Is Bigger Really Better?

Hi Panda,

Not sure what info you're after. Powerwise everything is pretty effortless. The motor is the truck version and must have had the heads done for gas when fitted. It could be done up to put out a lot more ponies, but I don't have the need. Probably done about 400,000 kms.

I don't go rockcrawling or use it as a submarine, just 4wd tracks and off road. Very rarely use low range, and even then its generally only while going downhill. Don't need a 4 speed automatic box with a torquey motor. The C9 was in a RRC I bought for the body. Had it completely rebuilt and bulletproofed which cost the huge sum of $850.

Used to have a LT 95, but I would never go back to that. In low range the C9 hunts around too much in D, so I just leave it in 1 or 2. It has 31 x 10.5 tyres and I have never had to let the tyres down yet, even in the Little Desert.

It is also my daily driver.

cheers, DL

Hey DL, you've been around long enough, I think its about time for pics:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rovercare

*shudders* ickypoos:o

---

At least Toyota were nice enough to put the relay on the outside of the chassis where it didnt require a tactical nuclear warhead to remove..........

Hi DL,

Wondered how you found the performance generally, any differences in perforamance, and what sort of four wheel driving you used it for. :)

By the sounds of it, you've got it just about as you need it, without having to spend heaps of dough! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 350RRC

Hi Panda,

Not sure what info you're after. Powerwise everything is pretty effortless. The motor is the truck version and must have had the heads done for gas when fitted. It could be done up to put out a lot more ponies, but I don't have the need. Probably done about 400,000 kms.

I don't go rockcrawling or use it as a submarine, just 4wd tracks and off road. Very rarely use low range, and even then its generally only while going downhill. Don't need a 4 speed automatic box with a torquey motor. The C9 was in a RRC I bought for the body. Had it completely rebuilt and bulletproofed which cost the huge sum of $850.

Used to have a LT 95, but I would never go back to that. In low range the C9 hunts around too much in D, so I just leave it in 1 or 2. It has 31 x 10.5 tyres and I have never had to let the tyres down yet, even in the Little Desert.

It is also my daily driver.

cheers, DL

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 350RRC

Hi vnx,

I have a RRC with a 350 in it. Bought after taking about 10 RRC's with 3.5's for test drives.

You don't notice the extra weight if the springs and shocks are right. People who talk of upsetting the 'balance' can't have driven one.

............. ............................ ...............

cheers, DL

---

I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant by balance.

I meant it in the very general sense of the balance between power and economy, simplicity and complexity, comfort and ruggedness, performance and longevity, size and space, articulation and stability, weight and nimbleness as well as all the other compromises a manufacturer has to make.

Weight is one of the factors that manufacturers have to consider, but I was talking in a much more general sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

I'm sure you're right, but that's not quite what I meant by balance.

I meant it in the very general sense of the balance between power and economy, simplicity and complexity, comfort and ruggedness, performance and longevity, size and space, articulation and stability, weight and nimbleness as well as all the other compromises a manufacturer has to make.

Weight is one of the factors that manufacturers have to consider, but I was talking in a much more general sense.

---

I dont think LR ever really thought about balance. BMW care about balance and the application of their engines, in fact they differentiate and sell their cars mainly on engines. LR on the other hand had a good car but needed propulsion and used the quickest and cheapest way to get this. In the end most of LR's engines are substandard but they did come up with the odd class leaders when they tried. The 3.5L v8 was shoved in everything they made for 30 odd years unlike bmw who make a new engine for every new car (just about)

So if you like a LR model, I dont see a problem improving it with a more suitable engine and a big lazy american pushrod v8 is the best way to do this.

In my case I only want a diesel & I dont think even "general" balance has been effected and I believe my more powerful 4cyl TD RR is better now than with the old underpowered 3.5L. Had LR had access to these engines years ago they would have used them too.

Hi vnx,

Just imagine if RRC's had come stock with a 350, or a 351 or 253 or 308 with spring rate to suit. Do you really think people would be pulling the motors out and putting 3.5's in to improve them?

cheers, DL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 350RRC

Hi vnx,

Just imagine if RRC's had come stock with a 350, or a 351 or 253 or 308 with spring rate to suit. Do you really think people would be pulling the motors out and putting 3.5's in to improve them?

cheers, DL

---

I suspect not.

Most people are focusing on the power of the engine, its weight and the driveability of the vehicle with that engine. That's fair enough because the engine was the first thing I mentioned.
However I was also thinking more generally of some of the other things that would be affected by the increase in power.

Surely there are parts that would wear out more quickly or break sooner because of the extra stresses. If those part had to be made stronger the weight of the vehicle goes up and some of the benefits of the extra power are lost. If they have to be made from more exotic materials, the cost of the vehicle would probably go up.

My question in response to your is, do you think Land Rovers would cost about the same and weigh about the same if they were fitted with those engines and they were built with the same level of reliability and durability?

Maybe I have just been spoiled by my experience with my Series III, but I have this expectation that with regular maintenance, a Land Rover will just keep plodding on forever without having to replace a lot of broken parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

My question in response to your is, do you think Land Rovers would cost about the same and weigh about the same if they were fitted with those engines and they were built with the same level of reliability and durability?

---

I don't think that there would be a lot in it if LAndRover demonstrated some type of awareness globally and with regards to engineering/manufacturing. Take the Salisbury for example. There would be very very little difference between a Salisbury that will handle a 454 Chev and 44's in comparison to that used in a SIII. It would basically be a different cut on the diff sides, axles diameter and hubs to suit, but for some strange reason LR decided to have this massive diff and make the halfshafts from paperclips. Total cost of upgrade to LandRover.... probably $20 per axle which would be more than made up for by a different reputation.

ZF - there is little difference between the 22 and 24 - all within whats basically the same package. It cost me again very little, maybe $100 or something to upgrade the middle clutch packs to suit. Cost to LandRover....... probably $20.

See where this is heading. The LT230 - not an issue.

Hi vnx,

The stock driveline is strong enough, except for the diffs and axles if the car is thrashed. I look after it off road.

Mine is only running 10 splines, which I suspect are heavy duty because I haven't broken them yet. Don't know to tell if they are. Matt?

The thing has done a gazillion km's and only gets a really hard time up against ricers at the lights..........just can't help myself.

cheers, DL