Full-time Vs part-time 4WD

[Leo109]

Hi Guys,

I recently got embroiled in a slightly heated exchange on the ExplorOz forum when I dared question the need for, and worth of, part-time 4WD conversions on Toyota Landcruiser 80 & 100 series wagons.

My argument was basically that unless there's something very wrong with the original FT system, what do you gain by an expensive PT conversion? You lose the ability to lock/unock the centre diff anytime, any speed. You gain having to stop, get out and lock FW hubs whenever you want 4WD - this is an improvement?

Any fuel economy gain would be marginal, I reckon, and the argument that it saves 'wear and tear' on the front drive components doesn't hold water IMO as they are presumably designed for the FT duty and should last as long as the rest of the drive train in normal use.

In response to this, my main protagonist replied "I spent 15 years repairing LR 110s and have replaced more centre diffs, front CVs, front axles, front diffs, front diff pinions and tranfercase front output shafts than I can poke a stick at....can only count the rear axle repairs on one hand." This may have been his experience but it doesn't seem to match with what I read on this and other LR forums - front drive failures do not seem to be a common & recurring topic.

I also said I'd never heard of LR owners wanting to do PT conversions. But when I looked at one of the supplier's sites (4WD Systems, Adelaide), it mentioned conversion kits for both 80/100 series LCs and LR Discoveries.

So gurus/gurii, what is your experience? Have you, or have you heard of owners doing PT conversions on LRs? Do LR front drive trains really need protecting from themselves? If you have a conversion, does it really save a significant amount of fuel?

What about the Toyota system? Does it have some fundamental flaw that makes a PT conversion more relevant/attractive?

I'd appreciate your responses as this issue really intrigues me.

[weeds]

a mate of mine has a 100 series, he considered it as he was looking at reducing wear and fuel usage, i must ask him why he has not done it... i'm always digging him in the ribs about his fuel usage

from memory i think he said he would loose ABS

does removing abs from a car factory fitted make it illegal to drive

[cmurray]

From memory, when the 110 was first released it was available with part time 4x4 as well as constant 4x4, but the part time 4x4 was dropped due to lack of interest. If you are using the centre diff lock when appropriate, there should be very little wear in it, the basic rule is, if you're uncertain if the centre diff lock should be in or not, then it should be in!

[Tusker]

The part time Landcrusher conversion is a touchy subject amongst the toy community.

If memory serves, the 80 series introduced F/T, & utilised the previous 60 series diffs. Waranty claims sprang up re premature wear etc, coz a p/t diff was now asked to run f/t.

It was someone up in Darwin I think, who developed a conversion kit & advertised widely. The ads referred to the diff problems so the mighty Toyo corporation took him to the cleaners. I can recall the fullpage retraction ads.

I've seen the kits advertised for landrovers on & off over the years, never seen a converted vehicle. Nor do I see the need.

Regards
Max P

[scrambler]

LR P/T coversions are simple, in that the LT230 transfer case is manufactured for the Santana derivatives as a part-time box - therefore swapping the parts in is dead easy and no need to design new internals. Why not offer it?

My understanding is that LR axles have more trouble when they don't spin - hence the need to engage the front drive from time to time if you have FWH on your Series LR. The bearings are oiled not greased.

I've heard of CV's and output shafts (the double cardan joints in particular wear relatively quickly) but a swag of front axles compared to rears? I'm no expert, but I've never heard of anything like that.

I'd be asking whether he was referring to the LT230 or LT95 transfer case, and whether it was the input shaft in the LT230 or some other component - after all, the input shaft would not be altered by a PT conversion in an LT230.

Just ask yourself - which will wear more - a component carrying 25% of the torque or one carrying 50%? and then count the number of driven wheels. Properly cared for the PT conversion should not create substantial problems, but it won't eliminate wear on the driven components, just move the majority of wear to the rear.

[JamesH]

I recently did a long trip (9000k) in a late model troopy.

The owner generally leaves the hubs locked. It is not his primary vehicle and he can't be bothered. At my insistance we used the bitumen sections to compare fuel economy with hubs locked and unlocked. I have not had time to study the data properly but a quick scan of litres used and kilometres travelled indicates it makes no difference. Cross winds, head winds, whether or how full the water tank on the trailer was seemed to make more difference.

I was surprised by this but there it is.

[scrambler]

We had a thread on this issue last year, and eventually someone who had done the comparison in one of the few vehicles that allows shifting between RWD and FT4WD (Mitsu Pajero) chimed in. There was a small gain in fuel economy with the RWD. As JamesH says, other factors would have much greater influence.

[Davo]

Our work ute is a last-year's model Toyota trayback, (whatever it's properly called), with a six-cylinder turbo'd diesel - this is the model before the new V8 diesel - and with only 2wd it can be a pain on a slippery surface. There's too much torque for just one axle, (now there's a slogan for you), and with a low first gear it takes some care to avoid spinning the wheels when driving away.

I think Land-Rover just faced up to the inevitable when they started using the V8 and went with full-time 4wd to avoid that sort of thing. Looking at the late-model Toyotas we have around here, I get the distinct impression the factory is trying to get away with as little as possible when they build their work utes.

[Grimace]

I would not bother goin to part time. I see no benefits, unless you like drifting or doin donuts :angel:

I have driven one of my old rangies without the front drive shaft and it was an absolute pig in the corners... at low speeds (never did any high speed)!

People may disagree but I say 2wd is for cars :D

[weeds]

i asked my mate, here is his response, i'm sure explore oz would have said much the same

any chance of the explore oz link?? i tried searching but buggered if i could find


Yes I decided not to convert - a few reasons for and against:

- A grand for the kit to convert - need substantial fuel saving to cover cost.

- Loose ABS - no other kit to allow for ABS to function. Therefore issues over insurance or road worthiness.

- Constant 4wd allows for better steering capabilities on dirt road roads or wet roads. 2wd allows for over steer problems. 4wd is safer!

- Major benefit to fit is massive reduction in driveline lash - this really means better gear changes.

- As for the wear issue - I think having all shafts moving allows for more even wear and tear as well as better seal performance (inner axle seals).

- Toyota and Landover spend millions getting things right - why change it!

[JDNSW]

The only advantage of part time four wheel drive is that it may give a very slight improvement in economy, and as said above, the tests done with free wheel hubs in and out suggest the difference will be so small that the chance of getting a payback for the conversion cost is negligible. As for wear and tear - the only advantage of part time is that it allows you to not repair the defects in the front axle and its drive since you are never using it much or at high speed. The disused axle components are more likely to deterioratre due to poor lubrication and resulting rust, particularly since they never get hot.

The high rate of repairs on full time front wheel drive compared to the rear axle is simply because there are a lot more bits, plus the fact that on part time you don't have to fix most of the problems.

Rover originally introduced full time four wheel drive because of the inability of their available differential to handle the V8 torque reliably. Their experience with it led to their adopting it for all future designs, although as mentioned, the 110 was introduced with part time four wheel drive as an option for four cylinder engines (never seen here since the four was never sold here) but was so unpopular that it was soon dropped. This would hardly have happened if users had seen much advantage in it!

John

[101RRS]

- Loose ABS - no other kit to allow for ABS to function. Therefore issues over insurance or road worthiness.



Why would you have to loose ABS - if you take a full time system and locked the centre diff and removed the front drive shaft - ABS would still work. It certainly did in my Freelander when I had the entire drive to the rear wheels out and was running around in front wheel drive only for 3 months.

Garry

[scrambler]

I'd guess it would have something to do with the freewheeling hubs. Would probably detect lack of rotation of the axle as wheel lock?

I can see there would be other ways to do it, so perhaps Land Rover use some other detection system? Or the axles were left in the Flandie?

[weeds]

Why would you have to loose ABS - if you take a full time system and locked the centre diff and removed the front drive shaft - ABS would still work. It certainly did in my Freelander when I had the entire drive to the rear wheels out and was running around in front wheel drive only for 3 months.

Garry

i'm no expert but i do rate my mate as a pretty good mechanic and i will get a heads up from him

i'm guessing at $1000 for the conversion (that would be parts nly as he would fit) new drive shafts are supplied and they are not fitted with an abs ring, maybe the design needs to change

when i got a replacement drive shaft for my defender it had grooves machined into it, me being me said hey that not the same as the one i just pulled out, they said it was the abs ring for the td5

[PAT303]

The bloke that went on about changing front ends in 110's no doubt work in the army as they engage diff lock as soon as they leave the tar and don't unlock even when on hard ground.I mentioned that this would wreck the front end to a officer at a expo once but he said that is how they do it and that's that!!.Tojo drivers always get narky when you question there vehicles. Pat

[weeds]

The bloke that went on about changing front ends in 110's no doubt work in the army as they engage diff lock as soon as they leave the tar and don't unlock even when on hard ground.Pat

umm not sure about that, i'm forever reminding them that they do have a centre diff lock and low range and by using them looks after the vehicle

i drove pretty much all of the old ghan railway line, oodanatta and strzelecki tracks with centre diff lock engaged, i found the car seemed to handle better....could be wrong. i have not notice any more wear and tear on the components

just thinking..i didn't disengaged centre diff lock from when i departed birdsville until i got back onto the bituman just south of the alice..oops apart from cruising through finke

[isuzurover]

When I had FWH on the 109" I did a few tests. When I first engaged the FWH I could feel the difference (until everything was nicely lubed). There was NO measurable difference in fuel consumption either way. After I found that I fitted drive flanges to the front.

My 110 is a 1987 model with 330k km on the clock. The front diff, CVs and centre diff are all fine (and ORIGINAL). I think he is talking out his ar$e. Front diffs and CVs are however WEAKER than the rear, so they will break before the rear. Centre diffs can wear - especially if non-uniform tyre diameters are used, but they are fairly strong on the whole.

[scrambler]

The bloke that went on about changing front ends in 110's no doubt work in the army as they engage diff lock as soon as they leave the tar and don't unlock even when on hard ground.I mentioned that this would wreck the front end to a officer at a expo once but he said that is how they do it and that's that!!.Tojo drivers always get narky when you question there vehicles. Pat
Interesting point, PAT303. Not that part-time 4wd would do anything for that problem, but at least someone would probably pick it for what it is - inappropriate use of the 4wd system.

[PAT303]

I only use 4wd when I need it and thats it.Get on solid ground sand,dirt,rock and turn full lock and feel how much pressure builds on the drive line.You can't say that is good for it. Pat

[scrambler]

I might not have been clear enough - I agree with you entirely. I was just thinking thought hat someone who engages the CDL even on rock would also engage their part-time 4wd in the same situation - and with the same bad results.

[rovercare]

Why would you have to loose ABS - if you take a full time system and locked the centre diff and removed the front drive shaft - ABS would still work. It certainly did in my Freelander when I had the entire drive to the rear wheels out and was running around in front wheel drive only for 3 months.

Garry

Because the ABS rings are on the CV's themselves, and if you hav FWH's it thinks the front wheels arent turning;)

[ibest]

The huge advantage of full time is the big safety factor. We all know how the full time Rovers stick to the road. In 28 years of driving Rangies and Discos including towing a 20 foot van I have never had one slide on me other than off road and even though I'm no teenager any more i still enjoy a fang and I still make the odd mistake and hook in too hard somewhere, The Rover has never failed to hang on. Mind you ,you have to keep on at least a modicum of right foot or nothing is driving !
This all proved itself to me in a hurry when I bought a Patrol ( please forgive me ) and without even going hard I found myself reviving my rusty opposite locking skills even on roundabouts etc in the wet! The Primary Safety factor (not having the accident in the first place) far outweighs saving threepence worth of fuel (now that phrase dated me didn't it ! )
You will be pleased to hear I have a Diesel Rangie project in hand so I have not left the fold,
As for the legality of removing A.B.S. that was factory fitted, my Rangie project is a Vogue S.E. with ABS
which i intend to discard , and the RTA said this is fine provided it is engineered. The non SE vogue of course did not have ABS and this may be a factor but I doubt it as ABS is not a requirement like seat belts
Regards Ian

[PAT303]

Your right scrambler it wouldn't make any difference.You don't need to know how to operate a 4wd to own one. Pat

[Leo109]

Wow, thanks for all the fast feedback, chaps. Looks like I haven't missed some fundamental truth and this turkey was talking through his rear end.

He sounded to me like someone who'd spent a lot of $ on this bit of 'snake oil' only to find he didn't actually save buckets of fuel - but didn't like anyone questioning his decision...

[101RRS]

Because the ABS rings are on the CV's themselves, and if you hav FWH's it thinks the front wheels arent turning;)

Arh So - well I have to say that makes sense.

Thanks

Garry

[spudboy]

In response to this, my main protagonist replied "I spent 15 years repairing LR 110s and have replaced more centre diffs, front CVs, front axles, front diffs, front diff pinions and tranfercase front output shafts than I can poke a stick at....can only count the rear axle repairs on one hand." This may have been his experience but it doesn't seem to match with what I read on this and other LR forums - front drive failures do not seem to be a common & recurring topic.



Probably because the front axle/diff/wheel takes the big hits first. If something has whacked your front diff you're unlikely to keep driving over it with your rear diff....

Don't think it's got anything to do with always rotating being the cause.

[rick130]

Ian, did you bother reminding this know it all about the increase in driveshaft spline wear and pinion bearing brinelling from people running all the time with hubs unlocked ?

[Leo109]

Ian, did you bother reminding this know it all about the increase in driveshaft spline wear and pinion bearing brinelling from people running all the time with hubs unlocked ?
Hi Rick,

Yeah, not exactly in those words but I did mention that many a front drive train had been b*ggered by sitting in one position for long periods with FWHs unlocked. Strangely, he didn't respond to that one...

If it works, this should be the link to the whole sorry saga:
http://www.exploroz.com/Forum/Topic/48249/full_time_to_part_time.aspx?ky=FT&p=%2fForum%2fDefault.aspx%3fs%3d1%26sd%3d01%252f08 %252f2007%26ky%3dFT%26pn%3d1

[rovercare]

There is some stoopid people in this world, unfortunately they are very srtongly opinionated and sound quite convincing to the poor bugger who doesn't know the answer:mad:

He is one of them:angrylock:dumbass

[p38arover]

There is some stoopid people in this world, unfortunately they are very srtongly opinionated and sound quite convincing to the poor bugger who doesn't know the answer:mad:

He is one of them:angrylock:dumbass

I'm the other.... :o

Ron

[Davo]

Yeah, just thought I should mention that I managed to wreck my front axle without realising it in Canada when I left the hubs unlocked and some water was in there. I don't know how it got in there but by the time I pulled it apart during the last rebuild some bearings were rusted. These parts only had several thousand kays on them. So, they wound up lasting far less than a full-time front axle!

