18" Compomotive Wheels

[Jimlr]

Compomotive wheels and Cooper STT tyres : ProSpeed (http://prospeed-group.co.uk/product/discovery-3-and-4-wheels-and-tyres-18/)

Noticed Prospeed have started doing a wheel/tyre package, which includes 275 Cooper STTs, their own height rods, and most interestingly their own lock stops - obviously to combat rubbing with the larger 275s. Has anyone used such "lock stops" before, how much reduced maneuverability would they contribute, and how would you fit such a thing?

Anyway, I though this was a very good looking truck to share, maybe not entirely legal here with that tyre size without an engineering certificate in some states. Still, a very nice rig....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/08/902.jpg

[winaje]

Apologies for hopefully brief hijack; what rack is that? It seems to fit very low and flush to the roof...

[spudboy]

Looks like it's this one:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/08/881.jpg

Land Rover Discovery 3 and 4 Roof Rack : ProSpeed (http://prospeed-group.co.uk/product/discovery-roof-rack/)

[spudboy]

That is a really good looking Discovery!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/488.jpg

[Tombie]

Apologies for hopefully brief hijack; what rack is that? It seems to fit very low and flush to the roof...

Prospeed Rack...

ABout $2800 + Shipping ex-UK

[BMKal]

What are the rims on it in spudboy's photo. They're not the Compomotive rims.

[sctsprin]

RAID 18″ WHEELS | MUDTECH 4?4 (http://www.mudtech4x4.com/cerchi-raid/?lang=en)

[scomac]

Looks like it's this one:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/08/881.jpg

Land Rover Discovery 3 and 4 Roof Rack : ProSpeed (http://prospeed-group.co.uk/product/discovery-roof-rack/)

Looks sexy! :twisted:

But does not look very practical.

[VK3GJM]

Must admit, Looks darn good,

Wouldn't buy Cooper tyres though...many reasons....

With extended elevation via rods, there must be a complete re-alignment process needed to take into consideration LH camber and general drive chain alignment, a complete reset if perminant!

I know that many vehicles with lift kits with IFS do suffer from excessive stress on Driveline CV joint/boot stresses. Why should a D4 lifted with 4WIFS be any different?

I am about to take delivery of a set of Graham's 18" rims, and I am seriously debating in my head on tyre size, rubbing, Graham's rods permanently elevating the vehicle in versus to slightly lower tyre size 265/60.

The trade of for 18 inch rims is 265/60 or 265/65, rubbing or not and added protection that comes with 65's. I am only looking at BFG KO2..

At the end of the day, it appears the best option all round with no rubbing, no change to vehicle dynamics is a 60 profile.

I met a Guy at Cameron Corner in July 2015 running BFG 265/65 KO's on Compomotive 18" rims, he was talking about resetting ride height on standards rods to stop rubbing as a perminant fix?

Let's keep up the debate and pressure on BFG for some decent tyre like the KO2 and sizes available down under.

Regards

Gerald

[LandyAndy]

Looks sexy! :twisted:

But does not look very practical.
They have different floor options depending on your use,0 wind noise claimed on the website.
I would like one.
Andrew

[Mungus]

They have different floor options depending on your use,0 wind noise claimed on the website.
I would like one.
Andrew
Yes a very practical roof rack when you look at all the options for flooring arrangements, accessory brackets, wheel brackets, can holders etc.. etc... Very low and sleek design. Expensive yes! Would have been OK two years ago when the dollar was worth more, but at $1 British @ $2.11 Aussie that puts the rack alone at $1898, add two sets (rows) of floor and a rear ladder and it's up to $2428. When I got my sliders and compressor guard from them shipping for the sliders was $440 aussie and the guard although shipped together was another $100.
It is still the rack I want, but may have to wait for a better dollar value.
Group buy I hear you say???

[LandyAndy]

Not this week!!!! Nor the next few.EVERYBODY has their hands out demanding money at this time of the year!!!!
Andrew

[letherm]

Yes a very practical roof rack when you look at all the options for flooring arrangements, accessory brackets, wheel brackets, can holders etc.. etc... Very low and sleek design. Expensive yes! Would have been OK two years ago when the dollar was worth more, but at $1 British @ $2.11 Aussie that puts the rack alone at $1898, add two sets (rows) of floor and a rear ladder and it's up to $2428. When I got my sliders and compressor guard from them shipping for the sliders was $440 aussie and the guard although shipped together was another $100.
It is still the rack I want, but may have to wait for a better dollar value.
Group buy I hear you say???

Plus GST? You may have to pay 15% if you wait:(

[LandyAndy]

Perhaps Gordon GEO could become an agent.Easy to put them in a container with his wheels;););)
Andrew

[shanegtr]

Im a big fan of the prospeed roof racks. I priced one up a while ago and shipping was around $600 from memory. Im still keen to get one someday when funds allow it


In regards to bigger tyres on the D3/4, I fail to see the point in fitting a size that requires a permanent lift be fitted in order to run them - especially with air suspension. What happens if the system faults and it drops to the bump stops at highway speeds? I brought a bulbar from a guy a while ago and this happened to him while towing his camper, two flat rear tyres and damage to the inner guards was the result.

[l00kin4]

Must admit, Looks darn good,

I am about to take delivery of a set of Graham's 18" rims, and I am seriously debating in my head on tyre size, rubbing, Graham's rods permanently elevating the vehicle in versus to slightly lower tyre size 265/60.

The trade of for 18 inch rims is 265/60 or 265/65, rubbing or not and added protection that comes with 65's. I am only looking at BFG KO2..

At the end of the day, it appears the best option all round with no rubbing, no change to vehicle dynamics is a 60 profile.

Let's keep up the debate and pressure on BFG for some decent tyre like the KO2 and sizes available down under.

Regards

Gerald

Sorry if I'm straying off topic a bit...

Gerald,

I'll be going through this process too (although maybe with Tombie's 18" wheels if that comes to fruition) - any reason you're not considering the Bridgestone D697's along with the BFG's?

The Hankook Dynapro's have had some pretty good reviews too, although not LT's...

Just interested in as many opinions as I can get. :)

David

[Jimlr]

Tend to agree with the drop to the stops risk, and the need to align if running rods permanently at +50mm height with those larger 275s. Pity, cos they look the biz! So we are back to 265/60s to be safe....

Obviously the argument for 18s also comes back to stronger tyre constructions available in these sizes of course.....but realistically in the real world, how much extra advantage is there in an extra 30mm or so sidewall height on airing down with the 60profile tyre - seems such a small amount?????

[Tombie]

265/65 = 172mm vs 265/60 = 159mm

Total sidewall difference - 13mm (~1/2")


Not worth the hassle..... :cool:


And yes, I would go the D697 over a BFG any day of the week.. Far better compound, handling and performance.

[Graeme]

I would go the D697 over a BFG any day of the week.. Far better compound, handling and performance.Including the KO2?

[Tombie]

Including the KO2?


Yes.... KO2 isn't a revolutionary pattern and will still have a much harder compound than a D697 I'm suspecting.

D697 sidewalls are thicker and stronger construction to almost anything else I've seen and after the gibber flogging have no marking on the sides or the tread.

This is a 70,000km old D697 off my D4 - removed only because I purchased new rims and had new rubber fitted.
(These are going on the camper)
97342

[Graeme]

Thanks Tombie. I asked because I'm tossing up between KO2 and Nitto TG G2 for my RRV in a different size, leaning towards the KO2 because of their LT rating.

[LRD414]

Thanks Tombie. I asked because I'm tossing up between KO2 and Nitto TG G2 for my RRV in a different size, leaning towards the KO2 because of their LT rating.


So you found the elusive RRV with ediff Graeme?

Cheers,
Scott

[VK3GJM]

Hi David and others,

I like the look of the KO2 and I know plenty of people who have the KO's and are happy with them. I am after LT because of towing and heavy load, vehicle loaded close to GVM and a lot of high country trips seriously impacts side wall.

Having said the above, my GG 19" have been fantastic and after 55,000km the cape and back up the OTT, countless trip to the high country they are showing signs of serious sidewall issues.

yes Bridgestone D697 is/was my only second choice. However now it's first choice. Have no issues what so ever with D697,s at all, just do not know anyone personally who has them to ask...

Tombie, thanks for the encouragement.

The issue of rubbing on the stops in the unlikely event AES failure does not sit well with me, so my intention is to keep it to a manageable size.

Read my post on KO2 265/60R18 on campaign to bring kO2' s in...

Regards

Gerald

[RobA]

Refer my post in the KO2 petition section

Rob

[Graeme]

So you found the elusive RRV with ediff Graeme?
No, too elusive so deleted that requirement.

[Stuart02]

The D697s are good value and pretty tough to be sure. Better wear than Scorpions not so good as Coopers AT3s. I was however underwhelmed by their bite and self clearing ability on slick clay / heavy soil country - but the KOs clagged up pretty quick too. STT Maxxs much better in the rough but buzzy on road (tho better handling than expected) and a surprising hit on fuel economy. Always a compromise at some point unfortunately.

[Tombie]

And these images are the exact Experience and reason you will never find a Blooper on my vehicles... All are Maxx
97365

97366

97367

97368

A common occurrence and the damage was expensive in each case.

None of these tyres was reported to be over 10,000km old.

Note the chipping on the Last image. Something they claim to have all but eliminated...

[Kieren]

Love to know what happened to that first one Tombie, talk about catastrophic failure!

I had STT Maxx on my last vehicle, did 40000ks on them including the Cape via OTT and the still looked brand new. Caveat, it was a JKU Wrangler so quite a bit lighter vehicle, but well over GVM for the trips.

[Disco-tastic]

Love to know what happened to that first one Tombie, talk about catastrophic failure!

x2

Looks like your rim took a decent hit too.

Cheers

Dan

[scarry]

And these images are the exact Experience and reason you will never find a Blooper on my vehicles... All are Maxx


Last trip we did down to the Flinders,up to Alice and across the Simpson,we only saw three blown tyres on other vehicles,all were bloopers:(

Correct on the A/T BFG,they do chip very easily,even when not old and hard.

Apparently the new KO2 is a more silicone based compound to reduce chipping.

Suppose time will tell.

[rar110]

Last trip we did down to the Flinders,up to Alice and across the Simpson,we only saw three blown tyres on other vehicles,all were bloopers:(

That trip is on my list.

[VK3GJM]

travelling over the years to many outback places, bloopers would have to be the most disliked brand with the most issues in respect to most other brands.


Never forget when my Daughter and I walked into the Mungarennie Hotel on the Birdsville track, three vehicles rolled up 2 with failed bloopers. The Hotel owner at the time stated, the biggest complaint is the sustainability of bloopers, have seen some many fail.


He did a follow-up over time with people passing through, and the one issue is, blooper voids warranty if the pressure is not maintained to their acceptable PSI which apparently is way to high for the driving conditions. they do not accept any liability on tyre failure if the owner stated the pressure was dropped to 28-32 to suit road driving conditions.


I met one of the guys at the hotel after looking at his tyre and a huge hole in his window, the comment was, yes the hole came from the mate's vehicle in front, is pressure was 45psi, as he was told that the type of pressure needed to stay within the blooper guidelines.


Have decided to take Tombie's advice and buy 6 D697 donuts.... Maybe KO2's next round.


Regards




Gerald

[LandyAndy]

I had a set on my D2,first and last time I would buy that brand.The tread blocks were starting to crack off after 1 serious off-road trip that had plenty of rock.Dealer wouldnt honour any warranty as I was a country driver.Thier warrantys are only for city drivers.They dont tell you that when you are buying them:mad::mad::mad:
Andrew

[scarry]

That trip is on my list.

A really great trip,but you do need about 4 weeks minimum..

[VK3GJM]

Gents,

Just back on the issue of size.....

265/65, a bit of rubbing from other posts, now will these hard lock stops stop this. It's easy turning down some aluminium spaces.

Or is the best choice lowest risk 265/60. EAS failure and if you are on the stops at least there is no rubbing as a stock set-up and you can at least have forward motion without serious damage around the wheel arch?

The alternative is 65's and run rods or recalibrate EAS to say +20mm as the new default and live with re-alignment and other potential service issues after a flash update and default.

Just answered my own question!

Still set on Tobie's advice, just go with D697, the safest proven outcome.


Regards

Gerald

[LRD414]

Just answered my own question!




The best way to get a sensible answer Gerald [emoji3]

Cheers,
Scott

Btw, I went D697 in 60's. Done only 14k so far. They look almost new & that includes to the cape & back. So not the most seriously tested yet but very good so far.

[l00kin4]

Sorry if I'm straying off topic a bit...

Gerald,

I'll be going through this process too (although maybe with Tombie's 18" wheels if that comes to fruition) - any reason you're not considering the Bridgestone D697's along with the BFG's?

Just interested in as many opinions as I can get. :)

David

I'm glad I asked that question! ;)

[winaje]

If you google "(ooper ST delamination" (change to the correct wording) and click on the first link, you'll see what happened to me. This is however almost 10 years ago, but as I would not use the brand again I have no idea if they have improved at all.

[BMKal]

At the last minesite I was working on before moving to a city based position, our client's vehicles were all fitted with bloopers at the commencement of the project, and for some months thereafter.

Admittedly this was up at Nullagine, where the conditions are pretty harsh and the rocks on the tracks are generally very hard and with many "sharp" edges.

They were averaging something like 15,000km life on the bloopers - on some vehicles much lower. The bloke in charge of construction of the new haul road down to Christmas Creek got 5,000km out of a set on his vehicle. :eek:

They very quickly changed to another brand of tyres. ;)

The company I worked for at the time never used the bloopers - based on what I have seen of them with my own eyes, I would also never consider them for my own vehicle.

Having said that, I'm currently running a set of Mickey's (which are now owned by bloopers) - and so far, am very happy with them. They've been on the vehicle for more than a couple of years now, and have done a fair bit of off-road travel, plus plenty of long distance bitumen trips.

I do believe that one of the major contributing factors into why the Mickey's are significantly outlasting what they replaced on my vehicle, is that I purchased and fitted a TPMS at the same time as fitting the Mickey's. Prior to this, I could not honestly hold my hand over my heart and say that my tyre pressures were always maintained where they should be. :angel:

[BobD]

On the issue of tyre size, you can fit 285x60 instead of 265x60 on D4's without issues. Very slight rubbing at full articulation that can be fixed (see the GOE web site) and full lock can be used OK.


Many of us have this size and they make a big difference in sand.

[l00kin4]

On the issue of tyre size, you can fit 285x60 instead of 265x60 on D4's without issues. Very slight rubbing at full articulation that can be fixed (see the GOE web site) and full lock can be used OK.

Many of us have this size and they make a big difference in sand.

With a 285/60 your sidewall height is only about 1.25mm less than a 265/65 so you'd still have a problem if you're on the bump stops... is that right?

David

[BobD]

No need for permanent lift or lock limiting with the 285x60's on a D4. Full articulation means hitting the bump stops and you can see on the GOE web page what rubs. It is very little and no problem at all. Since the 285's just touch in a couple of places the extra 1.25mm could make a slight difference but I still wouldn't expect any real problem with them. I only know what the 285's are like, however, from personal experience.

[l00kin4]

No need for permanent lift or lock limiting with the 285x60's on a D4. Full articulation means hitting the bump stops and you can see on the GOE web page what rubs. It is very little and no problem at all. Since the 285's just touch in a couple of places the extra 1.25mm could make a slight difference but I still wouldn't expect any real problem with them. I only know what the 285's are like, however, from personal experience.

Thanks Bob, I should have read your post better! :angel:

[BobD]

Re the performance of D697 tyres. I have pretty serious chipping and lots of cuts to the carcass between the treads on my rear tyres, especially after the Birdsville Track and Great Central Road. One cut was showing canvas with a couple of threads cut also. This was with tyres at 28psi and towing a Kimberley Karavan. The fronts are perfect. Just the rears cop a beating.


I previously posted about the tread damage on my D697's on the Binns track and the consensus was that pressures were too high. I lowered them this time but had the same result, or worse.


No failures and absolutely no sidewall damage at all, though, and I will replace this tyre with another D697 as I think they are the best compromise for the work my car does. I will post a photo when I get my car back with new inlet manifolds, hopefully today.

[Tombie]

Bob, on tracks like that the biggest threat to rear Tyres is always the front tyres as you've discovered...

2 things happen... Front tyres flick rocks into the rears which then run over them. Front tyres turn up rocks exposing edges which the rears then run over.

The first issue is even worse without front mud flaps.

[Melbourne Park]

Tombie, we've discussed rear weight issues before, and perhaps this is also effecting the rear tyres.

BobD has a Brown Davis LR tank, a Kaymar rear Bar too ... I wonder what the tow ball weight of the Karavan is? The mid spec. for the Karavan tow ball weight is 230kg.

The Kaymar with tyre would weigh 40kg, and because its behind the rear axle it adds 55kg to the rear tyres.

The weight of the extra fuel tank with 80 litres of fuel adds around 67kg to the tyres.

The 230kg trailer tow ball weight adds to the tyres 330kg.

The tow ball tongue with ball if it weighs 10kg would add 13kg to the rear tyres.

So, all up, that is an extra 465kg onto the rear tyres. The weight of the bull bar would remove some weight though from the rear tyres - I don't have the figures here for that but lets guess 65kg. So that is an additional weight of 400kg on the rear tyres. Plus their might be some things in the rear of the vehicle. Lets guess at 50kg onto the rear tyres - 450kg then.

Driver and passenger weight of 160kg adds 99kg to the rear axle too.

So all up so far, the rear tyres are getting an extra 550kg kg load onto them. The rear axle weight (although I do not know the tare weight of the rear axle, my guesstimate is 1151kg), would be with 550kg of extra weight, 1700kg of rear axle weight. The front tyres are having a lot less weight. I haven't included the main fuel tank either. The front tyres would be carrying about (I haven't precisely checked my spreadsheet) about 350kg less or about 20% less weight.

IMO rear weight is a real issue with tyres. Load weight on tyres is an issue with transport trucks, and it makes sense the same applies to 4WDs. Before I bought the Disco, I thought the rear tyres were a somewhat close to being overloaded on the Disco.

My tow weight is higher than BobB's likely 230kg though, so I am more concerned about the rear weight issue than most.

Incidentally, my figures above are based on a 55% tare weight being on the front axle, and 45% on the rear therefor. If the balance is 52% on the front axle, then my figures would show an extra 77kg on the rear tyres.

I have asked what the front rear tare weight is on the Disco diesel but no one knows ... strange that LR do not publish that figure.

I haven't taken the rear axle weight of BobB's vehicle either for the front battery - that's worth some weight off the rear tyres.

I saw a video of that South African chap who takes a D4 over the Baboon pass. He made it, but it rained and the vehicle slipped sideways and dinted a door and also a front bar and front side panel.

