pscan.eu said:
another question.
The ABS controller can see both engine revs and wheel speed.
Maybe it's the ABS controller that decides whether you are in first / reverse or some other gear?
That relationship changes with different final drive (IRD) ratios so I wonder if the ABS controller is calibrated differently for this?
An what happens when you fit a non standard gearbox / IRD ratio?
I think that the only consequence would be that maybe it will lock me out of hill descent because it will never accept that the car is in first gear. Probably not a big deal for SWMBO
Click to expand...
The ABS module outputs a speed signal over the CAN, and also wheel slip information. The speed information is used by the Ipack (for the speedometer) and the CCU (inhibit rear door release) the CCU also sends out a PWM pulse based on road speed for the audio system (to alter sound volume based on road speed. I suspect that the ECM and TCM will also monitor the CAN for vehicle speed information, but I'm not 100% sure what they use the information for. The wheel slip information is used by the ECM so it can ignore wheel spin vibrations from variations in speed pulses from the crank sensor, which could be introduced by the wheels slipping and gripping.
I don't believe the ABS module knows or needs to know the engine speed, but it does need to know throttle position, so it can instigate HDC target speed and possibly TC if it sees excessive throttle for a given wheel speed.

Ali has found that the ABS module works OK on his EV conversion FL1, so it's able to ignore the fact that there's no actual engine fitted. However looking at how well the EV spins the wheels, the ABS module isn't able to initiate TC, without knowing the throttle position.
 
Alibro said:
Sorry to gate crash your thread but since we are talking about IRD's I'd appreciate folks opinions on the necessity of cooling the IRD in my Freelander EV. (I'm in the process of plumbing the engine bay)
I was thinking that because it won't be bolted to a hot engine and be close to an even hotter exhaust it may not be necessary.
Any thoughts guys?
Click to expand...
Plumb is into your motor / inverter coolant circuit, so it can be cooled.
The IRD does warm up in use, however as to how warm it would get without being heated by the cooling system of the vehicle I'm unsure.
LR specify fully synthetic oil, so presumably it gets pretty hot under heavy loads.
 
Nodge68 said:
Plumb is into your motor / inverter coolant circuit, so it can be cooled.
The IRD does warm up in use, however as to how warm it would get without being heated by the cooling system of the vehicle I'm unsure.
LR specify fully synthetic oil, so presumably it gets pretty hot under heavy loads.
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure if the plumbing was to cool it in the summer or heat it in the winter. I can plumb it with the inverter, motor and charger but was hoping to avoid having to do so. The pipes are much smaller and I'm concerned it will restrict the flow through the other units. In the ICE car I think it is split with several different flows to stop this being an issue but I will not be able to properly test a DIY version of that.
 
Alibro said:
I wasn't sure if the plumbing was to cool it in the summer or heat it in the winter. I can plumb it with the inverter, motor and charger but was hoping to avoid having to do so. The pipes are much smaller and I'm concerned it will restrict the flow through the other units. In the ICE car I think it is split with several different flows to stop this being an issue but I will not be able to properly test a DIY version of that.
Click to expand...
The cooler plate is definitely to cool the IRD, rather than heat it. When I ran mine without cooling when the hose sprung a leak, the IRD got too hot to touch, and smelled of hot oil after a decent run. However they also get very hot went heated by the coolant.
I see you concern about reducing flow to the rest of the components in the loop. The best way around that is to run a splitter, where the flow to the IRD is supplemented by an additional restricted bypass. It'll be pretty easy to make up such a bypass.
 