A couple of other points: reverse-cut crownwheels and pinions are supposed to last a lot longer on a front diff, and as far as I understand it, centre difflock should be used the same way as we Series drivers use 4wd: not on hard surfaces, etc.

The only exception to that I've heard so far is that where there might be some difference in front and rear driveshaft speeds, such as on a dirt road, the CDL should be locked, whereas a Series car would still be in 2wd. Apparently this helps to slow down wear on the CDL cross-shaft.

[scrambler]

There is some stoopid people in this world, unfortunately they are very srtongly opinionated and sound quite convincing to the poor bugger who doesn't know the answer:mad:

He is one of them:angrylock:dumbass
The giveaway is when he started playing the man.

I gotta tell you, those Toyota engineers are clearly overpaid when a couple of fellows can sit down in their back shed and improve the vehicle for the very task it's designed to do - 90% on-road, 10% off.

All these discussions about freewheeling hubs - I've never seen an old Subaru with rear freewheeling hubs - why not?

[isuzurover]

OT - So Ian/Leo you are MR Thermoguard???

Cool, I will be needing one of your kits soon. Any discounts for AULROians?

[Graeme]

<snip>
The only exception to that I've heard so far is that where there might be some difference in front and rear driveshaft speeds, such as on a dirt road, the CDL should be locked, whereas a Series car would still be in 2wd. Apparently this helps to slow down wear on the
CDL cross-shaft.
If one subscribes to this theory then a rear locker should always be locked at the same!

[Leo109]

OT - So Ian/Leo you are MR Thermoguard???

Cool, I will be needing one of your kits soon. Any discounts for AULROians?

Yes, 'tis I - but what's this "MR" bit - I don't answer to that...

[By the way, I am Ian. "Leo" is my ex-Army SIII 109. He's named in honour of my now deceased uncle Leo, who had a SIII 88 from new in 1970/71 until he gave up driving around 1997, then in his 80s.]

About an AULRO discount - sorry, but it wouldn't really be fair to those AULRO-lians who've purchased from me in the past, when I didn't have enough turn-over to give any discounts. What I wil probably do is keep the current price for AULRO members after the inevitable price rise occurs. Fair enough?

[mcrover]

The giveaway is when he started playing the man.

I gotta tell you, those Toyota engineers are clearly overpaid when a couple of fellows can sit down in their back shed and improve the vehicle for the very task it's designed to do - 90% on-road, 10% off.

All these discussions about freewheeling hubs - I've never seen an old Subaru with rear freewheeling hubs - why not?

My old brumby did 570000kms and the rear diff and driveshafts are original. I replaced both drums, one of the rear trailing arms and a torsion bar.

This is all after many years of 4wding on the farm and in the bush and driving up and down Mt Buller doing the mail run for about 8 years.

Went through 1 engine rebuild and 1 s/h engine 2 gearboxes and an endless amount of front driveshafts and hubs.

It's just crap that there is really any bennifit from FWH's on a deignated AWD or constant 4wd vehical and is just there to scam money out of the unsuspecting and easilly manipulated public.

There is another issue, what about wheel alignment, there is atleast 2mm of toe from toeing in for no front drive to toeing out or 0 toe for an AWD or front drive which will mean that if it isnt changed will cause extra wear on tyres as well as extra fuel usage anyway.

[isuzurover]

Yes, 'tis I - but what's this "MR" bit - I don't answer to that...

[By the way, I am Ian. "Leo" is my ex-Army SIII 109. He's named in honour of my now deceased uncle Leo, who had a SIII 88 from new in 1970/71 until he gave up driving around 1997, then in his 80s.]

About an AULRO discount - sorry, but it wouldn't really be fair to those AULRO-lians who've purchased from me in the past, when I didn't have enough turn-over to give any discounts. What I wil probably do is keep the current price for AULRO members after the inevitable price rise occurs. Fair enough?

Thanks Ian - sounds fair enough - just thought I would ask.

[100I]

My 4wd experience is predominantly Suzukis, being 3 pots, 1L, 1300 & more.
I can say that with limited HP at your disposal running with hubs in made a very noticeable difference to road speed and was also reflected in fuel economy (and perhaps a S1 landy would be similar in this regard.)
This would be true regardless of the whether the front tyres were turning the diff etc or viceversa, the energy required would be the same.

Having said that, the discussion involved a large vehicle with a lazy engine that doesn't even notice a box trailer being towed along behind, so I can't imagine the difference would be noticeable.
Drivetrain backlash would be a personal thing, but most of us adapt pretty quickly.
My uncle recently traded his trusty old 80s for a near new 100IFS and he did mention the noticeable torque steer of the new one.
I can also see how not being able to use low range on hard ground would be a PITA but I'm sure there would be a cheap & easy workaround for that.

I think for me with my LR there are far more advantages of constant 4wd - my feet don't get muddy for starters:p.

[BigJon]

I can also see how not being able to use low range on hard ground would be a PITA but I'm sure there would be a cheap & easy workaround for that.
.

Cut the appropriate wire. A search on the 4wdmonthly site will find it easily enough.

[p38arover]

I can also see how not being able to use low range on hard ground would be a PITA but I'm sure there would be a cheap & easy workaround for that.

I must have missed something. Constant 4WD Landies can used low range on hard ground.

Is that something that can't be done with Toyotas?

Ron

[BigJon]

I must have missed something. Constant 4WD Landies can used low range on hard ground.

Is that something that can't be done with Toyotas?

Ron

The activation of the centre difflock is by solenoid (or similar). When low range is engaged, the centre diff is locked automatically. Cutting the correct wire disables this function, but still allows difflock activation by the normal pushbutton on the dash.

[Ken]

I had a drag with a V8 100 series toymota and he just sat at the line spinning (In the wet) and I was gone like the clappers go the F/T 4x4 traction = safer on and off road grip

[Utemad]

I must have missed something. Constant 4WD Landies can used low range on hard ground.

Is that something that can't be done with Toyotas?

Ron

As far as I know there are no other vehicles other than Landies that have low range unlocked CDL.

They seem to have
H unlock
H locked
L locked

In my Rodeo I just left the FWH unlocked and used low range if I needed to use low range on hard ground.

[scrambler]

As far as I know there are no other vehicles other than Landies that have low range unlocked CDL.

They seem to have
H unlock
H locked
L locked

In my Rodeo I just left the FWH unlocked and used low range if I needed to use low range on hard ground.
Sure there are:

1) Lada Nivas

2) Errrm...

[BigJon]

I had a drag with a V8 100 series toymota and he just sat at the line spinning (In the wet) and I was gone like the clappers go the F/T 4x4 traction = safer on and off road grip

All V8 100 series Toyotas are constant 4wd...:o

[Pedro_The_Swift]

There was a little bit of interest shown in the ToyoV8 in Off roading,, but it seems V8Supercar parts are too cheap to argue with,,,

[Davo]

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo
<snip>
The only exception to that I've heard so far is that where there might be some difference in front and rear driveshaft speeds, such as on a dirt road, the CDL should be locked, whereas a Series car would still be in 2wd. Apparently this helps to slow down wear on the
CDL cross-shaft.

