I am similarly convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
Printable View
I am similarly convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
V6/8 has more parts so more expensive to build and operate (but smoother and quieter - could concern some!). But fills engine bay to much as Dave has said, and possibly more important forces things like turbo and alternator low (not good in water crossings particularly with muddy water). Also turbos on V engines is far from ideal.
Another vote here for 3+ litre, 4 cyl diesel, but unfortunately has to be common rail diesel for todays emmission requirements. I also don't understand why Land Rover can't have engine options (at least for outside Europe).
nope, it doesnt...
you can have a reasonably clean run from a well tuned direct injected engine (unitary injection makes it even easier) with the after care gear bolted onto it.
IMHO I could get a 4bd1 to pass current Euro 4 standards with it.
Not quite, these are based on a ford 9 inch (not a true 9 inch ring gear) and are Hypoid spiral bevel. So you either have low pinion (which means steaper prop shaft angles and a pinion more suseptable to impact or High pinion which in the front is a weaker option and creates some steering linkage issues. Ashcroft eneded up designing and having made, their own pinion and ring gear tooth profile as there were some issues with fitting the stock F9 stuff in there. Thrust was one problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimNZ
I know most will say, and for some cases it is true, a hypoid design is stronger than a on center pinion. But that is forcusing on 1 specific part, there is the whole package and variations to deal with. With a on center pinion you can have the front gear set reverse cut so it is running on the correct side of teh tooth (not the weaker back side). IMO a true 9 inch or slightly bigger ring gear, with a decent size pinon and 3rd bearing support would be good. You dont want to go crazy big, sure it will be strong, but will also be heavy and hang low... I would make sure that all the passages that the axle shafts pass through be easily upgradeable to 35 spline maybe even 40....Im in favour of a swivel over a knuckle, for long term use, oil bath lubrication, water crossings etc. A good fabricated housing is stronger than a cast housing center with fitted tubes. Also much easier to work on a removable 3rd than the Sals/Dana type.
Just what Id like to see.....oh plus 4 inch wider track.
Dave is spot on regarding the taxes etc (from what I have read over the years)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
But I disagree with his insitu rebuild need. How many of those that will purchase and drive a commercial 4x4 will have the skills, tools and parts to do a insitu rebuild??? If you break down anywhere in the bush, likely hood is very very low of this. It will end up being towed to a workshop of some kind.
I dont really care what configeration the engine is, whether 4 or 5 cyl straight, or v6 but it needs to be min of 3.0 and min of 500 nm.
Run it on properly brewed BioDiesel with LPG augmentation for greatest efficiency/lowest Cost of Ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
fair enough too but what would you rather...
a vehicle that in a pinch you can pull a piston and rod out of to get it self mobile again, even if its at reduced power and only used to help out recovering itself
or a vehicle with a siezed up engine that cant do anything?
Yes of course Dave, you will succeed where teams of engineers all round the world have failed... :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
I still think the odds of that particular senareo playing out AND having the tools etc to do so is less than the need for a bigger cc engine with power, of any kind (diesel)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
the beauty of a V6 is you can keep the weight back behind the front axle to some degree. Realisticly, it is always going to be an engine from the manufatcures line up. No way in hell is a Def going to warrent a new engine design based around it.
only because Im playing to a different set of ground rules. Ive only got to hit, reliability, ease of maintenance and EURO 4 emission standards and not cost, weight, best fuel consumption, security integration, compatability with a range of vehicles, ease of production line assembly, maximum profit return, overall design compactness, most effecient heat removal, quietness accessory integtation. Put it all on the same playing field and theres not a chance I could do it... but pull half of the crap off of the table and give the engineers the same constraints Id be playing to and you'd have the same result.Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
EURO 4 compatability is as simple as upping the boost to get more air flowing through and a stomping great DPF. if you cant get the oxides of nitrogen down you add an EGR.