LT230 DOG TEETH

Does anyone know if on the LT230 t/box the earlier THICK dog teeth are better or worse than the LATER thin dog teeth .

Anyone have an idea or an opinion . my thoughts were the earlier thick teeth are stronger , but maybe harder to engage so the thinner teeth were designed but are not as strong .

I have seen different teeth sizes on transfer box gear sets but thought it was to do with what ratio [ high gears only ] the box is. Either way the LT 230 is recognised as one of the best made serving for some 32 years. Most problems with it tend to be with input / output bearings and operating linkage.

i have 2 donor boxes a def and disco , gears are different ratios 1'4 1;2 . But info is vague it says early boxes thick dogs later thin dogs , then says all DEF 85-2005 and in the same statement early are boxes A-B later C-F , well these thick came out the D box . So ie on syncro gearboxes it appears both boxes COULD be fitted .

Not sure which way to go . But i have ordered a new thin dog high gear , as it will spend most of its time in high .

But i have this niggle though that thicker is stronger and appear as a rule to be more expensive to buy . and maybe it was a cost cutting exercise , im not totally sure but think they were used on V8 models DEF RRC , but there is little info available . Confusing the heck out of me . .

• What i have is a FRC9460 intermediate gear cluster 19-41-38 teeth

FTC1741 HI-gear Thin teeth 34T

FTC1084 LOW-gear Thin teeth 40T

This is what ive gone with , THIN Dogs hi/lo .... im just hoping ive got the correct pairings

I thought it was simply the amount of teeth on the gear, age and ratio of the lt230 all playing a part, early boxes had narrower gears, later boxes different teeh count,and you could have them cross drilled which you could not on the earlier ones.
Have a look at the ashcroft transmission website.