If one subscribes to this theory then a rear locker should always be locked at the same!
__________________


I think you would find that there's more difference between front and rear driveshaft speeds than there is between the LH and RH shaft speeds on the rear axle. Anyway, like I said, it's ony something I heard.

[blitz]

your protagonist is a dill, any constant 4x4 can be broken - just like anything mechanical. But to go back to 1950's technology and lose the fantastic handling and therefore safety advantages that constant 4x4 has over part time 4x4 to save on a bit of fuel (questionable on a vehicle this heavy) or save on parts (he is talking out of his bottom) is to say the lease, ill advised, considering the cost of the conversion.

if constant 4x4 is no good why have all 4x4 manufacturers gone over to it bar Nissan? even rally cars are constant 4x4

No he is talking from opinion not facts

Blythe

[Landy110]

I heard a lot of that crap when I said I was buying a fender. "Why would you want constant 4wd you'll wear your front diff out in no time" Thankfully I decided that the company that has been making them since 1948 probably knew more than the doom sayers who all owned Tojo's. What I learned later was that a lot of the negative veiws about constant 4wd came from the mining industry where Tojo's were driven in 4wd 24/7 and the front diffs didn't last very long. I suggested that they should be using a vehicle that is designed to be in 4wd 24/7 instead of one that isn't. The subject normally changed.
I have driven mine as rear wheel drive and it is amazing how easily you can loose the rear end on a wet roundabout. Consatnt 4wd is much safer and more reliable than traction control as you aren't relying on a computer to engage something.
The only reason I can see to have part time 4wd is that if you break something in the front end you can disengage it all and drive home. Maybe that's why it is a popular mod for Tojo's:twisted:

[Blknight.aus]

All V8 100 series Toyotas are constant 4wd...:o

yeah, till you put them on an axle scale.... more than 2/3 of the weight is over the snout end and therse muff all on the tail end, plant it hard and that gargantuan 4.2+l turbo diesel just goes ooohhhh yeahhh babay and lights up the tails.... as the Center is unlocked all drive dissappears into the creation of heat between the rubber and the road....

This is also part of the reason why landies are so good off road, the weight distribution is close to 50/50. so in most circumstances the wheels all want to push down with the same effort.

[BigJon]

yeah, till you put them on an axle scale.... more than 2/3 of the weight is over the snout end and therse muff all on the tail end, plant it hard and that gargantuan 4.2+l turbo diesel just goes ooohhhh yeahhh babay and lights up the tails.... as the Center is unlocked all drive dissappears into the creation of heat between the rubber and the road....

This is also part of the reason why landies are so good off road, the weight distribution is close to 50/50. so in most circumstances the wheels all want to push down with the same effort.

Both my Dad and my brother have TD4.2 100 series Cruisers (poor lost souls), one auto, one manual. I have only managed to spin front wheels in the wet.

[Blknight.aus]

I should have been more specific, Im not talking about the ones with the comfort options but the utilitarian ones with the sideways mounting seats in them...

the wannabe carpark assult wagons with the side steps down to lower than the center of the axles are a lot better for distribution.

[emerald]

Way back in the thread and about the guy who was changing out diffs, axles etc....I'd love to know how he can qualify that statement across the life of most 110's.

I've got over 300,000 miles (not Km's) on my very early 110. Its on original axles, Cv's and diffs. Only the rear drive flanges and half shafts were replaced due to wear and tear from its daily working life. It does get servided on the button like all my other tools.

I think its all BS from a fanatic who sees LR stuff as junk and most jap 4x4 drivers do. The facts remain there is a greater percentage of Landrovers still on the road than any other vehicle and not just a 4x4. Dont metion the beetle, it doesnt even come close.

The Landrover was designed for farm use from day one and not a compromise vehicle for road and off road use. Even today it still outperforms many modern 4x4's for off road utility use. You cant take away from its original design and intended purpose and there are no Japanese or other manufacturers who build a 4x4 as the Landrover was and still is.

Yes we do get failures with Landrover parts, the majority I see are from the offroad competition people and they push the machine beyond its design limits and as a result have to spend big money on third party uprated components. All other 4x4's will have the same failures when parts are stressed beyond design limits, each to his own.

My 110 came with a Landcruiser 3B diesel engine when I bought it, all professionally installed and still sitting in the workshop with its adapter plate after I took it out and put the 110 back to Landrover spec. There was and is nothing wrong with the Toyota engine, its just not what was fitted to the vehicle and it had to go. I dont see the point in converting to any engine brand when there are plenty donor Landrover engines around.

Its original engine was a 2.25l petrol and presently has a 200tdi that has given sterling service like the rest of the vehicle has. Sure you get the odd oil leak and rattle, but its a working vehicle that does a job nothing else will for me and its earned its keep many times over.

People get very passionate about what they drive and think, I prefer to let history and everyday proof speak for Landrovers, there is good reason why farmers, utility companies and military users choose Landrovers over other 4x4's.

The talk of comfort, stereos and noise has no place in such a debate, this was and IS a vehicle with strong agricultural roots. If you want comfort and a nice quiet drive, look elsewhere. But no matter what you choose to drive there will be parts fail and the only way to minimise failure is to drive within the vehicles limits and service it as the manufacturer states.


Emerald

[rovercare]

I should have been more specific, Im not talking about the ones with the comfort options but the utilitarian ones with the sideways mounting seats in them...

the wannabe carpark assult wagons with the side steps down to lower than the center of the axles are a lot better for distribution.

You mean the ones that AREN'T constant 4WD:p

[JDNSW]

........
....... I prefer to let history and everyday proof speak for Landrovers, there is good reason why farmers, utility companies and military users choose Landrovers over other 4x4's.

......

While I agree with everything else you say, I have to point out that the above is not correct. Very few farmers today in this country and virtually no utility companies use Landrovers - almost all use Toyotas or other Japanese four wheel drives, usually either Landcruisers or Hiluxes. Certainly the Australian Army uses Landrovers, but it has been stated that Landrover will not Tender for their replacement.

The reasons for this have been discussed previously in this forum, but they centre round the history of availability and performance and the steadily deteriorating availability of service and support for Landrovers compared to their competitors.

Most Australians in rural, utility or mining industries have no experience or knowledge of Landrovers, having been brought up on Landcruisers or Patrols or Hiluxes since the seventies. Another point someone made recently is that Defenders (or Landcruiser Troopcarriers) can no longer be used on any Australian mine site because of the lack of airbags.

John

[emerald]

John, I speak of course with an outlook from the other side of the planet where the water board, electricity board, environmental board, military, farmers and a great number of private companies still use Defenders for daily use.

Its sad to see support for Landrover getting worse in Austrialia. Where I am there is no shortage of parts, expertise and plenty clubs, outings and specialists in the most unusual of areas for Landies, one such of note is a company with their claim to fame being they sell Landie doors that wont rust. And its true from the old doors they sold years back.

