101 original lump vs a Diesel alternative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123rover50

Sorry to butt in here. I built my 6x6 with chev V8 in the FC to do the CSR.
That was 10 yrs ago.Have not got there yet. Whats this about 6 wheels etc being banned. Can you give a link perhaps.
Thanks.
Keith

---

Wells 2-9 are on private stations.

Exploroz has this:

Quote:

---

Trailer Restrictions
Strictly no trailers or wide-track vehicles can be taken on the section of track between Wells 2 - 5. In this case you MUST take the alternative route via Glen-Ayle or Granite Peak stations.

---

You need to call the property owner for permission to traverse the well 2-5 section. When I called, the station owner wanted to know what type of vehicles we had. She stipulated no trailers, no 6x6, and no large 4x4 e.g. unimogs were specifically mentioned.

Those with 6x6s and trailers usually enter/exit at Well 9. So you can do wells 9 and up. However there is some nice country on the first part.

I also saw that on ExplorerOz and asked what was the authority and didn't get a straight answer.

Is the land privately owned or lease - most likely lease.

Is the CSR a gazzetted public road that crosses private land in which case the owners cannot stipulate what travels on it - I do not know the answers and when I have asked never got reliable answers other than testimonials. Do the "owners" have the authority to put restrictions on use? I know of a few examples of public roads that cross private land and owners try to lock the roads and place restrictions on use but they do not have the authority to do so. All depends on the status of the road.

Supposedly nothing that has track larger than a troopy can use that section of the CSR so that puts out many larger 4wds like a 200 series and certainly a 101.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

I also saw that on ExplorerOz and asked what was the authority and didn't get a straight answer.

Is the land privately owned or lease - most likely lease.

Is the CSR a gazzetted public road that crosses private land in which case the owners cannot stipulate what travels on it - I do not know the answers and when I have asked never got reliable answers other than testimonials. Do the "owners" have the authority to put restrictions on use? I know of a few examples of public roads that cross private land and owners try to lock the roads and place restrictions on use but they do not have the authority to do so. All depends on the status of the road.

Supposedly nothing that has track larger than a troopy can use that section of the CSR so that puts out many larger 4wds like a 200 series and certainly a 101.

Garry

---

The current CSR route deviates from the original (gazetted) CSR through most of Cunyu station (wells 2-5).

When we did the canning we got >50 mm of rain. The local authority were reportedly fining people $10000 per axle if they were caught travelling south on the tanami.

I am sure the local authority fully supports the restrictions that Cunyu Station place on access.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

This section of track has been realigned by Cunyu Station to bypass a notoriously boggy section. Cunyu is a private leaseholder and much of the rest of the CSR is unclaimed crown land. Cunyu is just a small station, operated by a husband and wife team. Tourists travelling the Canning during the peak winter months conflict with Cunyu's mustering operations and this has caused the station many problems in the past when travellers have become bogged and stranded requiring help which has interrupted their mustering.
Windich Springs
So Cunyu decided it was best for all if the original track was realigned for the benefit of both travellers and their operations and since this track passes through their property they have exercised their right to impose some regulations on the use of their track.

---

The above sounds reasonable to me ... but there is always someone who wants to spoil it for the rest of us... When I spoke to the station owner, she sounded like a nice and reasonable person, and I am sure she would be happy to allow 101s through if it were explained that they are no heavier than a normal landrover.

Thanks for the input guys, and staying on the subject matter was really good,as sometimes topics get hijacked and people end up talking about god knows what,least it didn't happen here.
Can't wait to fit the diesel and junk that poxy v8 now


Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Thanks for the input guys, and staying on the subject matter was really good,as sometimes topics get hijacked and people end up talking about god knows what,least it didn't happen here.
Can't wait to fit the diesel and junk that poxy v8 now


Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

---

So what diesel have you decided on?

I have seen two gmc 6.2 diesels scary huge but I think a land rover lump is probable


Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

As previously highlighted, the 101 is already front heavy, so if you do use an alternative engine that is much heavier than standard you will need to have a look at (as a minimum) alternative springs for the front. Maybe even worse for an ambo over a GS due to the ambos considerable weight.

I understand the "101 rumble" in the ambo is less pronounced due to its increased weight causing the vehicle to sit a bit lower and reduce the angle on the front driveshaft - nevertheless if you do re-engine I would take the opportunity to lower the drivers side of the engine/gearbox unit in the chassis to further reduce driveshaft angles.

Garry

Would you not be of the mind set that the back body on the Ambo being substantially heavier would lend itself to even out the nose dive potential on braking not that I fancy the idea of a whopping great big 6.2 yank ?


---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps'll=-20.682761,117.140118"]Google Maps[/ame]
Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

And after reading your last piece again valid point on the lower centre of gravity


---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps'll=-20.682560,117.140089"]Google Maps[/ame]
Sent from my iPhone using Telepathy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Would you not be of the mind set that the back body on the Ambo being substantially heavier would lend itself to even out the nose dive potential on braking not that I fancy the idea of a whopping great big 6.2 yank ?

---

Not talking about nose diving under braking - the front is just heavy - particularly with one or two beefy people sitting over the front wheels. Then adding a couple of hundred extra kgs from something like a 3.9 Isuzu or something of similar weight will simply require extra work on the front suspension.