Nodge68 said:
The cooler plate is definitely to cool the IRD. When I ran mine without cooling when the hose sprung a leak, the IRD got too hot to touch, and spelled of hot oil after a decent run. However they also get very hot went heated by the coolant.
I see you concern about reducing flow to the rest of the components in the loop. The best way around that is to run a splitter, where the flow to the IRD is supplemented by an additional restricted bypass. It'll be pretty easy to make up such a bypass.
Click to expand...
I have a splitter I can use so will give it a try. Thinking about, it the restriction of the smaller pipework will naturally reduce the flow through the IRD so any more restriction may not be necessary. If we need to talk more about it I'll PM you rather than clogging up Pscans thread.
 
why would the coolant pipes on a V6 be fitted differently to 4 cyl ?
I'm hoping that it's something to do with the V6 engine and not the Jatco gearbox
 
pscan.eu said:
why would the coolant pipes on a V6 be fitted differently to 4 cyl ?
I'm hoping that it's something to do with the V6 engine and not the Jatco gearbox
Click to expand...
The IRD cooler pipes are slightly shorter because of the V6 engine exhaust manifold is in that area, which the 4 cylinder engines don't. I'd not be overly concerned about the pipes, but you will need to check your IRD actually fits the Jatco box you want to use.
 
Alibro said:
I wasn't sure if the plumbing was to cool it in the summer or heat it in the winter. I can plumb it with the inverter, motor and charger but was hoping to avoid having to do so. The pipes are much smaller and I'm concerned it will restrict the flow through the other units. In the ICE car I think it is split with several different flows to stop this being an issue but I will not be able to properly test a DIY version of that.
Click to expand...
Think the IRD coolant flow is in parallel with the heater matrix.

Or in my case parallel with an "open circuit" to the passenger footwell :oops:
 
Alibro said:
I have a splitter I can use so will give it a try. Thinking about, it the restriction of the smaller pipework will naturally reduce the flow through the IRD so any more restriction may not be necessary. If we need to talk more about it I'll PM you rather than clogging up Pscans thread.
Click to expand...
I think that if I was in your situation I would be tempted to have a small separate radiator circuit (like a transmission cooler) and a small electric coolant pump. Maybe you already have something like that for some other systems in the vehicle, if so just add the IRD into that circuit.
 
pscan.eu said:
I think that if I was in your situation I would be tempted to have a small separate radiator circuit (like a transmission cooler) and a small electric coolant pump. Maybe you already have something like that for some other systems in the vehicle, if so just add the IRD into that circuit.
Click to expand...
That might work too, I have a spare pump and pipework so would just need a small rad. I'll have another look at it over the weekend.
 
On Saturday I went to see a scrapped V6 (blown head gasket, interior and panels already removed).

20230701_123254.JPG


after removing the subframe and gearbox engine mount the whole nearly fell out
20230701_160251.JPG


about five hours later
20230701_164659.JPG


Interesting benefit of side opening tailgates
20230702_122449.JPG
 
anyone got any opinion on whether I need a torque converter from a Rover 75 1.8 ? or can I get away with using the Freelander 2.5 torque converter that I got on Saturday?
 
It's a shame the person with the V6 couldn't sort the HG, as the underside is in good condition.

I'm not sure if the torque converter can be used, but it might fit ok, as long as you can space and drill the flex plate to match the 1.8 engine.
 
Can you space flex plate and add the conversion plate to the gearbox without cutting flange or would it result in imbalance ??
 
What gearbox does the Rover 75 auto use ? Looks like a Jatco. Don't suppose the case is the same as a 506E and a cover plate can be removed and the IRD fitted ?? Plus some.other cog type bits. Just a question.

I'm seeing many low mileage Rover 1.8T autos for less than £1k. Wondering about swapping under bonnet loom and ECUs, remove the immobiliser function from ECU and drop it in.

Upgrade gearbox later but go 2wd as a trial.
 
Last edited:
The casing is different. One could go Rover 75 and forego 4wd but it would probably need custom drive shafts (R75 but Freelander CV joints).
I now have a Freelander Jatco so I don't see it as being harder to do.
The only difficult bit is getting it to mate to the 1.8 K series block.
I want to get the position of the IRD in the same place as it is for the manual gearbox and ideally the gearbox mount as well.
If this means cutting down the bell housing to make room for an adapter plate I don't see that as being a big deal.
I think that the easiest way is probably to remove the PG1 gearbox and go to a friendly workshop I know with both gearboxes and the IRD and mate it up with one of his spare K series blocks on the workshop floor.
I can basically hack it about until it fits.
In the end I'm fitting a gearbox that was designed to fit the body, subframe, IRD and suspension that I already have.
 