Jap 4x4's are ok for limited time use, but once most hit 15 years old it gets harder and harder to keep them running and the first thing to catch most people is the lack of body panels.

I keep me old 110 becuase I keep her running and I have no wish to drop 20 grand on a new 4x4 when the one I have will see me out.

The electronic controls in modern engines cause lots of problems for military users and that was one reason why the TD5 was never adopted in any great numbers. The 300tdi is still in wide service with mil fleets world wide.

I dont know what way they will run with the new Defender and by all accounts I do not hear favorable reports about it and many many failures of grearboxes and a few had replacement engines after a ticking sound was reported by the owner. LR replaced the engine and wanted the old one back for assessment. Another word to try and attribue blame for who fcuked up. The same engine has been in the new transit and has had no major problems. There are ECU differences and speed limitations and no doubt the computer will come under scrunity for higher speeds as seen in one beta board already.....oops that slipped out :)

Emerald

[BigJon]

I should have been more specific, Im not talking about the ones with the comfort options but the utilitarian ones with the sideways mounting seats in them...

the wannabe carpark assult wagons with the side steps down to lower than the center of the axles are a lot better for distribution.

But the utilitarian ones with sideways seats aren't 100 series, and aren't constant 4wd either...:eek:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Hi Guys

I have just come in on this thread and want to throw a cat in with the pigeons.

It seems to me that the question of 2WD over constant 4WD (C4wd) has come down to 2wd economy V's C4wd safety.

A long time LR friend (over 30 years now) who has run Landies including highly modified ones has another opinion which doesn't seem to have been addressed in this thread. And what is more his theory suggests a diametrically opposed opinion on which system is safer.

The theory goes that a C4wd is sharing and apportioning the drive amongst all 4 wheels. True when all 4 wheels have good grip along a straight road and even to an extent when cornering. He goes on to suggest that the problem with C4wd and long travel coil springs comes on down hill runs with a corner. The problem is more acute with towing.

What happens is that when the C4wd hits the corner at speed, the centre of gravity (CoG) moves forward and to the outside of the turn, i.e. the weight of the vehicle goes to the front outside wheel (the trailer is aggravating this situation by wanting to go straight ahead), this reduces the weight on the rear inside wheel which then (instantly) through the C4wd system gets all or the majority of the drive. Turing the vehicle into a 1wd which then increases the effect of the out-of-balance CoG on the front outside wheel, causing an instability, which if you don't back off right then will destabilise the entire vehicle and a roll-over occurs.

It is probably the cause of many of the "unexplained" rollovers of Range Rovers, Discoveries and Defenders on main roads.

Has anyone else heard of this theory? :confused:

Diana

[Bush65]

Hi Guys

I have just come in on this thread and want to throw a cat in with the pigeons.

It seems to me that the question of 2WD over constant 4WD (C4wd)has come down to 2wd economy V's C4wd safety.

A long time LR friend (over 30 years now) who has run Landies including highly modified ones has another opinion which doesn't seem to have been addressed in this thread. And what is more his theory suggests a diametrically opposed opinion on which system is safer.

The theory goes that a constant 4wd is sharing and apportioning the drive amongst all 4 wheels. True when all 4 wheels have good grip along a straight road and eeven to an extent when cornering. He goes on to suggest that the problem with C4wd and long travel coil springs comes on down hill runs with a corner. The problem is more acute with towing.

What happens is that when the C4wd hits the corner at speed, the centre of gravity (CoG) moves forward and to the outside of the turn, i.e. the weight of the vehicle goes to the front outside wheel (the trailer is aggravating this situation by wanting to go straight ahead), this reduces the weight on the rear inside wheel which then (instantly) through the C4wd system gets all or the majority of the drive. Turing the vehicle into a 1wd which then increases the effect of the out-of-balance CoG on the front outside wheel, causing an instability, which if you don't back off right then will destabilise the entire vehicle and a roll-over occurs.

It is probably the cause of many of the "unexplained" rollovers of Range Rovers, Discoveries and Defenders on main roads.

Has anyone else heard of this theory? :confused:

Diana
Some of what you said is correct.

But some things need clarification. For example what does "the effect of the out-of-balance CoG" mean.

I haven't thought through all of the points, but you need to explain what happens in the same situation with a 2wd.

Then how and why, one is better than the other?

[Taz]

I allways thought that the design drivers behind FT systems was to distribute the loading more evenly thus allowing lighter construction and hence lower un-sprung mass where it counts. The lower un-sprung mass together with long travel coil suspension was a hall mark of the original RR chassis ride quality

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Some of what you said is correct.

But some things need clarification. For example what does "the effect of the out-of-balance CoG" mean.

I haven't thought through all of the points, but you need to explain what happens in the same situation with a 2wd.

Then how and why, one is better than the other?

Sorry if I haven't explained myself well and after all it's not my theory but having rolled my Classic RR in a somewhat similar situation (after owning the vehicle for 18years at the time), I get the impression that some of what he says may be true.

When you corner the vehicles centre of gravity CoG effectively swings by centrifugal forces like a pendulum to the outside of the corner. A lot of the centre of gravity effects are expressed by body roll. (Let us say it's a corner going to the right) If the corner is also on a down hill slope the centre of gravity also swings forward. This forces the front left hand spring to compress and the rear right spring to extend, reducing the traction between the tyre and the road. During this scenario all the driving forces from the drivetrain are transmitted to the RH rear wheel which is now pushing the car both forward and upwards - swinging the centre of gravity even further forward and to the left.

The driver may try to correct the gravitational effects by oversteering (turning the wheel further to the right)

Traction in the RH rear wheel may even be lost at this point. This will suddenly reduce the effects of the momentum and the centre of gravity swinging it back and to the right.

The drive will instantly be transferred from mainly the right rear, back to the rest of the wheels including the front, which are now in the oversteering position to the right. The vehicle takes off more to the right, pushing the centre or gravity back to the front and to the left, greater than it was before.

The driver feels a significant amount of instability in the vehicle with body roll and reduction in control through the steering. Potentially out-of-control.

At this point if the driver is lucky and they back off, or even brake appropriately they may regain control, however with a trailer pushing from the rear at a tangent to the corner, it may in fact be exacerbating the whole situation and prevent the driver re-gaining control.

How is a two wheel drive any different? In the two wheel drive the drive is only shared between the rear wheels, the front only steer. While the gravitational and momentum effects will be similar, they will only be expressed in oversteer/understeer and drive transfer between the rear wheels which may be expressed is slide and fish-tailing but will not have the same effect as when the drive is restored to the steering wheels in the constant 4wd scenario.

One also has to remamber that all these effects are taking place in micro seconds as the vehicle (and trailer combination) are cornering.

I do think that in cars with constant 4wd, they have very hard suspension with minimal travel before they hit the stops so are essentially different.

I would like to hear what others think, particularly anyone who has had a roll-over event or near roll-over. The reason is that, at the moment we are considering building a tow vehicle and am considering the part-time 4wd option.

