Offroad-Express

sorry i think i worded it wrong, i meant with low enough gearing you should still make good torque low down and still have the range to rev it high as well. Does that make sense or am i talking out the wrong hole again

edit to add.
I accept that a diesel will make better torque low down but i guess what i am trying to say is i think its about setting up gearing to suit your setup and adjusting your driving style accordingly.

My 3000cc supercharged diesel lights up quick enough and generally the 1KZ motors light up as well and there are many diesels that do the same. The supra motors in my observation seem to produce a lot of power around 7000 revs but I dont think that is where you want it. I like to have torque around 1000 rpm and with supercharger will quickly go to 3000 rpm which triples wheel speed.

A lot of the need for power is in our minds. In nelson we have big long steep firebrecks and they look intimidating. The natural reaction is to have the foot flat to the floor to make sure you make it. Generally the wheels are spinning quickly. As you get near the top you get more confidence and start shutting off and thats when you feel the wheels grip.

dunno about the power at 7oorpm as mine is limited at 6500 but in 2nd low with 4.5 diffs there is enough torque to get through most stuff and when you need that punch all it takes is puttin ya foot in it.
I agree totally though with excess wheel spinning, I am now trying to keep the wheel to ground speed thing right now thatv ive gotten the horse power thing out of my system and it works a treat. But in situations where wheel speed is needed a light truck with 200hp can be alot of fun. More fun in fact than wearing a pink hat in a remuera soccer mum wagon

Bulletproof wrote:

rangimotors wrote:with low enough gearing you should be able to build lots of torque at high rev's

I don't believe that is right. For most 4 wheel driving you want torque at 1000rpm and then you have complete control because you still increase the revs.
Because in a lot of situations you need momentum from a higher gear.

Cheers Richard

I am still learning, and there is a helluva lot of THAT to go yet.
My teachers tell me that the first three rules are,

1. momentum
2. momentum
3. momentum

So I keep revs just under "light up" point, a gear that keeps speed up but not crazily so.
A slight push on the loud pedal will keep the tyres turning under most conditions, No, I don't thrash the shit out of it, cos its my daily runner too.
I have found that I can change gear on a hill even in sand fast enuff to not lose one of the three rules.
Works for me!!

If only the bloody auto hubs would STAY in!! GRRRRR

Bulletproof wrote:

haynzy wrote:Did your turning circle improve with the prado diff, Its the one thing that gets me about my lux, it sux even with 50mm wheel spacers on

My turning circle sucked badly with the 35x12.5s while I had the leaf springs. Since I fitted the Nissan Suspension and moved the diff an inch forward my turning circle is good even without spacers but could be improved with 25mm spacers.

how the hell does a turning circle change by changing the suspension let alone get better WITH a longer wheelbase

My turning circle sucked badly with the 35x12.5s while I had the leaf springs. Since I fitted the Nissan Suspension and moved the diff an inch forward my turning circle is good even without spacers but could be improved with 25mm spacers.
[/quote]

how the hell does a turning circle change by changing the suspension let alone get better WITH a longer wheelbase [/quote]




Quite easy.
On a hihux the turning circle is reduced by the tyres hitting the springs which are on the outside of the chassis . They also hit the drag link back to the c arm which is also on the outside of the springs.

By replacing these things with coils and landcruiser cross over steering the turning circle improved dramatically.

Im fitting 25mm wheel spacers to the front which will make the turning circle better again.

Richard

turoa wrote:

Bulletproof wrote:

haynzy wrote:Did your turning circle improve with the prado diff, Its the one thing that gets me about my lux, it sux even with 50mm wheel spacers on

My turning circle sucked badly with the 35x12.5s while I had the leaf springs. Since I fitted the Nissan Suspension and moved the diff an inch forward my turning circle is good even without spacers but could be improved with 25mm spacers.

how the hell does a turning circle change by changing the suspension let alone get better WITH a longer wheelbase

My guess would be the tyres hitting the leaf springs on full lock

i am running pretty much the same setup in my dc lux, coils and 70series cruiser steering with 25mm wheel spacers, rims are turned inside out, massive offset, to be honest the turning circle is better but not massively in mine

how the hell does a turning circle change by changing the suspension let alone get better WITH a longer wheelbase [/quote]

My guess would be the tyres hitting the leaf springs on full lock [/quote]

Hi Shane
You are exactly right.
The nissan radius arms are 50mm further in which makes a world of difference to the turning circle.