Interestingly he, he ran very high tyre pressures on his tyres. At the early part of his part 1 video (its on u-tube, he did it with a D4). He said they were so low profile, that he had to run high pressures to protect them, and the flex on such low profiles would have the edges get cut up in no time.

He had three criticisms of the D4: the Sat Nav (bad there and since fixed), the wheel diameter too big and also the silly Land Rover imposed 50KMH height restriction (he did not seem to know about Llams or even the GOE insert suspension raisers). He explained the reason for it was that safety wise the D4 met all Euro safety issues at 50KMH at raised height, but at over 50KMH the D4 did not meet some esoteric Euro safety ratings (I guess the moose test swerve thing that only racing drivers can achieve anyway).



This is a different approach to what Aulro guys seem to advise ...

[gghaggis]

These figures don't make sense? Adding 65 kg to the front axle doesn't remove 65kg from the rear. 45% of 160kg isn't 99kg?? 40kg for a Kamar + tyre is too low, but it doesn't magically multiply to 55kg. 13kg for the tow tongue?

Cheers,

Gordon


Tombie, we've discussed rear weight issues before, and perhaps this is also effecting the rear tyres.

BobD has a Brown Davis LR tank, a Kaymar rear Bar too ... I wonder what the tow ball weight of the Karavan is? The mid spec. for the Karavan tow ball weight is 230kg.

The Kaymar with tyre would weigh 40kg, and because its behind the rear axle it adds 55kg to the rear tyres.

The weight of the extra fuel tank with 80 litres of fuel adds around 67kg to the tyres.

The 230kg trailer tow ball weight adds to the tyres 330kg.

The tow ball tongue with ball if it weighs 10kg would add 13kg to the rear tyres.

So, all up, that is an extra 465kg onto the rear tyres. The weight of the bull bar would remove some weight though from the rear tyres - I don't have the figures here for that but lets guess 65kg. So that is an additional weight of 400kg on the rear tyres. Plus their might be some things in the rear of the vehicle. Lets guess at 50kg onto the rear tyres - 450kg then.

Driver and passenger weight of 160kg adds 99kg to the rear axle too.

So all up so far, the rear tyres are getting an extra 550kg kg load onto them. The rear axle weight (although I do not know the tare weight of the rear axle, my guesstimate is 1151kg), would be with 550kg of extra weight, 1700kg of rear axle weight. The front tyres are having a lot less weight. I haven't included the main fuel tank either. The front tyres would be carrying about (I haven't precisely checked my spreadsheet) about 350kg less or about 20% less weight.

IMO rear weight is a real issue with tyres. Load weight on tyres is an issue with transport trucks, and it makes sense the same applies to 4WDs. Before I bought the Disco, I thought the rear tyres were a somewhat close to being overloaded on the Disco.

My tow weight is higher than BobB's likely 230kg though, so I am more concerned about the rear weight issue than most.

Incidentally, my figures above are based on a 55% tare weight being on the front axle, and 45% on the rear therefor. If the balance is 52% on the front axle, then my figures would show an extra 77kg on the rear tyres.

I have asked what the front rear tare weight is on the Disco diesel but no one knows ... strange that LR do not publish that figure.

I haven't taken the rear axle weight of BobB's vehicle either for the front battery - that's worth some weight off the rear tyres.

I saw a video of that South African chap who takes a D4 over the Baboon pass. He made it, but it rained and the vehicle slipped sideways and dinted a door and also a front bar and front side panel.

Interestingly he, he ran very high tyre pressures on his tyres. At the early part of his part 1 video (its on u-tube, he did it with a D4). He said they were so low profile, that he had to run high pressures to protect them, and the flex on such low profiles would have the edges get cut up in no time.

He had three criticisms of the D4: the Sat Nav (bad there and since fixed), the wheel diameter too big and also the silly Land Rover imposed 50KMH height restriction (he did not seem to know about Llams or even the GOE insert suspension raisers). He explained the reason for it was that safety wise the D4 met all Euro safety issues at 50KMH at raised height, but at over 50KMH the D4 did not meet some esoteric Euro safety ratings (I guess the moose test swerve thing that only racing drivers can achieve anyway).



This is a different approach to what Aulro guys seem to advise ...

[Melbourne Park]

I did not say 65kg at the front would take much weight at all from the rear axle - I just said - or meant to say - that I hadn't taken any weight off the rear axle, and BobB has a bull bar, but it maybe alloy or steel, and have lights, but whatever it would take a bit of weight off the rear axle. That's all I meant to say ...

The formula is pretty simple. You measure the distance of the weight added, from the rear axle, if its behind the rear axle. Then you divide that into the overall wheel base. My calculations showed that for the rear tongue if it weighed 10kg, because its behind the rear axle ( I measured mine), it would add 13kg to the rear axle. Likewise, it would take 3kg off the weight off the front tyres. All weight added which is behind the rear axle, removes weight from the front tyres. You must know this surely? Maybe you don't tow ... but think about it Gordon!

If the weight is close to the rear axle but in front of it, then not all the weight is added to the rear axle. So if I put my fridge inside the vehicle on top of the rear axle, then all its weight would be added to the rear axle. If I put my 40kg fridge in the centre of the two axles, then 20kg would go to the front axle and 20kg to the rear axle. Its quite simple really ... as far as the bull bar goes, it does take weight off the rear axle, because its in front of the front axle. It doesn't make a huge difference though because its only just in front of the front axle, but it does make a difference.

But if anyone has a tare for the front and the rear axle, and the fuel load, that would be useful. LR don't provide a tare weight for the front and rear, or a distribution percentage of the weight for and back. They just provide the maximum weight allowed for the front and rear axles. It doesn't take that much to go over the rear weight. Especially if your towing and carrying passengers. Add a rear fuel tank and twin rear tyre carriers when towing with passengers with a decent tow ball weight, its extremely easy to go over the maximum rear axle weight.

Toyota have tricks to get over this - they do not specify all the maximum weights, so when a 3rd party changes the maximum towing ability and load carrying, the 200 series can still be legal. But that's way off topic - sorry for that!

[jon3950]

We can argue about the maths, but the point is important - weight is a big killer and when you load up a Disco most of it is carried by the rear tyres.

More weight = more heat.

Tombie's point is also important and is exacerbated by additional weight.

Cheers,
Jon

[Tombie]

Toyota have tricks to get over this - they do not specify all the maximum weights, so when a 3rd party changes the maximum towing ability and load carrying, the 200 series can still be legal. But that's way off topic - sorry for that!

Incorrect.. There are specifications for their axle and wheel ratings.. Just not on public literature.. but we digress...

[Melbourne Park]

Incorrect.. There are specifications for their axle and wheel ratings.. Just not on public literature.. but we digress... Its off topic, but they do have a trick ... people get them certified to tow even 4.5 tonne. Yep - there are axle weights ... 1630 front, 1950 rear. The Disco is I think 1855 rear, but much less on the front - 1,450kg. But there is a weight that Toyota do not provide for the 200, and when its re-certified, they can ignore their axle ratings. I know it sounds quite wrong. I don't think Toyota would cover them for an axle failure though. But if a diff went, many would put in a 3rd party locker.

the beauty of the Disco though is you don't have to worry - or I did not - about putting in another suspension. The damn thing just works, no matter what you do. the only problem is, the tyres, and also, I don't feel good going over the tolerances.

I do think from what I've been told by people who tow vans like mine off road, that its speed that kills tyres (heat being a result of weight and speed) ... and with the Disco, one has to be wary because it hides speed and rough terrain.

A person I know has a newer model van than mine, and I offered for him to drive my Disco for a "test". He refused. He said he did not want to get jealous!! He used to own an Toyota dealership in the bush, and a radical change in the wheat arrangements back in the 1980s forced him to sell up. He is quite aware of the LR technology, but won't talk about it! He's setup extensively a BT-50 Mazda, but refused the Disco trial!!!

[Celtoid]

I did not say 65kg at the front would take much weight at all from the rear axle - I just said - or meant to say - that I hadn't taken any weight off the rear axle, and BobB has a bull bar, but it maybe alloy or steel, and have lights, but whatever it would take a bit of weight off the rear axle. That's all I meant to say ...

The formula is pretty simple. You measure the distance of the weight added, from the rear axle, if its behind the rear axle. Then you divide that into the overall wheel base. My calculations showed that for the rear tongue if it weighed 10kg, because its behind the rear axle ( I measured mine), it would add 13kg to the rear axle. Likewise, it would take 3kg off the weight off the front tyres. All weight added which is behind the rear axle, removes weight from the front tyres. You must know this surely? Maybe you don't tow ... but think about it Gordon!

If the weight is close to the rear axle but in front of it, then not all the weight is added to the rear axle. So if I put my fridge inside the vehicle on top of the rear axle, then all its weight would be added to the rear axle. If I put my 40kg fridge in the centre of the two axles, then 20kg would go to the front axle and 20kg to the rear axle. Its quite simple really ... as far as the bull bar goes, it does take weight off the rear axle, because its in front of the front axle. It doesn't make a huge difference though because its only just in front of the front axle, but it does make a difference.

But if anyone has a tare for the front and the rear axle, and the fuel load, that would be useful. LR don't provide a tare weight for the front and rear, or a distribution percentage of the weight for and back. They just provide the maximum weight allowed for the front and rear axles. It doesn't take that much to go over the rear weight. Especially if your towing and carrying passengers. Add a rear fuel tank and twin rear tyre carriers when towing with passengers with a decent tow ball weight, its extremely easy to go over the maximum rear axle weight.