Regards
Diana

[JDNSW]

I allways thought that the design drivers behind FT systems was to distribute the loading more evenly thus allowing lighter construction and hence lower un-sprung mass where it counts. The lower un-sprung mass together with long travel coil suspension was a hall mark of the original RR chassis ride quality

You are correct in part. The first Landrovers were full time four wheel drive in 1948, but by 1951 this had been dropped, and although it has never been stated, the reason was probably to increase reliability - the free wheel unit used instead of the centre diff was not really up to the use of low range, even with the 1.6l engine. Landrover never stated why they changed from Jeep's part time to full time, but presumably was to make it easier on the driver - no need to decide when to use four wheel drive. (Full time four wheel drive had been used on some heavy trucks before and during the first world war, but they were never very successful, and modern light four wheel drives owe little if anything to them)

All current 4x4s with full time four wheel drive are descended from the much later Range Rover, as you state. The reason for adopting full time four wheel drive in the Range Rover was that at the time Rover did not have in production any differential that would stand up to the torque available in first gear from the planned V8 engine. Full time four wheel drive was the only cost effective solution. This was so unexpectedly successful that Rover adopted the same basic drive train for all new four wheel drive designs after the Rangerover, even though the salisbury axle would have been adequate (although the only gearbox they had that would stand it was the one developed for the Rangerover and 101 - note that the V8 saloons were automatic only). And the Rangerover set the standard that has led to widespread adoption of full time four wheel drive. The first to do this was Jeep, just three years after the Rangerover debut.

John

[100I]

In my view; I think you are basically describing a transition from dramatic understeer to dramatic oversteer, and loss then sudden regain of traction.
I think what you are describing has much more to do with balance than the drive system.
In any case IMO the C4WD would be far more likely to regain composure with a little 'headshake' whereas the RWD would loop out or would bite and throw back the other direction. In short, in the same situation, you'd still have crashed a RWD.

There's much more... but I can't write it.. it's best learnt at the wheel. Maybe go sign up for an advance drivers course and have a spin on their skid pan. Learn how to balance a throttle and control a slide etc.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

There's much more... but I can't write it.. it's best learnt at the wheel. Maybe go sign up for an advance drivers course and have a spin on their skid pan. Learn how to balance a throttle and control a slide etc.

Advanced Driver Training Courses - Yes I have done those and have Police Highway Patrol officer friends who believe that many people who do ADTC's often subsequently exhibit over-confidence and get themselves into trouble they wouldn't have previously.

However having over 30 years of driving experience with all of that in 4wd ownership i have developed some (if minimal) skills at the wheel. All of that doesn't help when you get sideswiped by another car coming the other direction as you are making the rh corner at the bottom of the hill.

Onto the oversteer / understeer / loss of traction situation shouldn't make a vehicle intrinsically unstable. Why does the NSW RTA suggest that the Discovery is the most rolled over vehicle in NSW followed by the other LR Coiler products? There has to be a reason, either the C4wd or the long travel springs or the combination of both.

I don't know but would like to hear the answer.

C Ya :)
Diana

[100I]

when you get sideswiped by another car coming the other direction as you are making the rh corner at the bottom of the hill.
the drive system is irrelevant then

Onto the oversteer / understeer / loss of traction situation shouldn't make a vehicle intrinsically unstable. Why does the NSW RTA suggest that the Discovery is the most rolled over vehicle in NSW followed by the other LR Coiler products? There has to be a reason, either the C4wd or the long travel springs or the combination of both.

I don't know but would like to hear the answer.

C Ya :)
Diana
I'm guessing but that's possibly older data pertaining to earlier coil mode Discos & 110s without sway bars, well known for dramatic bodyroll, as were the early RR.
Again it boils down to balance, or stability as you worded it. Still nothing to do with drive system.

Interestingly, mine now has aftermarket suspension & no rear sway bar yet is far better balanced and resistant to bodyroll than the factory springs with full compliment of sway bars.

[Blknight.aus]

But the utilitarian ones with sideways seats aren't 100 series, and aren't constant 4wd either...:eek:


which is what makes a county or deefer from the same time period better.......

Better weight distibution AND full time 4wd.....

or am i pointing out engineered up to a standard in stead of down to a price again?

[Blknight.aus]

Advanced Driver Training Courses - Yes I have done those and have Police Highway Patrol officer friends who believe that many people who do ADTC's often subsequently exhibit over-confidence and get themselves into trouble they wouldn't have previously.

However having over 30 years of driving experience with all of that in 4wd ownership i have developed some (if minimal) skills at the wheel. All of that doesn't help when you get sideswiped by another car coming the other direction as you are making the rh corner at the bottom of the hill.

Onto the oversteer / understeer / loss of traction situation shouldn't make a vehicle intrinsically unstable. Why does the NSW RTA suggest that the Discovery is the most rolled over vehicle in NSW followed by the other LR Coiler products? There has to be a reason, either the C4wd or the long travel springs or the combination of both.

I don't know but would like to hear the answer.

C Ya :)
Diana

ummm the troopie is the most rolled vehicle.....

by sheer weight of numbers out there...

but thats an australia wide number Im quoting not a state specific one.

[100I]

ummm the troopie is the most rolled vehicle.....

by sheer weight of numbers out there...

but thats an australia wide number Im quoting not a state specific one.

nah, by sheer weight of numbers of backpackers crammed in the back.....:D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

All I can say was that was a statement made by someone who should know from the RTA vehicle engineering section :rulez:, which was witnessed by a meeting full of Land Rover Owners.

If it's true of NSW or Australia or whatever is anyone's guess.

Diana :)

[JDNSW]

All I can say was that was a statement made by someone who should know from the RTA vehicle engineering section :rulez:, which was witnessed by a meeting full of Land Rover Owners.

If it's true of NSW or Australia or whatever is anyone's guess.

Diana :)

A bit out of date, but the information I had from my industry (worldwide figures) put the Hilux at the top of the list and far and away ahead of any other vehicle type. I would be very surprised if it was not at or close to the top of the list in NSW. Certainly in this area rollover accidents involving four wheel drives are almost all Hiluxes.

On the other hand, I suspect that in NSW the majority of rollover accidents are probably on the ski roads, where Discoveries driven (usually too fast and often drunk) by people with mainly city driving skills are over represented.

I doubt if the vehicle characteristics have all that much to do with the accident rates, more the driver and their choice of vehicle.

John

[BigJon]

or am i pointing out engineered up to a standard in stead of down to a price again?


Pretty much :D

[scrambler]

There's two problems I see with it, one theoretical, one from observation:

1) a FT 4wd will have to shift about twice the weight in order to lose traction on the wheel - this is because there is torque being transitted through the front axle. There is only additional transfer of torque to the unloaded wheel once wheelspin begins. Since the initial torque is 1/2 what it is in a 2wd situation, a FT4wd will maintain traction with less downforce on the unloaded wheel. This is, after all, why FT4wd is of any use at all. In the situation described, a 2wd will have the handling characteristic described earlier, and therfore more often, than a FT4wd. When a FT4wd has the problem it will be worse, not because the vehicle dynamics are worse, but because you are punting it around the corner at twice the speed :o

2) Rally cars, which should suffer this sort of "head wobble" more than any other, are today almost invariable FT4wd. If the driving characteristics of a vehicle being pushed hard into an off-camber corner were so attrocious, it's hard to see why the most successful cars at doing exactly that are all FT4wd.

[Bush65]

Diana, it is good to see you on this forum. And I did understand that it was not your argument.

