Thread: 4wd Action 200 Series Review DVD- this months edition

I also started to watch the dvd but ended up fast forwarding all the way to the end, booooring ,Hydro Tas used land rovers as well as a lot of the early mines here in Tassie b4 the toyoto arrived on the scene, also imported.
For 60,000 plus I would buy 2nd hand Defender and Xtrail camper any day.
The Import bashing I find to be hilarious as most of the trips I have done in the past have been in series 2 land rovers and they all performed as well as if not better than long wheel base toyotas. I would own a Toyota but never will whilst I have a choice to buy Land Rover as I come from Britain and prefer to drive my 76 Range Rover, comfortable, capable as well as charismatic.
cheers.

Originally Posted by rmp

I don't know how others do their ramp tests, but the objective is not usually to drive as far as you can, it's to drive until a wheel leaves the ground.

The way I did that one traction control or even a locker made no difference. I was there, directing the cars, I know. The objective is not to drive as far up the ramp as you can; it is to drive up until a wheel is juuust off the ground, then the car moves slightly back till it's touching. The LC200 could have gone a lot further until it rolled, and so could the other cars with ETC. So, no difference.

As to the other cars; the owners weren't sure if they had extra flex over stock or the same, and you're right about the suppleness, and a zillion other factors such as wear, asymmetric loading, tyre pressures etc.

But the point is for a stock car the LC200 did very well indeed and it did indeed outflex all the others it was put up against, although it only just beat the live axle LC100. We thought that sufficiently interesting to run the piece. I'm beginning to think I should have asked the editor for 2000 words to fully explain every in and out!

As for the D3; I'm interested to know how other people know what I know. I'd never presume to tell other people what they know or don't know.

I understand the concept behind a ramp test, and how it is normally done. I seem to be having trouble making my point here, which is probably my fault, but I'll attempt it one more time.

On dirt/grass/ice or any other slippery surface, the vehicle can stop going forward up the ramp _before_ the (in your case) rear driver's wheel leaves the ground. There is not sufficient downforce on it to provide traction and so it spins. There is generally no such problem on concrete, where most (documented) tests are held. On dirt, as a tester you can attempt to "run" the car at the ramp a little, to get over that point, and then back down until the wheel is just touching. Or you can just say "far enough" and measure it there, which is what a lot of people would do - in which case the car with TC/lockers will seemingly out-flex a similar vehicle without.

As you seem to be clarifying (above) that you ran all vehicles until the wheels were off the ground and then backed up, I am happy to withdraw the criticism, but I'm sure you'd agree that with wheel-spin, dirt, general un-eveness, and non-standard suspension set-ups, it becomes a pretty imprecise exercise, even when only considering _relative_ performances - simply the order of the vehicles can affect the outcome.

I'm not trying to say that the LC200 is not impressive in terms of wheel articulation for a 4WD with independent suspension. But without a more controlled test, I thought your initial claim that it would "outflex anything" a little premature. Even as you later qualified this statement, perhaps the language should have been a little toned down - or am I simply being a little too sensitive to the constant Toyota marketing hype we've had to endure over the "Earth's Greatest 4WD" LC200?

And I apologise for my prescient remarks - I (inappropriately) assumed that you had not ramped an LC200 and a D3 together. So I should ask - have you? Given that the D2 didn't seem (in the photos) to be that far behind the LC, and that the D3 has a higher RTI score than the D2, I personally wouldn't have been comfortable stating that the D3 would have been no contest, without evidence. BUt I'm willing to concede that the photos did no justice to the real outcomes, in which case I'm talking out of my **** ....


Cheers,

Gordon

Originally Posted by gghaggis

On concrete, you're right. But if you're on slippery ground, and you simply drive until the vehicle stops (ie you don't try running a llittle harder to get the wheel off the ground and then back off until it touches again), TC/lockers will get you further up the ramp.

Cheers,

Gordon

yeah they will but you can only go so far up the ramp before the wheel lifts off the grounds, having lockers or traction control doesnt alter this one little bit

Originally Posted by gghaggis

I understand the concept behind a ramp test, and how it is normally done. I seem to be having trouble making my point here, which is probably my fault, but I'll attempt it one more time.

On dirt/grass/ice or any other slippery surface, the vehicle can stop going forward up the ramp _before_ the (in your case) rear driver's wheel leaves the ground. There is not sufficient downforce on it to provide traction and so it spins. There is generally no such problem on concrete, where most (documented) tests are held. On dirt, as a tester you can attempt to "run" the car at the ramp a little, to get over that point, and then back down until the wheel is just touching. Or you can just say "far enough" and measure it there, which is what a lot of people would do - in which case the car with TC/lockers will seemingly out-flex a similar vehicle without.

As you seem to be clarifying (above) that you ran all vehicles until the wheels were off the ground and then backed up, I am happy to withdraw the criticism, but I'm sure you'd agree that with wheel-spin, dirt, general un-eveness, and non-standard suspension set-ups, it becomes a pretty imprecise exercise, even when only considering _relative_ performances - simply the order of the vehicles can affect the outcome.

I'm not trying to say that the LC200 is not impressive in terms of wheel articulation for a 4WD with independent suspension. But without a more controlled test, I thought your initial claim that it would "outflex anything" a little premature. Even as you later qualified this statement, perhaps the language should have been a little toned down - or am I simply being a little too sensitive to the constant Toyota marketing hype we've had to endure over the "Earth's Greatest 4WD" LC200?

And I apologise for my prescient remarks - I (inappropriately) assumed that you had not ramped an LC200 and a D3 together. So I should ask - have you? Given that the D2 didn't seem (in the photos) to be that far behind the LC, and that the D3 has a higher RTI score than the D2, I personally wouldn't have been comfortable stating that the D3 would have been no contest, without evidence. BUt I'm willing to concede that the photos did no justice to the real outcomes, in which case I'm talking out of my **** ....


Cheers,

Gordon

that clears it up, i get what you mean now, i suppose in that case its up to the tester to ensure the comparison is fair

Anyone got a picture of Len Beadell's Toyota?

Originally Posted by Ian

Anyone got a picture of Len Beadell's Toyota?

I do. It was a 55 Series. He might have had others.

I watched the DVD the other night & couldn't believe my eyes , it was one big long advert for Toyota

I buy 4WD action regurlarly & think its a Fantastic Mag & roothy is hilarious. Normally they are pretty unbiased in there tests.
Its a real shame.

They may aswell call it

TOYOTA 4WD ACTION MONTHY