Toyota have tricks to get over this - they do not specify all the maximum weights, so when a 3rd party changes the maximum towing ability and load carrying, the 200 series can still be legal. But that's way off topic - sorry for that!



:D I'm pretty certain the maths isn't lost on Gordon .... nor towing, nor ..... blah, blah, blah ..... but especially the maths .... LOL!!!

[gghaggis]

I did not say 65kg at the front would take much weight at all from the rear axle - I just said - or meant to say - that I hadn't taken any weight off the rear axle, ...


Ok -sorry, the way you described it above was rather confusing - maybe it was my jet-lag.



The formula is pretty simple. ..... All weight added which is behind the rear axle, removes weight from the front tyres. You must know this surely? Maybe you don't tow ... but think about it Gordon!


Yes, I do tow - and I understand the simple machine / lever formulae. But note that the Disco with self-levelling suspension can't really be treated as a simple lever - LR state you can increase the GVM by 100kg when towing, which takes this opposing force into account.

The above plus the guestimates for all the other weights doesn't give you a meaningful result. For example, my tow-tongue + hitch weighs 8kg; and note as before, the LR kerb weights include a driver (so that's one heavy passenger at 160kg!); the Kaymar weight is too low etc etc.

It is definitely an issue, and the rear tyres may well have to take 55psi or more, for a large van.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Tombie]

Its off topic, but they do have a trick ... people get them certified to tow even 4.5 tonne. Yep - there are axle weights ... 1630 front, 1950 rear. The Disco is I think 1855 rear, but much less on the front - 1,450kg. But there is a weight that Toyota do not provide for the 200, and when its re-certified, they can ignore their axle ratings. I know it sounds quite wrong. I don't think Toyota would cover them for an axle failure though. But if a diff went, many would put in a 3rd party locker.

the beauty of the Disco though is you don't have to worry - or I did not - about putting in another suspension. The damn thing just works, no matter what you do. the only problem is, the tyres, and also, I don't feel good going over the tolerances.

I do think from what I've been told by people who tow vans like mine off road, that its speed that kills tyres (heat being a result of weight and speed) ... and with the Disco, one has to be wary because it hides speed and rough terrain.

A person I know has a newer model van than mine, and I offered for him to drive my Disco for a "test". He refused. He said he did not want to get jealous!! He used to own an Toyota dealership in the bush, and a radical change in the wheat arrangements back in the 1980s forced him to sell up. He is quite aware of the LR technology, but won't talk about it! He's setup extensively a BT-50 Mazda, but refused the Disco trial!!!


You've got to post a link to someone engineering a LC200 at 4.5t. [emoji41]

[BobD]

Bob, on tracks like that the biggest threat to rear Tyres is always the front tyres as you've discovered...

2 things happen... Front tyres flick rocks into the rears which then run over them. Front tyres turn up rocks exposing edges which the rears then run over.

The first issue is even worse without front mud flaps.


I'm with Tombie on this. This is what I assumed was the problem, rather than the extra weight. The same problem happens when not towing and also on the trailer tyres. My thought is that the drive to the front wheels also tends to flick the rocks up more than would happen with a RWD car so the problem is worse for constant 4WD vehicles. My son's D1 travelling in convoy with us had the same problem with his MT rear tyres getting hammered. He had my daughter, two swags and their luggage with him and was travelling in front since the TDI 300 sets the pace on our trips! I tried to dodge the worst rocks that his car left exposed on the road.


However, I do agree that the rear tyres are working hard on the D4. My Kimberley has a draw bar weight of around 175kg when I weighed it. My old camper trailer was more like 250kg. All I had in the car was my wife and a Waeco Fridge plus some tools and my ARB twin compressor.


The weight of my Disco with all its fruit is 2740kg with half a tank of fuel in the main tank and no driver. It is biased towards the back I think, based on the deformation of the tyres when I let them down off road.


I will post some photos of my damaged tyre when I work out how to do it.

[VK3GJM]

Hi Bob,


Maybe slightly off topic here. That's a very light D4 at 1740 kg?


Did a recent public weight bridge weight of 2835 +/- and that included all my fixed after market accessories totalling 236kg excluding 2 people, but included 65 litres of fuel.

The 236 was measured on a scale before fitting to get me a base line leading up to GVM.

Maybe the public scale system was out a long way?



Sorry bad format, attached my weight cheat sheet.

Regards


Gerald

[BobD]

Hi Bob,

Maybe slightly off topic here. That's a very light D4 at 1740 kg?

Gerald



Hi Gerald. Yes, you are correct. It was supposed to be 2740kg. I have edited my post.


I did a similar calc when I went to Cape York a couple of years ago and found that I had to severely ration the weight I was carrying, which included a roof top tent. I could only use about half of my long range tank to get within GVM but I ended up ignoring that and filling it up fully for most of the trip. That was when I weighed the car and got 2740kg.

[VK3GJM]

Hi Bob,


That's great. I quickly went to my weight bridge certificate and back to my spreadsheet to see if I did something wrong, although knowing the vehicle is heavy anyway.


Can You do me a favour, can you measure the GEO rim with the 285/60R18 on it's own.


The standard 19" LR rim and GG 255/55R19 is 32.8kg


I have also updated my post to include a spreadsheet I use to calc my GVM, an interesting exercise.


My last trip, a slab of beer took me over. Lol...


Regards




Gerald

[Ferret]

Can You do me a favour, can you measure the GEO rim with the 285/60R18 on it's own.

Happen to have one sitting in my driveway at the moment - 35.5kg

[VK3GJM]

Hi Bob,


LT construction, more rubber, more protection extra weight.


Thanks for that.


Regards


Gerald

[BobD]

It was Ferret that measured his, not me. Not sure what tyre he has.

[VK3GJM]

Hi Bob,

Oops. Thanks ferret.

All adds to GVM running weight. I understand QLD may start weighing all vehicles randomly to ensure drivers are within the prescribed GVM.

Regards

Gerald

[Tombie]

Hi Bob,



Oops. Thanks ferret.



All adds to GVM running weight. I understand QLD may start weighing all vehicles randomly to ensure drivers are within the prescribed GVM.



Regards



Gerald


Already happening in our region of SA...

[Ferret]

It was Ferret that measured his, not me. Not sure what tyre he has.

GOE rim + Cooper Zeon LTZ 285/60-18

[discotwinturbo]

Happen to have one sitting in my driveway at the moment - 35.5kg

That heavy....I must be stronger than I thought ;-)

Brett....

[LandyAndy]

GOE rim + Cooper Zeon LTZ 285/60-18

Peter are you running them???,did you run them on the big trip??? Would you reccomend the size and brand???

PS,asked Ron for a trip report,he hasnt done so(up to yesterday).You blokes need to post up in trip reports,would love to read all about it;)
;);););)
Andrew

[Ferret]

Peter are you running them???,did you run them on the big trip??? Would you reccomend the size and brand???

Nah, not my rim and tyre. Just needed a 6th GOE rim so borrowed one from Discotwinturbo. Had to strip off Brett's Cooper tyre though. I run Bridgestone D697 265/60/R18 on my D4.

I had no punctures on the Gibb River Rd /Bungle Bungle/ CSR. DiscoWA runs the same tyres. Again no punctures over the Gun Barrel, Tanamai or CSR for him.

I was at 22 psi front, 24 psi rear on the CSR. Not sure exactly what DiscoWA was at but it was something similar.

Given their performance, yeah I'd recommend them, as do many others here.

[Melbourne Park]

Yes, I do tow - and I understand the simple machine / lever formulae. But note that the Disco with self-levelling suspension can't really be treated as a simple lever - LR state you can increase the GVM by 100kg when towing, which takes this opposing force into account.

The above plus the guestimates for all the other weights doesn't give you a meaningful result. For example, my tow-tongue + hitch weighs 8kg; and note as before, the LR kerb weights include a driver (so that's one heavy passenger at 160kg!); the Kaymar weight is too low etc etc.

It is definitely an issue, and the rear tyres may well have to take 55psi or more, for a large van.

Cheers,

Gordon

I did not know that LR increase the GVM by 100kg when towing ... !! I need to read the manual I guess.

I agree about the weights ... But I like to think I am conservative. I could have kept my Prado, but I felt it would be too stressed doing what I am doing. So the Disco is doing it comfortably IMO. Except for the rear axle loadings. And I guess, the rear tyres.

As for the pressure on the rear tyres - I am not sure what to do. Most say to let down pressures on bad roads. Or should I fit temperature readers on the vehicle tyres, and monitor the temps? It seems to me that stiffer tyres are less likely to puncture in rocky terrain, because the tyre walls are less exposed. But I guess if one has LT tyres, then the walls are more rugged.

[Melbourne Park]

GOE rim + Cooper Zeon LTZ 285/60-18

I have the GEO rims, but with I think 255/60 Grabber AT2s.

When I connected a resistor into my trailer indicator circuit, the Disco found the trailer was there. And the transmission hung onto gears longer. Which increased fuel consumption too ... but I think, that it does so to remove drivetrain - i.e. gearbox - stress.

I don't know about the robustness of the gears in the 8 speed box. But IMO, a downside of the 285, would be higher gearing, and more gearbox stress. With towing a 2.3 tonne van, I want to avoid gearbox stress. But on soft sand with lots of weight on the rear tyres, I'd prefer 285s. Although its how far you can let them down that increases the on sand footprint ... I guess 60 profile is 60 profile, so 255s would go down the same amount as 285s I presume. I'm not sure how much extra lift the 285s would provide. But on a heavy at the rear Disco towing a van, every bit counts IMO.