I also believe that constant 4wd is/was not the problem.

I'm a pedantic b&st&rd, so picked on the incorrect use of "out of balance" with CoG. I should not expect everyone to have a firm understanding of mechanics (statics and dynamics), but I usually bite my tongue when lay people use centrifugal force in such explanations (centrifugal force is a psuedo force).

IMHO the hypothesis is flawed in many areas.

Traction at a tyre is due to the coefficient of friction (between the tyre and the road surface) and the normal (at a right angle) force at the contact surfaces.

Overlooking the use of centrifugal force, you gave a reasonable description of the weight transfer between the front/rear and inside/outside wheels, which will result in a reduction to the ultimate/permissible traction at some tyres and an increase at others.

Because the permissible traction changes, does not mean that the actual tractive forces change.

One problem is that you overlooked the vectorial sum of the tractive and centripetal forces at all of the tyres. When you consider this, a 2wd will be shown to loose traction well before a 4wd (all else being equal).

Another problem is the assumption that when traction is lost at one tyre, and it starts to spin, that the torque delivered to another increases. The type of differentials usually fitted, don't permit this unfortunately.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Diana, it is good to see you on this forum. And I did understand that it was not your argument.

I also believe that constant 4wd is/was not the problem.

I'm a pedantic b&st&rd, so picked on the incorrect use of "out of balance" with CoG. I should not expect everyone to have a firm understanding of mechanics (statics and dynamics), ....

John

Thanks for the welcome. Yes I do come to this forum occasionally as it is the place for the widest range of information on the coiler and later vehicles.

I was in-fact within the Science faculty for my undergraduate work and even studied statistics in my post-graduate degrees. However epidemiology and classification of vertebrate mammals is not as helpful as I would have hoped when considering vehicle dynamics. Although on trauma statistics I am well versed.

I love my constant 4wd Rangie and drive it hard, but have experienced a couple of occasions where I felt I was going a bit too hard.

The question is now what engine/transmission do I use in my latest project vehicle. After seeing the burgundy coloured 101 at this years LR Expo at Penrith, I have decided to hybridise one of my Series 2B Forward Controls into a camper. The suspension if modified at all may be coils as helpers over leaf springs front and leaf springs on the rear. (Just simpler engineering)

Initially the plan was to use a High speed Perkins 6cyl Diesel (as used in in the F250 Fords) coupled to a New Venture NV4500 or NV5600 gearbox mated to the original helical forward control transfer box. Giving me a part time 4wd. More recently considering the bargain price you can get a V8 disco or rangie and the reduced tooling have been thinking about using the V8 5speed/LT230 and running it on LPG.

The running gear would still retain the ENV 4.7:1 diffs and 9.00 R16 (255 100 R16 to those who don't speak cross ply). And for those who are worried about my front axles, Mal Story has already made me a set of Maxidrive halfshafts to mate the ENV diff, S2B casing to Stage 1 swivels and CV joints.

This is why I am so interested in the PT 4wd Vs FT 4wd question.

Advice welcome.

Diana :)

[Zute]

My last 4x4 was a Pajero with super select.
I still think this is the best system.
On fast dirt it was far better to drive in 2 (rear) wheel drive. Mitsubishi recommend only using two wheel drive at speeds above 100km/h.
Down hill on dirt it would under steer if in all four. locking the centre diff helped. But it turned in better in two.
Up hill and on tight corners locked four was best, but with CDL unlocked it took load off the steering.
Mitsubishi also uses a viscus centre diff, which gave a 50/50 split. The latest models have a 40/60 split which reduces the under steer on dirt. so I'm told.
When driving in open four on paved road, I could feel a slight vibration that you did not get in two wheel drive.
I always put it into all four when ever it rained or I hit the dirt. With the front axle engaged you get better braking, as its harder to lock a front wheel.
The Pajero also has a very good rear LSD and this may have add to the understeering. Some negative camber on the front wheels would also help.
For long out back roads I think two wheel drive would be preferable. Breaking a front uni joint can cause a lot of damage and it would be so much cheaper to only replace one worn out diff than two.:D

[Leo109]

The question is now what engine/transmission do I use in my latest project vehicle. After seeing the burgundy coloured 101 at this years LR Expo at Penrith, I have decided to hybridise one of my Series 2B Forward Controls into a camper. The suspension if modified at all may be coils as helpers over leaf springs front and leaf springs on the rear. (Just simpler engineering)

Hi Diana,

I hesitate to offer advice to someone who's owned and driven more Landies than I've had hot dinners but, for what it's worth...

What a fantastic project. While not as readily available as V8s, I reckon a 200 or 300Tdi would be excellent in a forward control. I don't think the choice of part-time or full-time 4WD would matter very much but I still believe FT is better overall.

With respect, I don't think consideration of the behaviour of each system "on the limit" (such as fast downhill off-camber cornering) is a very relevant for such a vehicle. A vehicle with such a high centre of gravity (especially with a camper body) and on very tall high-profile tyres is not going to handle like a Rangie, ever, and will always need to be driven gently in corners. There are others on here with much more suspension experience (like Rick130) but I'd suggest a very strong rear anti-roll bar might be a good idea with a camper body, even with leaf springs, to help keep things on an even keel.

[BigJon]

have experienced a couple of occasions where I felt I was going a bit too hard.



Surely that is the answer to all of your questions right there?
Going too hard = potential mishap, regardless of vehicle / drive type.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Surely that is the answer to all of your questions right there?
Going too hard = potential mishap, regardless of vehicle / drive type.

Big Jon

You are probably correct and perhaps I should be familiar with every road I ever drive on but that would take the adventure out of life. Wouldn't it? :)

I also have other friends who I consider experienced 4wd drivers who have rolled Land Rover coil sprung products on main highways. Are we all going too hard?

Is that why on places like the exploreoz forum they are called Rolla Discos?

These are answers I don't know - so as you can see I don't know everything where others may! ;)

C Ya
Diana

[PAT303]

There is one point to this ''4wd is best''that people overlook and that is a drive system is only as good as the sum of it's parts.If the tyres are aquaplainig the system doesn't work,if the suspention can't keep the tyres on the road it doesn't work.there is no silver bullet.In england there was a survey that showed that the amount of accidents that people had was a direct consiquence to the amount of safety features the vehicle had.I wonder how many of the crashes that people had were caused by the belief that the vehicle would pull them through it no matter what?I have been driving my defender for a long time over lots of roads and haven't had any reason to doubt it's stability. Pat

[Blknight.aus]

sure theres a golden bullet for traction....




TRACKS....


Ok they're a bit slow and noisey but thats what most people say about landies anyway.....:D

[BigJon]

Big Jon

You are probably correct and perhaps I should be familiar with every road I ever drive on but that would take the adventure out of life. Wouldn't it? :)

I also have other friends who I consider experienced 4wd drivers who have rolled Land Rover coil sprung products on main highways. Are we all going too hard?

Is that why on places like the exploreoz forum they are called Rolla Discos?

These are answers I don't know - so as you can see I don't know everything where others may! ;)

C Ya
Diana

1: Yes it would, I think most people are guilty of going too hard sometimes, I know I am. Having said that, I have never rolled, or come close to rollng a vehicle (17 year driving history, lots of kilometres driven on all sorts of roads).

