bit carefully at that with a view to making it not so, as I've had some terrible experiences with concentric ones.
.. so, just need to find a crashed 6-speed manual ML. Did different models have different gear ratios?
I strongly suggest you reconsider your views on concentric slaves. Yes, you need to pull the box to effect a repair. But you also replace it as part of a repset when servicing the clutch anyway.
If you want an external slave cyl, then you need to revert to the 717.4xx 5 speed manual transmissions. These have a conventional pivot fork arrangement. However - the forks are also known to fail on the slave cyl end (excessive wear) and the ball pivot on the opposite side is also known to fail leaving the threaded portion stuck in the front of the transmission.
A small cover plate can easily be fabricated to cover the bleed aperture on the 716. not rocket science. IMO it should have been that way anyway from the start.
There are no wading plugs like there are on LT77/R380/ZF4HP22's so you may wish to consider this modification also. It makes sense to do these things before the box goes in - even if you don't think you'll need to.
The concentric slaves are reliable.
With towing your biggest issue is the grab on the flywheel with the clutch and pressure plate.
I do not know what options you have locally in the UK, but consider this:
Sachs made the OE 240mm clutch and pressure plate. It's good enough behind MB diesels which have taller final drive ratios than a 3.54:1 on a disco.. LuK also make Repsets with the DMF, pilot bearing, concentric slave, clutch disc and pressure plate.
You could opt for an uprated pressure plate and clutch disc..... bear in mind that you can 'over clutch' an engine/gearbox. If you think you're going to slip it, use the correct gear, and make use of low range. That is what it is for! If you think you will have a gearing issue, then rather than change the diff ratios out, change the LT230's final drive - or just change out the LT230 if it needs an overhaul (Dave Ashcroft again) See below for LT ratios: (scroll in the code window for a complete list)
List of Serial numbers and corresponding Ratios
All stock LT 230's have a low ratio of 3.321, the following list refers to the high range ratio.
12D = 1.667 LT 230R
13D = 1.410 LT 230R
14D = 1.003 LT 230R
15D = 1.192 LT 230R
20D = 1.667 (2.5 N/A 110)
22D = 1.410 (all 4Cyl 90/110 bar above)
25D = 1.410 (V8 110 LT 85)
26D = 1.003 (RR Classic 3 speed auto)
27D = 1.192 (early RR Classic)
28D = 1.222 (RR and Disco I)
29D = 1.192 (V8 90 LT 85)
32D = 1.222
34D = 1.410 (2.0 Disco I)
36D = 1.211
38D = 1.211
40D = 1.211 (NAS/Japan 90 & Disco)
41D = 1.211 (Disco II, diff lock stud)
42D = 1.211 (Disco II, diff lock stud)
43D = 1.410 (90/110 TD5)
57D = 1.410 (90/110 TD5)
61D = 1.211
62D = 1.211
68D = 1.211
69D = 1.211
70D = 1.211 (Disco II, no diff lock)Clutch specialists can alter the pivot point of the belleville spring in the pressure plate, and increase the clamping force, however I have seen fingers fail when this is taken 'too far'. Better off using a slightly heavier duty PP - and You can get these off the shelf. Insofar as clutch disc is concerned, a kevlar FW side and a sintered PP side disc is more than enough bite. I have one of these on an SMF and I can tell you they don't like to slip - not even on take off. Possibly they are about as far as you would want to go on a manual box 4x4.
Exedy did make a PP, however I cannot find anyone who stocks it these days. I prefer to use Sachs PP's. Even their organic clutch disks can take a pretty serious hammering, so I really do not think a clutch will be your biggest issue, unless you like to slip it.
Have you actually considered a 722.6 auto? If you are towing, It makes sense. I would not ever put a manual box in my RRC. Offroad an auto can give you much better control over wheelspin in lower gears as well. And towing.... that is a no-brainer. the 722.6 also has lock up clutch, which is immensely better on fuel economy than the shitbox ZF4HP22 4 speed.
Just some things worth considering.
(08-19-2016, 05:09 AM)David_R Some very very interesting options there, and thanks for the information.
I suspect I am leaning towards a directly coupled 716.644 gearbox. If there is an issue with it not being fully sealed around the flywheel/clutch area, I can live with that, as I prefer not to put a vehicle I have invested time/money/effort in up to it's windows in sh!tty horrible muddy water! It does get used for a lot of fairly heavy towing though, so I am quite prepared to over-engineer the drivetrain if needed.
Interesting that it has a concentric slave cylinder... I may look a bit carefully at that with a view to making it not so, as I've had some terrible experiences with concentric ones.
.. so, just need to find a crashed 6-speed manual ML. Did different models have different gear ratios?
I strongly suggest you reconsider your views on concentric slaves. Yes, you need to pull the box to effect a repair. But you also replace it as part of a repset when servicing the clutch anyway.