[BobD]

I weighed the 285 D697 tyre on a GOE rim and it came out at 33kg on my scales.

[Graeme]

I don't know about the robustness of the gears in the 8 speed box. But IMO, a downside of the 285, would be higher gearing, and more gearbox stress. With towing a 2.3 tonne van, I want to avoid gearbox stress.The tyre size is equivalent to only an extra 5% load so minimal impact and accommodated by the gearbox hanging onto lower gears for a fraction longer.

[BobD]

Graeme is correct. There is no noticeable difference between driving or towing with the 285 tyres vs 255 tyres. I always use low range when off road to greatly reduce the strain on the auto transmission, as well as to activate all of the off road smarts of the D4.

[Melbourne Park]

When I replace the GOE wheels' tyres, I'll certainly go wider than 255. 285 LT tyres do sound much better.

[doyfam]

Just completed my first trip with Compomotive 18",D697 265/60R18 and LLAMS combo. Ahhh, what bliss! Thanks to Gordon and Graeme for their excellent products and to everyone who recommends the 697's.

We completed 3000km over 10 days with a lot of driving over rough 4wd tracks and roads littered with washouts up around the northern section of the Carnarvon ranges and further West.

Cant wait for the next trip!

Shane

[VK3GJM]

Hi Shane,

What did you have before as a comparison. Do you tow, what about weight.

I'd be interested in your view on tyre pressure and handling in the rough stuff and how they behave in general.

A recent trip up the Strzelecki required me to drop the rear down to 28 and front to about 26, the track had a major upgrade and the nee surface consisted of large gravel road base.

My GG 19" now show the downside to non LT construction, but still ride well with some sidewall cuts.

I cannot wait till November for the KO2's and we are heading to Hervey Bay and back through to Cooper Creek early October.

Regards

Gerald

[doyfam]

Hi Gerald

Until recently I have been running the oem 19's with Cooper LTZ zeons. Across the Simpson both directions last year I damaged 2 rims and 3 tyres on the gibbers either side of the desert. I swore I wouldn't go off-road again without a better setup. The GOE rims and the 697's gave us a lot more confidence and the llams unit made rough dirt roads a cinch. It is so good travelling at 60-70 kph at off road height without the constant dinging of the oem system.

The D4 is a terrific 4WD but these mods make it just awesome.

[doyfam]

Sorry Gerald

I wasn't towing and ran 28 cold front and back. I also have an after market tpms which is great.

[VK3GJM]

Hi Shane,

Appreciate the feedback.

Regards

Gerald

[gert]

I saw a video of that South African chap who takes a D4 over the Baboon pass. He made it, but it rained and the vehicle slipped sideways and dinted a door and also a front bar and front side panel.

Interestingly he, he ran very high tyre pressures on his tyres. At the early part of his part 1 video (its on u-tube, he did it with a D4). He said they were so low profile, that he had to run high pressures to protect them, and the flex on such low profiles would have the edges get cut up in no time.

He had three criticisms of the D4: the Sat Nav (bad there and since fixed), the wheel diameter too big and also the silly Land Rover imposed 50KMH height restriction (he did not seem to know about Llams or even the GOE insert suspension raisers). He explained the reason for it was that safety wise the D4 met all Euro safety issues at 50KMH at raised height, but at over 50KMH the D4 did not meet some esoteric Euro safety ratings (I guess the moose test swerve thing that only racing drivers can achieve anyway).


This is a different approach to what Aulro guys seem to advise ...

Hi, I saw the video of Andre St Pierre-White. Baboon's pass is renowned for breaking modified 4x4 vehicles. His aim was to do it in a standard LR4. The only way he figured he could save the tyre sidewalls was by over inflating. It worked for him as he had no punctures.

[Tombie]

Hi, I saw the video of Andre St Pierre-White. Baboon's pass is renowned for breaking modified 4x4 vehicles. His aim was to do it in a standard LR4. The only way he figured he could save the tyre sidewalls was by over inflating. It worked for him as he had no punctures.

Watched some of his videos... He's a clown... Takes some terrible lines.. :wasntme:

[Greatsouthernland]

Watched some of his videos... He's a clown... Takes some terrible lines.. :wasntme:

He had a spotter and a 'herd' of rock collectors to assist. He may be a clown (he has some funny one liners), but on the Baboons Pass, he didn't choose any of those lines, and there weren't really a lot of options.

The comment on increasing pressure is one I'd be interested in hearing more about from a technical perspective, it seemed to do the trick, but the rocks didn't seem too sharp...

Just my 2c on that 'specific' vid ;)

[Tombie]

He had a spotter and a 'herd' of rock collectors to assist. He may be a clown (he has some funny one liners), but on the Baboons Pass, he didn't choose any of those lines, and there weren't really a lot of options.

Just my 2c on that 'specific' vid ;)

Agree, but having watched several of his videos, he does some unusual things and makes some interesting choices...

;)

[Greatsouthernland]

Agree, but having watched several of his videos, he does some unusual things and makes some interesting choices...

;)

True, like his obsessive passion for the Gelandewagen :o

(Which seems a tough beast, but ridiculously priced!)

[sandgroper57]

2007 RRS TDV8 with brembo brakes - after some 18" wheels so I can fit some decent off road tyres but I am running out of options so hopefully someone can help.
Just read that the compomotive rims won't fit either purely because of the brembo brakes.
Will the D3 wheels fit? Have read conflicting stories.....
I think the D3 18" wheel off-set is 53, same as the RRS 19" that I have.
Hoping someone can help as I dont want to be restricted to the 19" wheels and no decent tyres to fit it. That is unless someone knows of a good off-road 19" tyre that's good on the sand, quiet and good handling in the wet and readily available in Aus.
Not bothered about mud or rock crawling capability.


Cheers

[rar110]

I understood the Compomotive 18" wheels do fit.

The other choice is LR 20" wheels.

There are 18" & 20" tyres which have higher load rating and are generally stronger than anything in 19" tyres. The closest is a 19" Duratrac.

[gghaggis]

2007 RRS TDV8 with brembo brakes - after some 18" wheels so I can fit some decent off road tyres but I am running out of options so hopefully someone can help.
Just read that the compomotive rims won't fit either purely because of the brembo brakes.


Cheers
Really? I've fitted them to plenty TDV8's - unless your's has been modified?

Cheers,

Gordon

[sandgroper57]

Really? I've fitted them to plenty TDV8's - unless your's has been modified?

Cheers,

Gordon

Hi Gordon, I did read somewhere that they wouldn't fit, can't remember where. On the web site it says select RRS L320 to 2013.....
I will call in one day and have a look before I commit.


Cheers

[VK3GJM]

Hi All,


Decision time for me, narrowed it down to 2 types. 1st choice is LT D697 and second are the Non LT GY Duratrac both in 265/60R18.


Just to recap, A lot has been said about D697 and the feedback overall is very good and my 1st choice at the moment. However as these will be my second set, I am looking at a more aggressive tyre with LT construction as the KO2's in the same size are still more 8 weeks away.


The Duratrac appears to be a well reviewed tyre and no real negatives recorded, also one of the best liked tyres in the US.


Wouldn't mind hearing from this forum on any one's experience if any with 265/60R18 or similar size fitted to their D4?


Noise not an issue, Front runner low profile will most likely put the tyre road noise to bed.






Regards


Gerald

[Graeme]

Are you aware that Duratracs in that size are only LI 110, not the LT versions generally available in other sizes? However the Duratracs in this size replaced the Silent Armors of the same size which have been quite favoured by some people.

[VK3GJM]

Hi Graeme,

Yes, I am aware of the LI status. Having had a few days to think about tyres while overseas, I have decided on D697 because they are LT and more commonly available at major outlets nationwide.

So of to Bob Jane, 6 new 18" rims and fitted Monday at $348 each and a $100 cash back.

Duratrac although LI, $440 each. For those interested Bob Jane finally has KO2 265/60R18 on there system at $515 each. They are dreaming.....


Regards

Gerald

[Melbourne Park]

You've got to post a link to someone engineering a LC200 at 4.5t. [emoji41]

It was the father of the owner of Complete Camper, who make various camper trailers in NSW. I discussed one of their trailers at a show in Victoria.

He said that his 200 was re-jigged to 4.5 tonne. He needed it for some trailer with more than one van on it ... or something like that!!!! I guess he knows how to get it done??

Nonetheless ... the vehicle could not be 4.5 tonne could it, as the axle weight would preclude going of the GVM. As far as trailering, I would have thought the overall Gross Combination Mass (kg) would preclude a 4.5 tonne tow ... but on the Landcruiser site, there is a way around it with 200s. There is some type of specification that Toyota leave off, which allows an auto engineer to re-jiug the figures. That's what was said, anyhow ... I know they some have increased tow weights ... not sure how they have managed to get it done though.

[Melbourne Park]

The tyre size is equivalent to only an extra 5% load so minimal impact and accommodated by the gearbox hanging onto lower gears for a fraction longer.

Hmm ... that is the 285/60 compared to the 255/60.

I trailered up to Alice Springs on the bitumen, and watched the instant fuel economy gauge (for something to do ... I was alone going up to Alice).

Towing maybe 2.3 tonne with the GOE wheels on the 255/60 Grabbers. An interesting thing was that there was a big difference in economy, running in 8th gear, rather than 7th, when on a slite incline (going up), at about 90-95 KMH (real speed). Between 3 and 2.5 litre/100 KMH. So - I changed into 8th several times, to keep the fuel consumption low.

But I also noticed when I did this, that eventually, the gear selector (the rotating nob where the gear shift lever should be) became warm. Yep ...

So ... I don't know how the car knows the gearing, or when to change the gears. But ... since the gearbox hangs onto gears more when the trailer light is activated, I presume it changes gears on some formula of variables, and I don't know if gearbox temperature is a variable.

It does concern me a bit if the motor sits in a higher gear, and stress the gearbox more. Its not an issue if one does not tow. Maybe its not an issue anyway ... I am not sure. I'd like to see the gearbox oil temperatures though while I drive. I do not know how strong the 8th gear is ... there's lot of gearboxes with overdrive top gears, that are a lot weaker than they should be.

With a Toyota, you add another transmission cooler. Those that do, see major lower temperatures in their gearboxes ... and high temperatures in Toyota gearboxes mean the gear boxes may not last. Evidently no one adds a trannie cooler to a D4???

I am happy to save fuel though ...

[Graeme]

I too like to not unnecessarily use fuel. I often up-shifted my 3.0's 6-speed and now do so with the RRVs 8-speed, but don't let revs get too low for the work being done by the engine. The RRV's TDV8 is happy to run down to 1000 rpm in 8th uphill although I like to see 1200 rpm as a minimum in this situation, mostly because the engine is not very responsive below 1200 rpm especially with the 1T its had in tow a few times recently. The RRV is more highly geared than the D4 and moreso with its oversized tyres, so low revs are the norm.

[sctsprin]

Apparently MR auto in brissie do an extra tranny cooler for the d4, they've mentioned it a couple of times to me


Hmm ... that is the 285/60 compared to the 255/60.

I trailered up to Alice Springs on the bitumen, and watched the instant fuel economy gauge (for something to do ... I was alone going up to Alice).

Towing maybe 2.3 tonne with the GOE wheels on the 255/60 Grabbers. An interesting thing was that there was a big difference in economy, running in 8th gear, rather than 7th, when on a slite incline (going up), at about 90-95 KMH (real speed). Between 3 and 2.5 litre/100 KMH. So - I changed into 8th several times, to keep the fuel consumption low.

But I also noticed when I did this, that eventually, the gear selector (the rotating nob where the gear shift lever should be) became warm. Yep ...

So ... I don't know how the car knows the gearing, or when to change the gears. But ... since the gearbox hangs onto gears more when the trailer light is activated, I presume it changes gears on some formula of variables, and I don't know if gearbox temperature is a variable.

It does concern me a bit if the motor sits in a higher gear, and stress the gearbox more. Its not an issue if one does not tow. Maybe its not an issue anyway ... I am not sure. I'd like to see the gearbox oil temperatures though while I drive. I do not know how strong the 8th gear is ... there's lot of gearboxes with overdrive top gears, that are a lot weaker than they should be.

With a Toyota, you add another transmission cooler. Those that do, see major lower temperatures in their gearboxes ... and some temperatures in Toyota gearboxes mean the gear boxes don't last. Evidentally no one adds a trannie cooler to a D4???

I am happy to save fuel though ...

[Melbourne Park]

Apparently MR auto in brissie do an extra tranny cooler for the d4, they've mentioned it a couple of times to me

I am in Melbourne ... is there an auto trannie place in Melbourne expert in the ZF gearbox and Land Rovers?

It's not rocket science though ... if I could see the live temperature of the gearbox, then I'd know what was necessary ... either use 8th more, or use 7th if the temperature rises. I do not know if the gearbox temperature increases if you force the gearbox to stay in 8th? I do think it increases stress on 8th though.

I also don't know about whether the ZF 8 speed gearbox LR uses has a strong 8th gear ... one sees Toyota 76s, people are told not to use 5th when towing, as the gear is purely an overdrive. There's lots of rebuilds for those gearboxes where they put in a stronger 5th gear...

Graeme, the SD6 3 litre diesel motor - as you well know - also has quite a defined bottom end on torque ... which I presume happens higher than the V8's. I am not sure when it runs out ... Land Rover claim that 85% of its 600Nm is available almost instantly, so that's at least 510 Nm ... hmm.

In the Range Rover sport now, they have dropped the twin turbos in the TD V6 but retained performance and improved fuel economy and emissions. IMO the V8 (now 4.4 litres and made in Mexico) may have a restricted life ... evidently Ford have not been able to sell it into their petrol F250 350 markets ... its not a cheap motor to make it seems, even in Mexico. Also IMO, with LandRover having a new diesel engine operation in the Midlands, perhaps the V6 is the last of the Land Rovers using a motor built by Ford at their joint venture (with Peugeot) operation? Got to love the idea of the V8, and also, I particularly like the chain timing gear rather than need to replace belts.

In the SD version of the 3 litre V6 in the Range Rover Sport now, they have kept the twin turbos, but claim by calibration changes and an injector change, they now have 700Nm available at 1450 RPM, and better fuel economy. Those revisions sounds good for towing. A chap I know has had his SDV6 Disco ECU flashed and reckons there's a lot more go and better fuel economy too ... but for me, I suspect upping the torque will just add stress to the driveline.

At an indicated 100 KMH, which is about 96 KMH actually - my engine speed is I think about 1430 RPM. Interestingly if I control the gearbox with the steering wheel flap switches ie manually - the gearbox will not automatically change up when the motor falls of its healthy torque behaviour (unlike in a Toyota when the gearbox will take over and change gears despite being in a manual mode). There does seems heaps of torque though at a real 96 KMH or 1430 RPM. But at 90 its feels as if its fallen off its strong torque IMO, so I guess below at 1330 RPM the torque curve isn't healthy like the V8's is.

A review I recall in Australia said that the 2013 TDV6 had 520Nm (its maximum) available at 1500 RPM, and that is what LR specify the TDV6 as having ie 520 NM from 1500 to 2500 RPM; yet they say the SD has 600NM @2000. But they do not provide data that I have seen, saying what the torque is at 1500 RPM. On my tests, the SD felt quite a bit quicker than the TD, but I did not do tow and have a lugging comparison during a suburban test drive.

As far as lugging the diesel engine, I doubt that it hurts it at all ... but that is not the case with the gearbox IMO ... but I do not know much about the 8 speed. Perhaps a gearbox that can handle a top level 7 series BMW on the autobahn might have a strong 8th gear ... but I have no idea whether that is the case. Not sure if the 8 speed gearboxes have been revised for the latest power and torque increases for the diesel motors in the UK either ... from the test reports, the 4.4 litre V8 isn't performing as well as the revised V6s.

Regards

Doug

[Graeme]

The biggest generator of heat in auto boxes is torque converter slip. Keeping a look-out for TC slip and up-shifting or down-shifting as appropriate will reduce heat. The 8-speed in mine likes to slip whilst in 2nd when slowing for street corners then doesn't lock until speed and revs are considerably higher. Dropping to 1st or up-shifting to 3rd will result in a locked TC.

LR announced at its release that the 4.4 TDV8 was deliberately detuned (lower specific output) for improved longevity compared with the 3.6 TDV8 and the 3.0 TDV6/SDV6. However its no longer favoured by LR due to it being heavier than the V6 - at least that's what LR is saying publicaly.

[LRD414]

Way off topic [emoji16] but how can you tell the slip is happening in second gear?

Scott

[VK3GJM]

Let me bring it back on track.

Rims and tyres, done and dusted with OEM TPMS. 6 x D697, 265/60R18 balanced and fitted $2K.

Wow, how quite. First thought rear bearing. GG AT 255/55R19 after 55,000km get pretty hard, noisy and side wall cuts with several trips to the cape and back and the high country.

Great product Gordon, combined with the GEO rods, protection plates. Very pleased with the outcome, ready for the trip north again with the X20 in tow.

Will weigh the spare in the morning..

Thanks to all those providing constructive feedback on selection.



Regards

Gerald

[LandyAndy]

Let me bring it back on track.

Rims and tyres, done and dusted with OEM TPMS. 6 x D697, 265/60R18 balanced and fitted $2K.

Wow, how quite. First thought rear bearing. GG AT 255/55R19 after 55,000km get pretty hard, noisy and side wall cuts with several trips to the cape and back and the high country.

Great product Gordon, combined with the GEO rods, protection plates. Very pleased with the outcome, ready for the trip north again with the X20 in tow.

Will weigh the spare in the morning..

Thanks to all those providing constructive feedback on selection.



Regards

Gerald

Bloody neat looking D4 there:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
Andrew

[VK3GJM]

Bloody neat looking D4 there:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
Andrew

Thanks Andrew, it's taken some time to set up for distance touring and towing. The job is complete, the rest is enjoy.

I hope my new mud flaps will stem the constant rock throwing, I think I got them right and the right length. Our up coming trip will put the mud flats and tyres through their paces.

Regards

Gerald

[Melbourne Park]

As far as gear boxes being off topic --- they are on topic IMO, because we change the gearing with the GOE wheels, and various tyres. Fuel economy, tyre life, transmission issues, are all right on topic IMO!! As are puncture issues ...

As far as the mud flap issues going ... I am not sure that the front flaps really do the job for the rear tyres ... because the longer they are, the more they are prone to reverse damage when they get tied up (tyred up) with the front wheels when reversing.

Perhaps we need a flap in front of the rear tyre ... maybe located onto a sill protector. If the sill protector is 250cm from the ground, then I guess the flap should be that far in front of the rear tyre, so that you could swing it up when not in use.