2: Quite possibly :p

3: I have never heard of that term, but I don't frequent that forum.

[ibest]

On the topic of the most rolled vehicle , for several years I conducted pre purchase inspections on 4 wd vehicles specifically, and icame to the point where the first thing I would check on a Hilux (all Leaf Sprung at that time ) was to run a magnet over the roof just behind the windscreen to find the filler ! A very disturbing number hed been rolled. I don't think they were necessarily inherintly bad ( and I have driven many ) my guess work was that the high stance attracted the young guy and some time later his mates would say' lets go 4wding ' and the lack of experience did the rest. Whatever the reason, Hilux was way in front of anything else in the roll over awards and I dont recall a Disco ever in that state. Maybe its the Jap supporting, anti Rover crowd trying to find a point to score again
Ian

[Lotz-A-Landies]

1: Yes it would, I think most people are guilty opf going too hard sometimes, I know I am. Having said that, I have never rolled, or come close to rollng a vehicle (17 year driving history, lots of kilometres driven on all sorts of roads).

Big John

Come back to me in another decade and remind me if you still have that record.

My first roll-over and quite possibly my first nearly roll-over happened 28 years after I first got my licence to drive (having been driving all sorts of things on private land for at least 8 years prior to having a licence.) In fact when the roll-over happened I had the current Range Rover for 18 years and a 2 door for 3 years before that.

Ian

When you talk about Hi-Luxes rolling over,are you talking of them rolling when off road or rolling when on road? :confused: My discussion has been about rolling when on road - and in-fact rolling when on bitumen. I would also think that the statistics to which the RTA man was referring, would also be on-road roll overs.

However it does seem that the consensus opinion is that my friend's theorum is defective.

So I will probably build my Project with FT 4wd. (See new thread "Gearbox info for a dummy (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/showthread.php?p=593790#post593790)" find out how stupid I really am. :( )

Diana

[JDNSW]

.......Come back to me in another decade and remind me if you still have that record.[/B]
........

I have not had a rollover or come very close to one in 48 years of holding a licence, about eight years driving on private property before that - driving four wheel drives since 1959 on and off road. Mind you, I have never driven a Disco (or Rangerover) and very limited Hilux experience, which perhaps explains it!

John

[Bush65]

...to find out how stupid I really am.

Diana
Sorry, but you are wrong again;)

I have read many of your contributions in other places Auntikinus, and one thing I know is that you aren't stupid.

[ibest]

Diana
Your point obout hiluxs' rolling off road or on bitumen is very valid.Iof course dont know if those I inspected had rolled off road or on. As I said it was my guess that it was off road as that seemed more likely. I guess I was off the thread a little as perhaps I took umbridge at hearing that Discos were the most rolled unit. Incidentally I have a Rangie and a GQ patrol When the Rangie is modded to my satisfaction the Patrol will probably go. I have chosen the Rangie as I believe it is the safer and more forgiving vehicle and I have been driving Rangies and Discos for about 25 yrs and that has included much towing of a 20 foot van.
Over the years, the more I have learned about driving, the more I have realised how much more there is to learn!
I hope my judgement is not proven wrong by an inexplicable roll over!
I expect you are also correct in thinking the RTA stats related to on road'
Ian

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Sorry, but you are wrong again;)

I have read many of your contributions in other places Auntikinus, and one thing I know is that you aren't stupid.


Thank you John - most gracious of you!

However like my illiterated pseudonym "antechinus" I do like the idea of being a small rodent like marsupial hiding in crevases and not being noticed too much - lest I do feel stupid!

[ibest]

Maybe a little off the thread again and I realise Diana that you have reached your conclusions re your original question, but I became a little curious about the RTA keeping statistics by Make & model
It seems they don't. I tried the RTA,(more than one section ) by Phone, and by recommendation I progressed through Motor Accidents Authority
Police Accident Investigation Squad
RTA Crash Lab
Monarch University Accident Research Centre
and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Some of these I had not even heard of and some had so much info on their web sites that I certainly did not go thru it all, but I found no info and no people with any knowledge of accident statistics by vehicle make
I did not however try insurance companies.
Maybe your contact with the RTA was using insurance co. info
Ian

[JDNSW]

Maybe a little off the thread again and I realise Diana that you have reached your conclusions re your original question, but I became a little curious about the RTA keeping statistics by Make & model
It seems they don't. I tried the RTA,(more than one section ) by Phone, and by recommendation I progressed through Motor Accidents Authority
Police Accident Investigation Squad
RTA Crash Lab
Monarch University Accident Research Centre
and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Some of these I had not even heard of and some had so much info on their web sites that I certainly did not go thru it all, but I found no info and no people with any knowledge of accident statistics by vehicle make
I did not however try insurance companies.
Maybe your contact with the RTA was using insurance co. info
Ian

I would have little doubt that the only people who keep accident details by vehicle type is insurance companies. Historically they have been very reluctant to share this data, possibly because they regard it as sensitive competitive information - but this may be changing - see the recent NRMA study on car colour, plus they have also commented that the US data that four wheel drives are over-represented in rollovers is not replicated in Australia.

Undoubtedly Insurance companies could produce statistics on accidents by make and model, but it would earn them enemies among some manufacturers, who would be likely to sue them if they were not very solidly backed up. And the raw figures would mean little unless correlated with the actual mileage travelled by each type - which may not necessarily match the numbers on the road and would be very difficult to estimate or at least to come up with an estimate you could defend. And then there is the question of whether the uninsured cars missing from the statistics would influence the result - and this number would surely not be evenly distributed. So you can see that there are reasons for the insurers not to publicise these figures! In one sense they do, in the insurance ratings, but these are influenced just as much by the cost of repairs, so have little to say about safety.

John

[BigJon]

Big John

Come back to me in another decade and remind me if you still have that record.


I will have to try to remeber to do that :D.

For the record, my Dad (been driving for um, let me see, how long? He is 68 years old anyway...) has never rolled a vehicle and he has owned various 4WDs including RR Classic 2 dr, 60 Series Landcruiser, Ford Maverick LWB, 3x Disco I, 2x P38 Range Rover, Current shape Pajero and Landcruiser 100 series.

Not everyone who drives a 4WD tips it over...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Maybe a little off the thread again and I realise Diana that you have reached your conclusions re your original question, but I became a little curious about the RTA keeping statistics by Make & model
It seems they don't. I tried the RTA,(more than one section ) .....
Ian

Ian

Very diligent of you - the head of the RTA Vehicle Engineering section has recently joined the LROC Sydney and it was he who gave a talk and stated the statistic.

I will try to track him down at upcoming meetings and inquire where the statistic comes from.

It could be one of those, collected but unpublished/not for public disclosure bits of data, lest the RTA be sued by the car manufacturer.

Best I can do for you. :(
Diana

[JDNSW]

Those following this thread might be interested in the following -

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc262.pdf

Apparently, much to their surprise, they found "Despite their established high aggressivity, 4wd vehicles appear to impose a relatively low injury risk overall to their own occupants, to other road users, and occupants of other vehicles...".

This from a determinedly anti-four wheel drive organisation. Actually, the study seems to say that the driver is much more important than the type of vehicle, and that the type of vehicle mainly shows up as a result of the typical choice of that class of driver.

John