If you want an external slave cyl, then you need to revert to the 717.4xx 5 speed manual transmissions. These have a conventional pivot fork arrangement. However - the forks are also known to fail on the slave cyl end (excessive wear) and the ball pivot on the opposite side is also known to fail leaving the threaded portion stuck in the front of the transmission.
A small cover plate can easily be fabricated to cover the bleed aperture on the 716. not rocket science. IMO it should have been that way anyway from the start.
There are no wading plugs like there are on LT77/R380/ZF4HP22's so you may wish to consider this modification also. It makes sense to do these things before the box goes in - even if you don't think you'll need to.
The concentric slaves are reliable.
With towing your biggest issue is the grab on the flywheel with the clutch and pressure plate.
I do not know what options you have locally in the UK, but consider this:
Sachs made the OE 240mm clutch and pressure plate. It's good enough behind MB diesels which have taller final drive ratios than a 3.54:1 on a disco.. LuK also make Repsets with the DMF, pilot bearing, concentric slave, clutch disc and pressure plate.
You could opt for an uprated pressure plate and clutch disc..... bear in mind that you can 'over clutch' an engine/gearbox. If you think you're going to slip it, use the correct gear, and make use of low range. That is what it is for! If you think you will have a gearing issue, then rather than change the diff ratios out, change the LT230's final drive - or just change out the LT230 if it needs an overhaul (Dave Ashcroft again) See below for LT ratios: (scroll in the code window for a complete list)
List of Serial numbers and corresponding Ratios
All stock LT 230's have a low ratio of 3.321, the following list refers to the high range ratio.
12D = 1.667 LT 230R
13D = 1.410 LT 230R
14D = 1.003 LT 230R
15D = 1.192 LT 230R
20D = 1.667 (2.5 N/A 110)
22D = 1.410 (all 4Cyl 90/110 bar above)
25D = 1.410 (V8 110 LT 85)
26D = 1.003 (RR Classic 3 speed auto)
27D = 1.192 (early RR Classic)
28D = 1.222 (RR and Disco I)
29D = 1.192 (V8 90 LT 85)
32D = 1.222
34D = 1.410 (2.0 Disco I)
36D = 1.211
38D = 1.211
40D = 1.211 (NAS/Japan 90 & Disco)
41D = 1.211 (Disco II, diff lock stud)
42D = 1.211 (Disco II, diff lock stud)
43D = 1.410 (90/110 TD5)
57D = 1.410 (90/110 TD5)
61D = 1.211
62D = 1.211
68D = 1.211
69D = 1.211
70D = 1.211 (Disco II, no diff lock)Clutch specialists can alter the pivot point of the belleville spring in the pressure plate, and increase the clamping force, however I have seen fingers fail when this is taken 'too far'. Better off using a slightly heavier duty PP - and You can get these off the shelf. Insofar as clutch disc is concerned, a kevlar FW side and a sintered PP side disc is more than enough bite. I have one of these on an SMF and I can tell you they don't like to slip - not even on take off. Possibly they are about as far as you would want to go on a manual box 4x4.
Exedy did make a PP, however I cannot find anyone who stocks it these days. I prefer to use Sachs PP's. Even their organic clutch disks can take a pretty serious hammering, so I really do not think a clutch will be your biggest issue, unless you like to slip it.
Have you actually considered a 722.6 auto? If you are towing, It makes sense. I would not ever put a manual box in my RRC. Offroad an auto can give you much better control over wheelspin in lower gears as well. And towing.... that is a no-brainer. the 722.6 also has lock up clutch, which is immensely better on fuel economy than the shitbox ZF4HP22 4 speed.
Just some things worth considering.
I take your point about the concentric slave cylinders... my experience was with very early (and non-MB) ones. Hopefully they are a lot more reliable now.
I have considered the 722.6 auto.. for about 2 seconds and then discounted it. I hate autos with a passion, and the experience of the 722.6 in the W210 I have at the moment has done nothing to alter that perception. I find it slow to react, clumsy in use, makes the engine drone horribly, and it would appear to not have a lock-up clutch in the torque converter, as even at motorway speeds there is a 400-500rpm difference between max power and no power. I can feel the fuel economy being slushed away!
What I plan to build is definitely not going to be a heavy mud-plugger, a power demon or anything absurd. I want to keep to stock parts wherever possible (although the point about fabricating cover plates is a good one and something I can reasonably easily do) and just make the viehicle driveable. I don't tend to slip the clutch very much at all, in fact I have never worn a clutch out in 25 years of driving, despite having some vehicles with decidedly worn clutches in the first place!. I will happily grab for low box at low speeds/pull away/hills etc, and have no issue doing a double-de-clutch between low and high (or vice-versa) as necessary.
I'm also considering the 1.003:1 final drive ratio as you mentioned above. (from a RRC 3-speed auto if memory serves?). Should make it both a decent towing vehicle and lazy RPM when cruising at 65 on the motorway when not towing. Ideal!
Lots of interesting information again!
I take your point about the concentric slave cylinders... my experience was with very early (and non-MB) ones. Hopefully they are a lot more reliable now.
I have considered the 722.6 auto.. for about 2 seconds and then discounted it. I hate autos with a passion, and the experience of the 722.6 in the W210 I have at the moment has done nothing to alter that perception. I find it slow to react, clumsy in use, makes the engine drone horribly, and it would appear to not have a lock-up clutch in the torque converter, as even at motorway speeds there is a 400-500rpm difference between max power and no power. I can feel the fuel economy being slushed away!
What I plan to build is definitely not going to be a heavy mud-plugger, a power demon or anything absurd. I want to keep to stock parts wherever possible (although the point about fabricating cover plates is a good one and something I can reasonably easily do) and just make the viehicle driveable. I don't tend to slip the clutch very much at all, in fact I have never worn a clutch out in 25 years of driving, despite having some vehicles with decidedly worn clutches in the first place!. I will happily grab for low box at low speeds/pull away/hills etc, and have no issue doing a double-de-clutch between low and high (or vice-versa) as necessary.
I'm also considering the 1.003:1 final drive ratio as you mentioned above. (from a RRC 3-speed auto if memory serves?). Should make it both a decent towing vehicle and lazy RPM when cruising at 65 on the motorway when not towing. Ideal!
Do you service it regularly? they are by no means 'sealed for life' despite some BS claim. Ole's standalone controller for the 722.6 is absolute dynamite as well. I've driven in a g fitted with one and simply could not believe how much adjustment is in the shift and how GOOD it was... So much so, that I seriously considered using one instead of the 716.6 behind my m104. The only thing that prevented that was the fact I already had the manual transmission.... otherwise I'd have gone for the auto.
Early 210's did not have the lockup torque converter as far as I understand, but only the real early ones. pretty sure all 211's had the lock-up converter, and of course the m113's al had it on the kompressor 5.5L engines.
Nothing wrong with either option in my book. I have a fully rebuilt 4HP22 in my RRC, and it's only barely as good as the 722.3 in my 560SL which has over 200,000km on it and not rebuilt.
Either way, you're pretty much assured of getting a better box than what you have now.
The transmission symptoms you're describing to me are leading me to think you have an underfilled transmission or a blocked filter. Sometimes the conductor plate goes apeshit too.
Do you service it regularly? they are by no means 'sealed for life' despite some BS claim. Ole's standalone controller for the 722.6 is absolute dynamite as well. I've driven in a g fitted with one and simply could not believe how much adjustment is in the shift and how GOOD it was... So much so, that I seriously considered using one instead of the 716.6 behind my m104. The only thing that prevented that was the fact I already had the manual transmission.... otherwise I'd have gone for the auto.
Early 210's did not have the lockup torque converter as far as I understand, but only the real early ones. pretty sure all 211's had the lock-up converter, and of course the m113's al had it on the kompressor 5.5L engines.
Nothing wrong with either option in my book. I have a fully rebuilt 4HP22 in my RRC, and it's only barely as good as the 722.3 in my 560SL which has over 200,000km on it and not rebuilt.
Either way, you're pretty much assured of getting a better box than what you have now.
.. Either way, I'm still heavily leaning towards a manual. IMO it doesn't matter how good an auto is, it still can't match the ability of the driver to know what (s)he wants.
Is there a kit available from someone that is an adaptor plate and custom shaft that will link a 716.644 ML 6-speed manual gearbox with a LT230 Land-Rover Transfer box?
My 210 is a '98 (I think... not sure) and I've yet to service it, as I've only had it for about 8 months. I am fairly sure a transmission fluid change would make a fair difference to the way it drives, but at the moment there appears to be absolutely no lock-up at all, which is very tedious.
.. Either way, I'm still heavily leaning towards a manual. IMO it doesn't matter how good an auto is, it still can't match the ability of the driver to know what (s)he wants.
Is there a kit available from someone that is an adaptor plate and custom shaft that will link a 716.644 ML 6-speed manual gearbox with a LT230 Land-Rover Transfer box?
You could ring Dave and ask - He's pretty good with knowledge sharing - or simply email him.
I think there is a UK guy, who Dave Ashcroft referred to in cambridge, who does the adapter - but - a) I cannot remember the name of the business, and b) I'm not entirely sure if it was for a manual box - I actually think it was for a 722.6 ML rear housing to LT230. It might have even been 722.3 - I cannot remember, sorry.
You could ring Dave and ask - He's pretty good with knowledge sharing - or simply email him.
5 Guest(s)
5 Guest(s)