And made out of rubber web conveyor belt material (which is what off road trailers etc are seeking out now). Maybe have them swing up onto a hook for bitumen use, and then release them for the off road stuff. It would be easier to have a heavier and better material, by locating it away from the front wheels, where even location issues seem to depend on what LR designed.

I reckon that sill protectors or rails or whatever they are called, are popular for off road work ... ( I am interested in some and also they can make access to the vehicle easier). For a Disco, why not design in a bracket - say the GEO rock slider with extension bar) so that a bracket can attach a strong industrial conveyor type reinforced rubber flap that flattens rocks just before the rear wheels get to them?

[Melbourne Park]

...

LR announced at its release that the 4.4 TDV8 was deliberately detuned (lower specific output) for improved longevity compared with the 3.6 TDV8 and the 3.0 TDV6/SDV6. However its no longer favoured by LR due to it being heavier than the V6 - at least that's what LR is saying publicaly.

Please excuse me being off topic ... last off topic comment now:

I recall they cut the performance to limit Nox ... i.e. pollution. There are punitive taxes for NOx in the UK, and various parts of Europe I presume. V8s also cost a lot more to make ... but IMO, if the Ford F market had of wanted a 4.4 litre diesel (they have a 6.4 litre I think which is made at the same Mexican factory where your V8 is made) then the V8 would be pushed a lot more. Instead they are going the V6 route it seems ... One strange thing about the 4.4 V8 is the compression, which is higher than many newer diesels. The "fashion" is to drop the compression and get it back under boost. Higher revs seem to happen when auto makers do that.

There isn't much info on the V8 though ... that I've read at least. I do not even know the common rail pressure, which increased a lot with the 3 litres V6 diesels in the Land Rovers. It must be fun to drive.

Apologies from Doug,

who lacks control ...

[Melbourne Park]

GOE rim + Cooper Zeon LTZ 285/60-18

There is also a General Grabber tyre of that size:

LT285/60R18
122/119Q E
31.6 "
25.8kg
13.1 tread depth
1500kg weight

My 255/60/18 Grabbers have only 10.3 depth new, and are not LT, and they carry I think under 1100kg. But they are strengthened for more weight carrying and pressure. They only weigh 18.2kg though, which is 7.6kg lighter.

Not sure what you have to do to get such tyres to fit. I do wonder though, if one could shave the tyres (something done in motor racing), to slightly reduce the diameter. With such tread depth I think it would not be a bad thing to do ... but I am not sure how much that would cost.



Doug

[Marty110]

like a few of you waiting on Gordons rims I have a set of D697's sitting in the shed having read all the positive reviews on here. I just got back from up north and someone I know who repairs a lot of tyres up there showed me a 697 when he found out I had some waiting to go on. It is the second one he has had come in with a sidewall failure. Unfortunately I dont know the pressure, load or speed involved only that, as you can see in the photo, the sidewall looks as though it has been slashed. The tyres had lots of tread and there was no obvious sign of any sort of impact or rubbing. Has anyone else heard of this? By the way I had to replace 2 Zeons, one a rock fracture that could not be repaired and one with sidewall damage - was trying to get one more trip while waiting on the new rims......

[ADMIRAL]

Very hard to be objective when comparing tyres, and as you have already noted, without any of the associated data it becomes more and more a guessing game. For every reported instance of damage to one brand of tyre, there is a corresponding number for any of the others in use.
I would not read too much into it.

[Tombie]

like a few of you waiting on Gordons rims I have a set of D697's sitting in the shed having read all the positive reviews on here. I just got back from up north and someone I know who repairs a lot of tyres up there showed me a 697 when he found out I had some waiting to go on. It is the second one he has had come in with a sidewall failure. Unfortunately I dont know the pressure, load or speed involved only that, as you can see in the photo, the sidewall looks as though it has been slashed. The tyres had lots of tread and there was no obvious sign of any sort of impact or rubbing. Has anyone else heard of this? By the way I had to replace 2 Zeons, one a rock fracture that could not be repaired and one with sidewall damage - was trying to get one more trip while waiting on the new rims......

Thats a slice... you can see the cut point starting near the rim....

Something sharp has got that...

[TerryO]

It was the father of the owner of Complete Camper, who make various camper trailers in NSW. I discussed one of their trailers at a show in Victoria.

He said that his 200 was re-jigged to 4.5 tonne. He needed it for some trailer with more than one van on it ... or something like that!!!! I guess he knows how to get it done??

Nonetheless ... the vehicle could not be 4.5 tonne could it, as the axle weight would preclude going of the GVM. As far as trailering, I would have thought the overall Gross Combination Mass (kg) would preclude a 4.5 tonne tow ... but on the Landcruiser site, there is a way around it with 200s. There is some type of specification that Toyota leave off, which allows an auto engineer to re-jiug the figures. That's what was said, anyhow ... I know they some have increased tow weights ... not sure how they have managed to get it done though.


This is off topic in this thread so if you don't mind how about cutting and pasting the relevant posts from the Toyota site you have mentioned in a new thread explaining how a LC200 can legally have its GCM increased to 4.5 ton if you don't mind Doug.

I for one would be interested to see exactly what they are doing.

Having previously spoken to a engineer who specialises in rerating vehicles he said increasing GVM is possible but changing the maximum towing capacity is not. If it's rated by the manufacturer at 3.5 ton then that is what it is.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Melbourne Park]

This is off topic in this thread so if you don't mind how about cutting and pasting the relevant posts from the Toyota site you have mentioned in a new thread explaining how a LC200 can legally have its GCM increased to 4.5 ton if you don't mind Doug.

I for one would be interested to see exactly what they are doing.



Terry:
Perhaps check out the caravan sites - such as Bushtracker. You would have to ask Bushtracker for an access password. I have one, as I looked at buying their product.

Unfortunately Bushtracker are critical of the Disco for large vans ... and they bought one for testing, when the D3 came out. And later, they had a D4 too, I think with the 3 litre V6. But they insist that for an over 21 foot van, one should have weight distributing couplings, and hence besides 5 wheelers, they recommend the 200 series, for larger vans.

With the high GVM, I do not know which company did that work. At the time, I had a Prado 150 Kakadu, and when I bought my van, I thought the Prado was not good enough. I hate the 200 around town, so bought the Disco.

My understanding was that the bottleneck was mostly the manufacturers maximum weight for the rear axle ... anyhow, GVM upgrades are common, and ARB 4?4 Accessories | GVM Upgrades - ARB 4x4 Accessories (http://www.arb.com.au/products/old-man-emu-4x4-suspension/gvm-upgrades/) ARB have a list which they supply, and I think other companies can do more. One that list, the highest change was for a leaf spring patrol, up to 3,900kg.

Doug

[Redback]

Terry:
Perhaps check out the caravan sites - such as Bushtracker. You would have to ask Bushtracker for an access password. I have one, as I looked at buying their product.

Unfortunately Bushtracker are critical of the Disco for large vans ... and they bought one for testing, when the D3 came out. And later, they had a D4 too, I think with the 3 litre V6. But they insist that for an over 21 foot van, one should have weight distributing couplings, and hence besides 5 wheelers, they recommend the 200 series, for larger vans.

With the high GVM, I do not know which company did that work. At the time, I had a Prado 150 Kakadu, and when I bought my van, I thought the Prado was not good enough. I hate the 200 around town, so bought the Disco.

My understanding was that the bottleneck was mostly the manufacturers maximum weight for the rear axle ... anyhow, GVM upgrades are common, and ARB 4?4 Accessories | GVM Upgrades - ARB 4x4 Accessories (http://www.arb.com.au/products/old-man-emu-4x4-suspension/gvm-upgrades/) ARB have a list which they supply, and I think other companies can do more. One that list, the highest change was for a leaf spring patrol, up to 3,900kg.

Doug

Regardless of a GVM upgrade, the 200 series cannot tow 3,500kg fully loaded, as you add weight to the car, towing weight is reduced, that is set by the manufacturer, I'm pretty sure the GCM is not increased when the GVM is increased.

Also that would mean the rims load rating would no longer be legal, I'm going on what they do here at work when a GVM increase is needed for our work trucks.

[Melbourne Park]

Bushtracker have vans that are 3500kg - for instance, I did a search on caravan sales: 21' Tare 2940, ATM 3500, GVM 3500

I thought that the main bottleneck was the rear axle weight capacity - I thought that could not be exceeded. But I am not an auto engineer, and I have not had to have things done.

But I'll quote what one of the director's said in June this year. Note too, that 200 drivers have real issues with ride when they change the vehicles. And such changes are not cheap. They also have to be very careful with the angle of the vehicle, as when weight goes on, the front can become light. Air springs often perform poorly on them, from owners reports in caravan threads.

In late November, I'll ask someone I know who is also going to be at the Australian Off Road Victorian get together. He is an automotive engineer, he worked for GMH until slightly early retired, and he has done up a new 200, I think his setup would have cost around $10k.

Here is what the director of Bushtracker said, I don't think they'd object to this quote, as it PR for their brand. Also, I did not use a password to access the site, so you could do a search and find this quote:



Just to be clear on a couple of your points, what you are asking varies State to State. Besides the Mad Scientist at Bushtracker, and a few other things, I am also a Queensland Transport HVRAS Officer, and I have modified more than a dozen trucks in the R&D for Bushtracker... Now the high count is because the custom vehicles were not only for Bushtracker, but also for carting horses even Interstate to State and National competitions with my Daughters....