It will never be as good as a short wheelbase but that doesn't worry me because if I have to back up once or twice on a weekend ,it is not the end of the world.

cheers Richard

swampa wrote:25mm wheel spacers, rims are turned inside out, to be honest the turning circle is better but not massively in mine

sounds interesting what does that acheive

Interesting stuff. However a couple of things that bear debating.
1) The SWB vs LWB debate has been around since the dawn of time... or at least since the 107 Series 1 and I've had both. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and your comment about 9 out of 10 doesn't hold water across all uses. LWB is better for climbing no argument. But ramp over angle is bad. LWBs needs spring lift to attain the same ROA as a similar SWB. Of course that immediately lifts the COG so stability on a sidling is compromiseded. If you stick to tracks then use a LWB, but a SWB is better for bush crashing or on open pasture. To each one its own.

2) Diesels do NOT automatically develop more low end torque than a petrol. Take two naturally aspirated engines of the same capacity and tune them for a flat torque curve and the petrol will walk all over a diesel. It's down to tuning and design. It's just that most petrol motors these days are designed for peaky torque and power at big revs. However, a Commy 3.8 up against a japanese diesel of the same capacity would be a winner every time.

Petrol motors are cheaper to buy and maintain and modern ones tend to be more reliable than an equivalent small high-speed diesel, so they have a lot going for them. Spend a bit of money on them waterproofing electrics and ignition (actually not as hard as it's made out to be) and you'll have little more in the way of issues, than a diesel. The big advantage that diesels have is fuel efficiency. The problem is that if you tune petrol engines for torque at the bottom end of the rev range the fuel consumption starts flying with the eagles if you drive it anywhere near peak, however it'll still be lighter than the diesel.

Personally I prefer diesels, but that's just an old trucker/machine operator thing, I can't figure all that electronics shit and the fact that I'm too bloody lazy to do the water proofing thing.

The point is that neither is wrong in every circumstance or right in every circumstance and in certain circumstances one type will be more right than the other.

yorick wrote:2) Diesels do NOT automatically develop more low end torque than a petrol. Take two naturally aspirated engines of the same capacity and tune them for a flat torque curve and the petrol will walk all over a diesel. It's down to tuning and design. It's just that most petrol motors these days are designed for peaky torque and power at big revs. However, a Commy 3.8 up against a japanese diesel of the same capacity would be a winner every time.

When do you find vehicles with a naturally aspirated diesel and petrol of the same size?
I have a turbo diesel of 3.9 litres, I'll happily put it up against a commodore 3.8. Personally I have no love at all for those V6's and can't understand why so many people want to install them.
I've got around 250Nm from idle and you can spin the two and five around once you pass 1500rpm.
The commodore has about 290Nm at 3000rpm. That's average.
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/ho ... ations.htm

KiwiBacon wrote:

yorick wrote:2) Diesels do NOT automatically develop more low end torque than a petrol. Take two naturally aspirated engines of the same capacity and tune them for a flat torque curve and the petrol will walk all over a diesel. It's down to tuning and design. It's just that most petrol motors these days are designed for peaky torque and power at big revs. However, a Commy 3.8 up against a japanese diesel of the same capacity would be a winner every time.

When do you find vehicles with a naturally aspirated diesel and petrol of the same size?

That's a meaningless statement. Manufacturers always put in bigger diesels to retain similar performance, which just strengthens my argument. Where the diesels are smaller (Landrover) it's done for economy reasons. Landrover is a good example. Once upon a time you could get a petrol and diesel and they used identical blocks, ask anyone who has driven those.
The 400 Chev and the 6.5 litre GM. Same block if memory serves

I have a turbo diesel of 3.9 litres, I'll happily put it up against a commodore 3.8. Personally I have no love at all for those V6's and can't understand why so many people want to install them.
I've got around 250Nm from idle and you can spin the two and five around once you pass 1500rpm.
The commodore has about 290Nm at 3000rpm. That's average.
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/ho ... ations.htm

Um that's a VN spec, 20 years old. They were/are shit I agree, a VR or VT Ecotec is a different barrel of monkeys and they are 305 nm. Tell you what to make it fair, I'll match your 3.9 turbo motor against a supercharged 3.8 VT ... just to be fair.

Diesels only match petrols when you add kompressors and I'd be happy to measure a Merc 2.3 Kompressor against any turbo diesel up to 2.7litre....

my dad has a 2008 ssangyong rexton which is quick as, is 2.7l i think, going up our hill there is one spot where he can pull the car trailer with my trials truck on doing about 80 where as my 2l suzuki will only get up to about 70, and if you do something the car doesnt like like try spin the wheels it turns the turbo off for about 10seconds, and when the turbo is turned of it will struggle to get 40 up that part of the hill and without the trailer, so bassically, without the turbo that motor would be a peice of shit, i totaly agree with yorick about a natural petrol will destroy a diesal of the same size if also natural

My reason for a diesel revolves completely around the fact that . Water and shit and electrics dont work .

