Thread: Towing with a VW Amarok

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Did I just read the same article?....doesn't sound like an across the board 'dismal failure' of the Amarok.

I wouldn't know if they are bad, good or indifferent but it sounds like ONE vehicle had a failure that may have been caused by an add on that wasn't right or needed tweeked. Putting somthing on a car that may have fed foreign objects into the engine bay .... that wouldn't normally get there is a bit unfair. Of course....the article doesn't actually say what caused the failure does it?

Sounds like there were other vehicles that kept going and impressed.

My two bobs worth.

Well as a PR stunt, I'd say it was an epic failure.

And it was an Ozzie bit that did the damage !

I also seem to recall all types of suspension problems: shocks, springs, torsion bars, etc.

By the way, the standard Voetspore vehicle is a Pootrol ..........

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

Well as a PR stunt, I'd say it was an epic failure.

And it was an Ozzie bit that did the damage !

I also seem to recall all types of suspension problems: shocks, springs, torsion bars, etc.

By the way, the standard Voetspore vehicle is a Pootrol ..........

Well I only read the bit that you supplied....so even as PR I wouldn't have worried about the bit I read, it was balanced and blames somebody else's product...LOL....but if there were more problems.....well then.....

Originally Posted by loanrangie

Less stressed engines are more likely to last longer, and as for the merc taxis they are all old school mechanical injected (at least the taxis i used in Egypt/ Israel were ) and larger capacity more suited to their use.
Sure the landy engines are not known for longevity but then the maintenance costs are lower than these CRD diesels .
We have a couple of 1920's dodge 4cyl engines that are 4ltr capacity low compression and even after sitting on a farm for 70 years fire up and ran with no more than fuel and a fresh battery.

I agree, to stress an engine is bad but who actually says these engines are stressed? Is that a fact or a supposition?

20 years ago if you attached a turbo to anything petrol driven it was usually a recipe for disaster.....these days there are turbos attached to everything and go well they do. That's due to major improvements in engineering/materials, etc. New jet engines are smaller, more reliable and far more powerful than a decade or so ago...once again, design and engineering.

Let's remove the dickhead factor....if you drive anything like a dickhead, you have the potential to break it. Sure some engines are more resilient than others...but rule of thumb, it isn't good for them.

So let's get back to stress....what is it? If you have an underpowered vehicle it's going to be working hard all the time, is it not? If you have a engine that is ...highly tuned/highly engineered...whatever this performance thing is....it's less likely to get 'asked' to give it's all (refer to previous dickhead factor) under most circumstances. If an engine can produce 510 Nm at max, 'asking' for 300 more often than not is not going to hurt it. Flogging an underpowered engine just to get it doing a reasonable days work is like asking for the 510Nm constantly. As I said before, is there evidence to say that these new engines cannot do this?

I read all this stuff about the D3 2.7....too highly 'tuned', too stressed...yet they have D3s with 300+Ks on them. There are D4s with over 200 thousand too.

Take a finely tuned/overstressed/overpowered D4 3.0L for a climb up a big steep gravel hill and you'd scoff at anybody suggesting it's working hard.....1200rpm, no wheel spin!

So, back to the point...are these old school concerns or are there actual facts?

BTW...I don't and won't own an Amarok and i'm not a mechanic....just putting out the questions.

Cheers,

Kev.

I agree that if an engine is designed robust for the power and torque it produces then it is not necessarily overstressed, regardless of how small the cubic capacity. Truck engines today are getting more power and torque from 11 litres turboed, that not so long ago required 18 litres turboed.And one can't say that they are any less reliable or long lived.
It's the 'designed for destruction' philosophy of modern 4wd engines that are expected to sometimes travel far from civilisation that I'm not keen on.
As mention on earlier post,Electronically managed,multi turboed, belt driven OHC with inclined valves and unit injectors have too many interdependant systems required to work harmoniously for me to feel comfortable about taking such vehicles on an expedition into remote regions. I think VWs experience in Africa may have provided evidence to that.
Bill.

This engine is not putting out loads of power and torque, especially when comparing it to the other small jap engines, 120Kw and 400Nm, it's under powered compared to it's competiters, the 6 speed gearbox would take a lot of stress away from that.

You guys are stuck in the past.

You actually sound like a bunch of guys from a jap owners forum

Baz.

Originally Posted by loanrangie

Less stressed engines are more likely to last longer, and as for the merc taxis they are all old school mechanical injected (at least the taxis i used in Egypt/ Israel were ) and larger capacity more suited to their use.
Sure the landy engines are not known for longevity but then the maintenance costs are lower than these CRD diesels .
We have a couple of 1920's dodge 4cyl engines that are 4ltr capacity low compression and even after sitting on a farm for 70 years fire up and ran with no more than fuel and a fresh battery.

So going by your logic the D4D 4.5ltr V8 should be the pinnacle in reliability?,yeh right. Pat

Originally Posted by Redback

This engine is not putting out loads of power and torque, especially when comparing it to the other small jap engines, 120Kw and 400Nm, it's under powered compared to it's competiters, the 6 speed gearbox would take a lot of stress away from that.

You guys are stuck in the past.

You actually sound like a bunch of guys from a jap owners forum

Baz.

True, but my old transporter on paper puts out the same power as my iload, in the real world, the transporter leaves the iloadofcrap for dead, chalk and cheese.
Oh and isn't the Amarok an 8 speed??

Yes, the latest Rok is 8 speed auto.
I test drove one with a friend a few days ago and frankly, he couldn't wait to sign for one....... but he has to wait till April AT LEAST for delivery!
I found the Rok to be a smooth beast, well finished and just oodles of power. It is way more comfortable than the Hilux (which we test drove on the same day). It is also about $10k cheaper than the Lux with a similar equipment level. Add to that that VW were willing to offer $10k MORE for my mates D4 than Toyota makes a difference of almost $20k. By the way, my mate wanted a dual cab due to a change in his circumstances, not because he didn't like is D4..... he actually was very sad to see his Landy go.
Would I buy one?.... Damn right I would