I've been trying to find part numbers of torque converters, and failed.
However this webpage
https://allbrit.de/xepc.cfm?SPRACHE=DE&CAR=SARRJ&PAGE=138605
tells me that the torque converter oil seal is a different part number on a Rover 75 compared with a Freelander.

Another link for torque converters, but only Freelander
https://allbrit.de/epc.cfm?PAGE=J03050&CAR=L6&SPRACHE=DE

My understanding is that the important thing about torque converters is the stall speed, which is generally similar for all petrol engines, and again similar for all diesel engines, but different between petrol and diesel. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
 
pscan.eu said:
The casing is different. One could go Rover 75 and forego 4wd but it would probably need custom drive shafts (R75 but Freelander CV joints).
I now have a Freelander Jatco so I don't see it as being harder to do.
The only difficult bit is getting it to mate to the 1.8 K series block.
I want to get the position of the IRD in the same place as it is for the manual gearbox and ideally the gearbox mount as well.
If this means cutting down the bell housing to make room for an adapter plate I don't see that as being a big deal.
I think that the easiest way is probably to remove the PG1 gearbox and go to a friendly workshop I know with both gearboxes and the IRD and mate it up with one of his spare K series blocks on the workshop floor.
I can basically hack it about until it fits.
In the end I'm fitting a gearbox that was designed to fit the body, subframe, IRD and suspension that I already have.
Click to expand...
The Freelander Jatco on the Freelander mount will put the IRD in roughly the correct location, as it's bolted to the gearbox. This is no different to how Alibro has mounted his TD4 box into the vehicle, even though the gearbox is powered by an electric motor.
 
The IRD also bolts to the block and sump at the other end of it to the gearbox, doesn't it?
Does that mean that a 1.8 K series block and/or sump is different to an MG Rover one?
I want to mock all this up on the floor somewhere so can I use any old MG Rover block or do I need a Freelander one?
Basically the relation of the IRD to the block is fixed by that mount onto the block, so the relationship of gearbox to block has to be adjusted to respect that.
The other "unknown" is whether the crank sensor on the Freelander Jatco is in the same place as it is on a Rover 75 Jatco box; I hope so.
 
pscan.eu said:
The IRD also bolts to the block and sump at the other end of it to the gearbox, doesn't it?
Does that mean that a 1.8 K series block and/or sump is different to an MG Rover one?
I want to mock all this up on the floor somewhere so can I use any old MG Rover block or do I need a Freelander one?
Basically the relation of the IRD to the block is fixed by that mount onto the block, so the relationship of gearbox to block has to be adjusted to respect that.
The other "unknown" is whether the crank sensor on the Freelander Jatco is in the same place as it is on a Rover 75 Jatco box; I hope so.
Click to expand...
The other end does bolt to the block. It is done with a bracket though, ie IRD bolts to bracket (in a circular type affair around the end) and the bracket extends to block and bolts to it - IIRC, the lower engine mount/tie rod also bolts to this bracket.

So long as there are some places to screw bolts to on the block, you could presumably make something up, but it'd be a PITA to do so I'd have thought.

Think I got this right. Its a while since I touched them, but pretty sure the K and L series brackets were actually quite different. I think 1 of them may have actually been 2 brackets joined together.

I'm wondering about mounts for the engine and gearbox. Presumably the combinations of K, KV6 and TD4 engine mounts, combined with mounts for the Jatco, PG1 and Getrag gearboxes align the adaptor plates (that the IRD bolts to) in the same position left-right and front-back in the engine bay so that the IRD is positioned for the driveshafts and propshaft to fit properly. There is though, no K/Jatco combination of mounts. Hopefully, the K mount places the block face that the adapter bolts to in the same place as the KV6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

acidK1
Jatco auto ecu
Replies
1
Views
565
pscan.eu
P
acidK1
Auto specialist advice
Replies
19
Views
681
pwood999
pwood999
andyfreelandy
Freelander 1 1.8 Turbo
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
andyfreelandy
andyfreelandy
L
td5 auto gearbox
Replies
5
Views
299
sierrafery
sierrafery
M
2003 Freelander 5 door Auto Tailgate Glass
Replies
3
Views
569
mudinuri
M