Its not only the spark on a petrol but everything as well doesn't work as well. Electric Hubs , Electric lockers , computer control gearboxs , Horns ,Lights and the list goes on.

I wont have any electrics for this reason. My engine has a manual accelerator. My gearbox has been converted to air. The lockers are air. The only thing that could let me down is the fuel shut off.

Even then every WOF the horn wont work. The lights are dim from shit on the connectors.

Just a couple of examples.
A month ago we did Als birthday trip and luckily the Grey was low because Rik's supra died in the river.If the Grey was at 4 ft deep someone could have drown. Our last Haast trip a nissan safari filled with water and the computer got drown under the seat and then the gearbox wouldn't work.

My argument without going into figures about torque and HP is that good diesels are quick enough off the mark for 4 wheel driving so why have a petrol that is a lot more temperamental and increases your chance of a bad accident and death.

My motto is KEEP IT SIMPLE

Cheers Richard

Safaris don't have electrics under seats. Terranos do, It was a terrano stuck in the Hope wasn't Richard. I waterproofed my terrano and apart from the ecu being under the seat it was preety waterproof. Regularly had it in water over the bonnet. Kept a bilge pump in it to keep the water from the ECU, also regularly sprayed it with silicone
Al

albundy wrote:Safaris don't have electrics under seats. Terranos do, It was a terrano stuck in the Hope wasn't Richard. I waterproofed my terrano and apart from the ecu being under the seat it was preety waterproof. Regularly had it in water over the bonnet. Kept a bilge pump in it to keep the water from the ECU, also regularly sprayed it with silicone
Al

Hi Al
It was a safari with an auto and it had to be put in some special mode to get it back. I might be wrong about it being under the seat because I never saw it and may have heard them wrong but my understanding was something to do with the computer getting wet.
It sat in the river for a long time and water got in somewhere.

Cheers Richard

PS Did Rude send a video of your trip ? I wouldnt mind getting a copy if he did and will send you some money

just with a note of same engine size.
I would far rather have a 1kz surf (3.0d/t) than have the 3.0 v6 version. But once again personal preferance and there are heaps of petrol vs diesel threads floating about this site. Agree to disagree.

Bulletproof wrote:

albundy wrote:Safaris don't have electrics under seats. Terranos do, It was a terrano stuck in the Hope wasn't Richard. I waterproofed my terrano and apart from the ecu being under the seat it was preety waterproof. Regularly had it in water over the bonnet. Kept a bilge pump in it to keep the water from the ECU, also regularly sprayed it with silicone
Al

Hi Al
It was a safari with an auto and it had to be put in some special mode to get it back. I might be wrong about it being under the seat because I never saw it and may have heard them wrong but my understanding was something to do with the computer getting wet.
It sat in the river for a long time and water got in somewhere.

Cheers Richard

PS Did Rude send a video of your trip ? I wouldnt mind getting a copy if he did and will send you some money

You're close Richard, the auto comp in the Safari is behind the passengers kick panel, left hand side just above floor height.
Was on a trip with a club member in a Safari and same problem, took the computer out, blew it out with an air gun, dry air it on an top of a warm engine and hey presto it was changing gears again

yorick wrote:That's a meaningless statement. Manufacturers always put in bigger diesels to retain similar performance, which just strengthens my argument.

Not true at all.
Hilux, 3 litre diesel vs 4 litre petrol.
Navara/pathfinder, 2.5 litre diesel, 4 litre petrol.

Why? Because that's how big the petrols need to be to get similar torque.

The 6.2/6.5 chevs do not use petrol blocks, the olds 350 did and they were shite.

yorick wrote:Um that's a VN spec, 20 years old. They were/are shit I agree, a VR or VT Ecotec is a different barrel of monkeys and they are 305 nm. Tell you what to make it fair, I'll match your 3.9 turbo motor against a supercharged 3.8 VT ... just to be fair.

No problem, if the petrol stations are more than 400km apart, you'd be walking.

Petrol engines are on the way out. A lot of manufacturers don't even offer petrol utes or vans any more.

I didn't find anything on the 2.3 kompressor. But the 2 litre SLK200 kompressor engine only does 120kw and 240Nm.
BMW's 2 litre 120d pumps out 130kw and 350Nm.

When talking petrol vs diesel its important to talk age as well. Old petols will ususally smoke old diesels but the newer diesels of today are very impressive, torque is through the roof. Drove a new x5 3L diesel the other day and it was amazing. But most of the newer powerful diesels have electronics any way. even the old 2lte surf had electronic injection (I don't know much abou this it could have been less electronic than i think). Most of the old simple diesels are slow as anything. My v6 surf would outpower a 2.8 na diesel any day and it was pretty gutless itself. Richards diesel wouldn't be nearly as impressive without the supercharger, though with it it is a great choice.

