Printable View
...and to think that i was the only one that used the 5spd as a 2spd... 2nd to 5th. Out of curiosity to those more mechanically minded... does this manner of not working through the gears negatively affect the clutch in anyways or does it have some prolonging value?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
Tim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish78
Could the RR diffs/ shafts handle the torque? Sounds like something to try....
I freely admit that I'm VERY ignorant about Classics .. (Proof is that I bought one!) but I'm quickly learning that Land Rover never ever over-builds the way some Japs do. Therefore I'd expect the diffs to start dying as soon as the 6 litre TDV-8 winds up.
.
- And thats assuming that the drive gets through the transmission and prop shafts.....
Not to mention destroying the front-to-rear weight-balance.
Over-The Rover James in Gosnells
Quote:
Originally Posted by superquag
hmmm you didn't ever hear about LC 200 series cracking chassis at <10,000km or HiLux spec diffs they put into the front of Land Cruisers:eek::wasntme:
Hoges,
Yes, I've been aware of the lighter diffs in Tojos, a point that Nissan owners never fail to crow about...My '89 Paj's front diff is pristine at over 300K, when I opened it up to check for illeagel immigrants. - Breather hose had come off...
I suppose to be honest, I'm desperately looking for ways to excuse my on-going foolishness in keeping the Rangie. Diesel is the more sensible option in my opinion, but arguably the most costly to implement. It would be wonderful if someone stole and wrote off my car...
LPG seems to be the cheapest and most cost-effective, especially is done by a well-known South Australian! But the bottom line is that the 3.9 v-8 drinks a ridiculous amount of either fuel compared to what it does, and even more embarrasing when you look at what Oriental engines are doing...
So having cheaper fuel....but drinking loads of it...is still chasing your tail.
My ideal would be a RELIABLE 'intercooled' turbo-diesel with LPG injection for efficiency and more mileage. "Chipping" would be an option...
A friend of mine is crowing unbearably about his '09 Diesel Paj sipping along at 9 to 10 litres per hundred, and its not even chipped yet. This is the one who traded in his (chipped) Disco 2 tDi because it was continually failing to proceed. (at least without various noise$ etc)
My current info is.... Best way out is a 300tDi along with its transmission (gearbox only or box and transfer box ?) I have no idea of co$t$, and I don't expect to get tooo much back on my v8/transmission.
Undecided James in Gosnells
PS= over-inflated my tyres since last fill, see how it goes. Was 28 / 38 now 36/42.
I do not know how accurate this is.Quote:
LPG seems to be the cheapest and most cost-effective, especially is done by a well-known South Australian! But the bottom line is that the 3.9 v-8 drinks a ridiculous amount of either fuel compared to what it does, and even more embarrasing when you look at what Oriental engines are doing...
So having cheaper fuel....but drinking loads of it...is still chasing your tail.
I recall 2 years ago topping up in Kununurra next to a woman in a (empty) Rodeo petrol, and she used x litres on a run from Katherine . When I got to Katherine I topped up and used x plus I think 4, towing a 700KG campertrailer and not hanging about cruising on 120 Kmh on the flat bits. She was probably doing 130 plus a bit, but I was amazed.
When I look at the Jeep forums the poor fuel economy of new Jeep Cherokees and Grands is appalling and no better than a my 3.9 anyway.
I do not know what a Prado does but Nissan Patrol 4.8s guzzle much more than a 3.9.
I looked at the Green vehicle Guide
Prado City 17.5 country 10.4 average 13
Pajero City 17.7 country 10 average 13.5
Range Rover 5 litre City 20.8 Country 10 average 14 (Kills em when you consider the performance)
AFAIR a 3.9 UK model RRC did 20 city and 15 at 120Kmh which were the then standards.
The major differences are in highway running and ALL of this IMHO is down to computer controlled multi speed transmissions with lots of lock up and far better aerodynamics. The old RRC has a drain gutter across the Windscreen !!!!
The city figures for all the Japs are pretty horrendous and in reality would mean 20L per100Kms.
Regards Philip A
When you compared year to year and apples and apples - the old Rover V8 fuel consumption compares very well to other petrol engines such as in the Cruiser and Patrol - in fact it is generally better.
unfortunately many people often compare old to new and the old is always the Rover V8.
Garry
Agree with the 20L/100 urban running. My 94 Vogue LSE seldom betters this. Still, I mostly drive the guzzler 800m to the railway station which is well within (just) the range of the 90 litre tank. Ha ha! It's a horrible walk. Thus keeping the beast continues to be affordable even if petrol tops $2/litre which it surely will, very soon, thanks to the essentially pacific nature of the middle east and Juliar's moronic carbon dioxide sin tax. Spending $10k plus on a diesel conversion is truly for the courageous. You might as well do it properly and buy a new 3 cylinder 50MPG shopping trolley for only a few grand more.
When you do purchase this new shoping trolley, PM me as i will be in the market for a fuel guzzling LSE:)Quote:
Originally Posted by MICHELINXMS244
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
Modern LR diesels are a long way ahead of their Oriental rivals.