In Queensland, they do not touch the original Compliance Plate. The add on to it with what is called a Modification Plate. In theory you need a "Mod Plate" for every modification you do to the vehicle that is not on the original Compliance Plate. On some trucks I have had up to three of those blue Mod Plates for a half dozen mods with multiples on each one.. Take a seat out, put one in, increase tow capacity on a hitch, increase GVM, even decrease GVM like on my current Dodge so anyone can drive it with a normal car Licence: all these type of things need a Mod Plate with the Qld Transport Certified Engineers letter to go with it.

Now this sounds harder than it is, some cost $200 for an Inspection and it can be a Private Engineer in the Transport Game. It means they are on the Qld Transport approved list of Private Engineers that can certify that the work was done correctly and Legally and their stamp of approval so to speak, that it is "Roadworthy".

Some People like ARB, have a niche blanket approval for a specific thing like a GVM increase with their suspension kit, OK? Anyway, they stamp out the Mod Plate and permanantly rivet it to the vehicle, and then you take it to Qld Transport so they can see the plate affixed, with the letter from the Engineer and then they alter your Registration at no charge, for the GVM as an example. You find the right Engineer, you can get amazing things done that others say they cannot do. How is that? They are just not Certified to do it, but a Custom Truck Builder, some of them can do anything within reason as long as it is done right, OK?

Anything further on this that I can help you with, please send email to Bushtracker. Kind regards, Steven Gibbs, Director
I don't know if the Maximum vehicle and trailer combination/Gross Train Weight (for the 200 it was 6,740kg) can be altered - but many claim it can be. I have never understood how a manufacturer's maximum axle load can be altered either. The 200 has an extra 95kg rear axle capacity compared to the Disco, from my spreadsheet, which I did when looking to buy either a 200 or a Disco. I would have liked tho know the weight distribution of the Disco before I bought it, as I have been unable to find that figure. There's no doubt the Prado and 200 are softly sprung for drive around retail sales, and many have claimed they are not suitable for van towing unless they are equipped with heavier springs. Typically either 200kg or 400kg ones.

Incidentally I had an experience with buying a VW van, and I lent it to someone who was in legal trouble, and could not work. So I bought a VW Caddie, and he drove it for 18 months doing some courier work. He put a 3rd seat in it (unbeknown to me), which was illegal. I had to get the seat out to sell it - but I also needed an automotive engineer to remove the seat, and confirm that the vehicle was not damaged by such removal. Fortunately it wasn't, but many such vans would have been - he said Toyota vans are very weak underneath, and that VW's are very strongly built ... I think too, that the States all have different regulations.

[CSBrisie]

Just for anyone's interest, I just towed a 21 foot fully laden Bushtracker family van around 8000km's from Brisbane to the Red Centre and back across the Plenty and Donahue "highways". Was well aware of the BT directors views on anything that is not a Dodge Ram and especially his views Land Rovers and not using a WDH.


Our car and van performed faultlessly - full write up over at L322 forum if anyone is interested. Oh, we were on 20 inch rims too.


cheers

[mowog]

I tow a Lotus Trooper that is 3500kg when it is full of water. I covered many 1000's of kilometers with this setup and never had a problem.

The Bush Tracker people are simply out of touch with reality.

[Melbourne Park]

Well - I have read lots about towing bigger vans, and the physics and mechanics of it can be scary. The issues of leverage and mass and where those things push, can create big issues. And from my research, a 200 series is very poor unless you spend money on a decent suspension, engineered around what you are going to tow.

I also understand that those selling big vans would prefer 5th wheelers, because with those, the tonque attaches to the centre of the wheelbase of the two vehicle - which means all those leverage forces pushing the two vehicle at the back the wrong way, are minimised.

Bushtracker do say the Disco etc is a top vehicle, but that they think technology that pushes the weight forward off the rear, is worthwhile. They don't cover the issue of the tensions and what happens to those with such devices (because the attachments are essentially flexible and the weight distribution comes back).

The cool thing about the Disco is that you can just attach it and tow, if you have good brake setup and the right tow bar height. And if you drive safely too.

The other issue is tyres of course and the Compo wheels are a great product for current 19" minimum size wheel vehicles. There's many more good tyres with high loads out there for 18" wheels. I apologise for the off topic nature of this discussion.

[g5k]

Stumbled across these 18s designed to fit the D4 as an alternative to the Compomotives. I hadn't seen them mentioned in my reading on the forums. Look interesting, guessing would work out same sort of cost.

http://www.mudtech4x4.com/cerchi-raid/?lang=en

[BMKal]

Stumbled across these 18s designed to fit the D4 as an alternative to the Compomotives. I hadn't seen the mentioned in my reading on the forums. Look interesting, guessing would work out same sort of cost.

RAID 18″ WHEELS | MUDTECH 4?4 (http://www.mudtech4x4.com/cerchi-raid/?lang=en)

They have been mentioned on here before, and are not a recommended product. ;)

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/l319-discovery-3-4/210943-18-inch-rims.html

[rar110]

Stumbled across these 18s designed to fit the D4 as an alternative to the Compomotives. I hadn't seen the mentioned in my reading on the forums. Look interesting, guessing would work out same sort of cost. http://www.mudtech4x4.com/cerchi-raid/?lang=en

330EUR = $510.

Add transport cost. Also, if the import cost hits $1000 then GST is charged. The cost quickly adds up.

However, they look ok.

[rufusking]

They have been mentioned on here before, and are not a recommended product. ;)

Not recommended? Why is that?

[~Rich~]

Because the guy who owns the business ripped off Graemes LLAMS height controller. Blatantly copied it but with a different looking switch.

[g5k]

Sorry didn't mean to stir a hornets nest, just a new owner learning absorbing and researching.

Those wheels would be 20% less as currently includes VAT so 275 euro is about $404 aud according to google plus all the other overheads mentioned.

Compos look great and will probably go that way if I make the change to 18s, expensive tho - better sell the old car before modding the new one :)

[rufusking]

Because the guy who owns the business ripped off Graemes LLAMS height controller. Blatantly copied it but with a different looking switch.

So the product is fine, it's just an issue with the vendor.

[LRD414]

So the product is fine.....

I'm not certain but vaguely recall reading somewhere that the offset was not legal for here. I've not looked into it at all so not sure.

Scott

[rufusking]

Wheel "RAID"
Nominal diameter: 18"
Nominal channel size: 8.5"
Fixing holes: ?120 mm for 5 holes
ET: 45mm
Load rating: 1000 kg
Centering diameter bore: 72,6 mm
Fitting: Designed to fit on Land Rover Discovery 3 and 4 with diesel engine 2.7 and 3.0 .

If Mr Germans rims with a offset of 44mm are fine I cant see why an offset of 45mm would be an issue. Noting that factory is 53mm.

[~Rich~]

Those alloys must be available elsewhere in the world, just don't purchase anything off Mud Tech. ;)

[Tombie]

Wheel "RAID"

Nominal diameter: 18"

Nominal channel size: 8.5"

Fixing holes: ?120 mm for 5 holes

ET: 45mm

Load rating: 1000 kg

Centering diameter bore: 72,6 mm

Fitting: Designed to fit on Land Rover Discovery 3 and 4 with diesel engine 2.7 and 3.0 .



If Mr Germans rims with a offset of 44mm are fine I cant see why an offset of 45mm would be an issue. Noting that factory is 53mm.



What's the last paragraph eluding to?

[gghaggis]

What's the last paragraph eluding to?

Yes, curious minds would like to know ..........

Cost-wise they work out slightly more ($599 once you subtract VAT, then add import duty, freight and GST) and they've previously been asked to supply some evidence for their "lab tested" 1000kg load-rating, which hasn't been too forthcoming.

There's also the small detail of the wheel nuts that are needed to fit them.

Ask yourself why most of the Europeans buy the Compomotives.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Babs]

Their styling looks slightly more modern than the Compomotives, the Compomotives remind me of a 1980's RR rim. Sorry Gordon, I know you have tried to get a new design happening. I understand that RR would be costly to change its design :(

It's great to see that he has been boycotted by this sites members in protest of his unethical character, that must make Grahame feel proud to have the support on here :)

POWER TO AULRO ❗️

Cheers, Babs :D Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Graeme]

I am indeed very humbled by the loyalty. However I have just about as much after-hours work that I can do and the kits keep finding their way into more new destinations.

[jon3950]

I am indeed very humbled by the loyalty.

I think you've earnt it Graeme.

Cheers,
Jon

[A.J.M]

That is a really good looking Discovery!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/488.jpg


That D4 no longer looks anything like that.
It got bought at the end of last year and the owner took almost all the parts off and sold them for a much reduced price.

Wheels and tyres were ?1000.
Sliders were ?400 i think.
Rack with all flooring parts ?700.
The underbody protection was ?1000.

I got 3 of the 4 underbody sections for my D3. sump, centre and rear diff guard. Delivered for ?760.. :D
Brand new they were ?1600+ so a nice saving.

Good thread to read through for the 18's and tyre choices as i have the 4 pot Brembo upgrade on my D3 as the tdv6 ones were lacking.
It's a mod i'm considering for the future along with the LLAMS system as that looks like some cleaver kit to have.

[Russrobe]

Nah needs a bar Spud..

[g5k]

Does anyone have the paint code for getting some touchup paint for the anthracite?

[l00kin4]

Does anyone have the paint code for getting some touchup paint for the anthracite?

Check out this thread for the answer: Repair or Touch-up of Wheel Paint (https://www.aulro.com/afvb/l319-discovery-3-and-4-a/237439-repair-touch-up-wheel-paint.html)

David