Pete

yorick wrote:Interesting stuff. However a couple of things that bear debating.
1) The SWB vs LWB debate has been around since the dawn of time... or at least since the 107 Series 1 and I've had both. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and your comment about 9 out of 10 doesn't hold water across all uses. LWB is better for climbing no argument. But ramp over angle is bad. LWBs needs spring lift to attain the same ROA as a similar SWB. Of course that immediately lifts the COG so stability on a sidling is compromiseded. If you stick to tracks then use a LWB, but a SWB is better for bush crashing or on open pasture. To each one its own.

15 years ago what you have said would be right.
Todays world is completely different and with all the modifications taking place I still believe a long will out perform a short 9 times out of 10.
When it comes to articulation I think Chopper can ramp at 1100mm and many others are the same. I haven't got that sort of articulation because ordinary 4 wheeling doesn't require it. I only have around 600+mm I think because haven't been on a ramp lately, but with diff locks it is not an issue.
I run 35 inch tyres with a 2 inch lift and with the axle moved forward an inch have an approach angle of nearly 70 degrees .300mm under the diffs and clearance underneath is not a problem. The deck has a 70mm lift so departure angle is over 45 degrees and the raised deck doesnt make it top heavy.
A lot of shorts dont have these specs.
Many shorts won't even climb a 4 ft high 70degree bank, a very common obstacle on the track.

With modified trucks the only disadvantage of a long is on a marked out trail course or on tight bush tracks which require backing up a few times.I do lots of these tracks and in a whole weekend would probably only back up a couple of times which is not the end of the world.

Cheers Richard

How long is your lwb bulletproof?

I think there are to many variations in vehicles to say 9 out of 10 times a lwb is better, depends on the truck doesnt it?

yorick wrote:Um that's a VN spec, 20 years old. They were/are shit I agree, a VR or VT Ecotec is a different barrel of monkeys and they are 305 nm. Tell you what to make it fair, I'll match your 3.9 turbo motor against a supercharged 3.8 VT ... just to be fair.

VT 3.8 V6:
Maximum power: 147 kW @ 5200 RPM
Maximum torque: 304 Nm @ 3600 RPM

VT 3.8 Supercharged V6:
Maximum power: 171 kW @ 5200 RPM (on PULP (Premium Unleaded))
Maximum torque: 375 Nm @ 3000 RPM (on PULP)

VT 5.0li V8:
Maximum power: 179 kW @ 4800 RPM
Maximum torque: 400 Nm @ 3600 RPM

VT 5.7l gen 3 V8 - [the wifes]
Maximum power: 220 kW @ 5000 RPM
Maximum torque: 446 Nm @ 4400 RPM
BOOYAH

No problem, if the petrol stations are more than 400km apart, you'd be walking.

The above VT 5.7l gen 3 got me and three other adults 650kms on a 60litre tank cruising at 100. Not bloody bad I would have thought. Now compare that to the old carburetted 350's and I wonder how far youd get!

[sorry.... wayyy OT]

I know a couple of shorty nissans that would kick a lwb up one side of the street and down t'other. Kiwibacon, the 3 litre diesels have turbos on them yes? do the petrols?

How about 408.75Nm @ 2500 at the wheels from a 3.0 1kz

KiwiBacon wrote:I didn't find anything on the 2.3 kompressor. But the 2 litre SLK200 kompressor engine only does 120kw and 240Nm.
BMW's 2 litre 120d pumps out 130kw and 350Nm.

the motor in the SLK 200 is actually a 1.8 and the latest version of that motor produces 135kw

one thing your all forgetting in this debate is the affordability of the motors. Id like to have a new diesel because the new ones are good, but I wont go and spend $10g+ buying one. 10g is alot of petrol

Peeps,

This thread is not about Petrol vs Diesel or LWB vs SWB! Bulletproof has explained why he has what he has and I thought this was about HIS hilux....... Many many many other threads to discuss the merits of each.

Back to your thread Richard... - It was a good read.

NJV6 wrote:Peeps,

This thread is not about Petrol vs Diesel or LWB vs SWB! Bulletproof has explained why he has what he has and I thought this was about HIS hilux....... Many many many other threads to discuss the merits of each.

Back to your thread Richard... - It was a good read.

valid point sorry for the threadjack dude

This is a small video clip from 1998 showing 2 cruisers both with double diff locks trying to get up a very common obstacle and then my old hilux showing how easy it is.

We all had SATs so it was not the tyres.

In those days I still had an old 2.4 so it was not power. Over the years we have all modified our trucks but same thing keeps getting repeated every trip.
So you can see why I stick to my comments about a long wheel base.



Cheers Richard