Is Bigger Really Better?

IMO - The extra power is only useful when used on-road. From there, it's then going to be down to what you want from your vehicle.

If you want a sports tourer... Go the big CCs. Change the handling, fit bigger disks, larger rims, etc... (effectively what Overfinch do) but don't expect it to perform off-road.

If you want an off-roader... Yep, you can fit the bigger engine but if you keep the rest of the car standard, you could land yourself in danger quickly if you unleash all of the power when on the black stuff. (speed, stopping, cornering, tyre ratings, etc...)

This is all assuming that you have the skills to handle the power in the first place. TBH - Most road users out there are dangerous with a small 4pot engine, even before being let loose with a big V8. In fact, I'd be surprised of there's more than just a handful on AULRO that would truly know what they're doing... (even I'm still learning)

So... What am I saying here???

Well, the manufacturers have to strike a balance, take LR as an example.

If you want an off-roader, buy Defender.
If you want a Sports Tourer, buy a Range Rover Sport.

IMO - The Puma lump is all the power I'd want in the Defender. As for the Range Rover Sport... @£$k me, I'm glad I've got DSC working when out in the Supercharger!!! (Turn off DSC and you quickly see how dangerous that power is!!!)

M

Oh yeah... As for Power vs Weight, you an see why people like fitting the big motorbike engines to track cars, especially the 'Busa lump. :eek:

M

I keep telling people on here that US industry developed lightweight thin wall iron casting techniques in the 1950's-1960's that made aluminium engines uneconomical. Chev., Chrysler, and Ford small block engines are all lighter than most Europom engines of half their capacity and the Europoms contained many aluminium components. The Jaguar six cylinder and the Rover six cylinder are perfect examples of the high, bulky, heavy engines that I call the Early English Vertical School of Engine Design. Compare a Rover 6 to an Australian Chrysler Hemi 6. The Chrysler is 4.3 litres, physically smaller, and much lighter than the 2.6 or 3 litre Rover and can whack out an easy 300 tractable horsepower when put together by any competent fitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djam1

I agree with your line of questioning why could a Series 3 with at 2.25 outperform either a Nissan or a Toyota with a 4 litre engine??
Could be something to do with a better suspension design for the era in question

---

Thats interesting. I would agree that the Rover rear leaf suspension is better, but I think the Toyota front is better. I've been doing a lot of comparisons lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Thats interesting. I would agree that the Rover rear leaf suspension is better, but I think the Toyota front is better. I've been doing a lot of comparisons lately.

---

My experience comparing Series Landrovers and Landcruisers and Patrols is from the mid to late sixties. At that time the superior performance of the Landrover offroad was, in my view, mainly better gearing - four as against three gears, and a bigger difference between high and low, plus the gearing was better matched to the engine torque curve, particularly with the diesel (and no Jap four wheel drive had a diesel available in Australia at that time).

Other factors were the Landrover's lighter weight (and lower centre of gravity), better carburetters for off road, and, as mentioned, better rear suspension. Not too sure about the front suspension, but the Landrover steering was far better than the Toyota at least.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

My experience comparing Series Landrovers and Landcruisers and Patrols is from the mid to late sixties. At that time the superior performance of the Landrover offroad was, in my view, mainly better gearing - four as against three gears, and a bigger difference between high and low, plus the gearing was better matched to the engine torque curve, particularly with the diesel (and no Jap four wheel drive had a diesel available in Australia at that time).

Other factors were the Landrover's lighter weight (and lower centre of gravity), better carburetters for off road, and, as mentioned, better rear suspension. Not too sure about the front suspension, but the Landrover steering was far better than the Toyota at least.

John

---

My experience of driving both Series Land Rovers and Landcruisers dates from the same time.
On dirt roads the Landcruiser steering and suspension both seemed sloppy and vague.
Ofroad the Land Rover certainly had more convenient gearing.
The carburetor on the early Landcruiser was quite unsuitable. Climbing up out of a dry creek that presented no problem at all to the Land Rover caused all sorts of surging and hesitating in the Landcruiser.

Can't say I really have much experience with other four wheel drives. But am happy with the Series III the way it is. Never seen a need to change it :)

Thats an interesting point and not to speak volumes about either of them, LandRover did use whats a very solid bush in the springs and shackles which I would guess reduces the lateral movement in the springs when turning forces are put into the steering, where the Toys were rubber which would probably introduce that vagueness and probably wandering.

It really depends what you intend on using the vehicle for. The only times I believe that my 300Tdi auto lacks power is when towing and overtaking. I've overcome the problem by flogging someone else's V6 car for heavy towing. The trade off is 20L/100km as opposed to 10, but it'll do 110 up every hill.

I find it interesting though, in fact borderline delusion, when people compare Land Cruisers as gutless against Tdi's. I think they're comparing the 4.2 NA diesel with the Tdi in which case it is true. But not in the case of the 4.2 TD. If I was towing on a regular basis and increased fuel consumption wasn't an issue, I'd be reaching for a 1HD-T 80 series over a Tdi. So in that regard, bigger certainly was better.

interesting discussion. I had a nissan 2.5D (SD25) non turbo diesel which was gutless at 57kw. But it was efficient, strong but one time I went up a steep hill and stalled it in low 1st & at speed it was hopeless. I also had a mitsu 2.5D (4D56) with 70kw but with intercooler and turbo. This never ran out of puff in low gears and was brilliant in steep hill climbs but at speed on long climbs and towing it was hard to live with.

I now have the RRC with a nissan 3.5L (FD35T) 100kw TDI and I use less fuel than the lighter and smaller capacity mitsu, its about on par with the nissan 2.5.

On monday I did a very steep climb in low 2 and it had so much power I went to low 3, on the way home I went in an overtaking lane up a long steep incline and passed heaps of cars in 4th. It was nice to have a good 4x4 off road with the right power but also have enough top end to do high speed work with. So in my case I dont feel like I need a 4, 5 or 6L as the 3.5 seems to give most of the power I want but still only uses 9.8L per 100. Up to 11.5 when towing.

The only drawback is its a very rattly 4 cylinder engine which makes the nissan 4.2L 6 diesel seem smooth. But being a man I can handle that.