Depending on the model, max torque of 600+ nm is available around 2000 RPM on a D4 (higher RPM on the older cars). There is also 500 nm AVAILABLE around 12 - 1400 RPM. There is also everything in between. This is a driver discretion issue ... as in ... apply just the right amount at just the right time .... you get that?
What point are you trying to make?
The D4 CAN produce (you get that don't you?) 600+ at around 2000+ RPM.
The Puma produces a similar ratio curve maybe .... but nowhere near the actual output at any stage. You get that?
Of course ... the D4 is overpowered and is designed to tear everything to shreds as it cannot be regulated! The car and the whole world are at threat.
Mate, you're doing it again .... banging on about working vehicles and this, that and the other. What has this got to do with the original OP's point? You've previously forwarded a lot of stuff that you thought were facts but actually failed the 'so what' or reality test. You never addressed any of those and just tried to shift the scope or bang on about the things that were irrelevant again. Not saying for a sec that everything you said was wrong but it was a combination of incorrect (subjective or urban myth), 100% accurate or irrelevant. But certainly not enough to make a difference to the OPs question.
Define big diesel??? A 550hp kenworth 409 (working vehicle) is only 6 cyclinder diesel turbo....not v12 twin turbo 1 million hp motor (2015 modle)..
How many CCs is the Kenworth? It's like a 2 litre, yeah? ;-) And they are making a new or have made this Million HP V12 motor? Why? 'Cause they want to put truck drivers and Logistics companies out of business as their trucks will be too expensive to run? WTF would they do that?
For a farmer who makes his living of the land or live stock he needs maximum efficiency for maximum return. A big, sluggish boat anchor is not in their best interest. The puma has a "down tuned" 360nm of torque at 2000rpm, its perfect for a working vehicle. Once again ... off topic. The D4 was never suggested as a Farm Vehicle.....the thread was what?
However ... sluggish? ... the D4 compare to a 'nibble" Deefer ... That brings tears to my eyes .... have you actually even seen a photo of a D4 let alone been around one, read anything about their stats, etc? Obviously not! ... Geez!
Light engine keeping vehicle weight down How much does this engine weigh in comparison to a D4? Numbers, stats please!
Its power is spread over a wide torque curve making it easier to drive over ruff stuff without potentially breaking something, this is a key concept in a working vehicle because it has to be as mechanically solid as possible to much power in the wrong areas That's a claim or a statement mate ....I'll claim you'd be hard pushed to find a vehicle that is better at supplying completely controllable power and torque over any terrain than a D4 .... but hey, that's just my statement....it holds as much water as yours.
Id love to have a 1000hp truck and dog but the reality is it would break all the time when being pushed hard daily.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a driver issue .... is my flippant remark. However ... once again we're comparing Main Battle Field Tanks to Dune Buggies ....
360nm of torque at 2000rpm, its perfect for a working vehicle. Returns maximum torque with best fuel economy at the lowest possible rev range FACT? Stats, show me the stats ... I think you'll find that is BS!
That's why Ford Transits clock up more than a million kms! Transit vans do really well off-road I hear .... freakin hell .... relevant facts to the thread!?
Oh ... and BTW .... no **** ... a Jeep Wrangler is the best off-road machine out there ..... FACT! (depending on your measurable ;-))
Big diesel? QSK60 that we run in our haul trucks! Around 3000hp. Interesting fact for you, we run these out to around 20,0000hrs in the trucks, same engine in the loaders but detuned a bit are struggling to make half that life. Reason? We in the trucks that engine is fairly unstressed, but in the loaders they spend almost 100% of the time running flat out. So I think with work loads being equal, an unstressed engine should have less issues, the rest of the driveline is a different matter I suppose. But getting back to little vehicles, obviously the many people who by 70 series cruisers for work purposes prefer the bigger lazy v8 diesel ( even thou it is somewhat under powered for its size and also ineffecient)
Shane
2005 D3 TDV6 loaded to the brim with 4 kids!
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/members-rides/220914-too-many-defender-write-ups-here-time-d3.html
Although my old D1 was a V8, as opposed to the 2.2/4 Puma, ultimately, I'd have to say it was easier to drive out in the scub than my Puma.
I don't think that made the D1 any more capable, but it made driving much easier. "Crawling" over or through obstacles with the auto meant you could really place it exactly how you wanted to. Sometimes with the manual, if you were rocked so to speak, it could upset how your letting the clutch out, or "riding" it, this stuff things up, maybe create unwanted wheel spin or something.
I'd love to try an auto in my 2.4 to see how it goes though for a true comparison. However, it still won't address any driver comfort issues.
I class these two particular cars pretty close as my particular Puma has no ABS, therefore no Traction aid. Of the few tracks I've done in both cars, neither has come up short on performance. Although I had a V8 in the D1, I didn't really use the power when I could have I guess, and there have been times in the Puma, she's been valve bouncing to try and get every bit of power out of it.
I think personally, the Disco would have it, and that's because of the capabilities of the auto and all its traction aids, this allows for ease of driving.
Getting back to actual differences...
Tonight I watched all for adventure episodes to and from Bathurst heads.
I kinda sorta know that road. The boys biggest biggest biggest problem was GVM
200 s with heavy trailers absolutely suck in those conditions.
Hell 200s or any 3t ish four bites suck in that slop.
I've Ben there and can categorically say my fender ute with sub 1000kg boat would have got in and out from the heads in about 5hours vs their 2 days.
Weight kills
S
'95 130 dual cab fender (gone to a better universe)
'10 130 dual cab fender (getting to know it's neurons)
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks